Lords Sitting of 25 June 1998

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Strategic Defence Review
Lord Bramall Lord Bramall asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to announce the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, a package of proposals has been submitted to the Cabinet. Once decisions have been taken, the review's conclusions will be published in a White Paper as quickly as possible thereafter.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that disappointingly cautious reply. Does he agree that the longer by every day that the announcement is delayed, the greater the danger that the uncertainty which has beset the Armed Forces for so many years will persist, seriously affecting morale and retention in particular with the rumours and leaks flying around? Secondly, does he agree that, despite the Government's efforts to make the review foreign policy and commitment led, it will end up like many others in the past on the Treasury cutting room floor?
Finally, if, with the indispensable support of the Prime Minister, an announcement can be made fairly shortly, as the noble Lord predicts, will the noble Lord assure the House that it will not be on the last day before the Summer Recess when there is no time to discuss the matter either here or in another place?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, perhaps the noble and gallant Lord knows something about the date of the Recess that I and noble Lords on the Front Bench do not. I am sure many noble Lords would like to hear from him.
I know that the noble and gallant Lord will agree that it has been a root and branch examination of our defence and security priorities. We are reviewing the needs of the Armed Forces into the 21st century.
Perhaps I may confirm that the review has been foreign policy led throughout; and that is our aim. However, I say again to the noble and gallant Lord that we expect to be able to publish the White Paper on the outcome of the review shortly.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that "root and branch" was an unfortunate phrase? We are worried that everything will be pulled up by the roots.
There is serious cause for concern not only on the major issue of morale—a point raised by the noble and gallant Lord—but also as regards contracts which are being held up. They will cost a great deal more when
342
they are finally agreed. That will come out of the MoD's budget. Another serious issue is that many major, costly plans have been in suspense for many months.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, we appreciate the comments of the noble Baroness. It is not a case of pulling everything up by its roots, but rather of being constructive in looking at the needs of our defence forces and our needs as regards peace-keeping throughout the world. I appreciate what the noble Baroness says about the delay and possible consequences. However, I am sure she will agree that it is essential that we get it right.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the Minister reiterated that it is to be a foreign policy led Strategic Defence Review. Can the noble Lord tell us when the Government intend to publish the foreign policy principles which will lead it?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I believe that the Government have already done so. The Foreign Secretary clearly laid out the aims. The defence review will be based upon those.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the defence review tell us what steps the Government propose to take to bring about the elimination of nuclear weapons?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, my noble friend will appreciate that it was a manifesto commitment to retain Trident. That received the overwhelming support of the electorate. Along with the European fighter, that is one of the policy principles on which the review is founded. However, the review has examined all aspects of a deterrence posture to ensure that it reflects changing circumstances.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, in the past decade the number of uniformed personnel in the Armed Forces has been halved. Yet we still seem incapable of recruiting and retaining sufficient to meet the reduced numbers. To what extent will the Government take into account the availability of manpower in order to avoid the persistent and difficult problems of overstretch which have beset us for so many years and which have led to poor recruiting and retention?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the issue of overstretch and under-manning is one of the primary aspects being examined. We are determined that restoration of the manning balance is given the highest priority for our forces, in particular the Army.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that the Cabinet is told that we could not have won the Battle of Britain or the First World War without having strong Territorial and Volunteer Reserve Forces? They have also played a valuable part in recent wars such as the Gulf War. To reduce their present modest size would be crazy.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, of course we recognise the valuable role played by the Reserves. We aim to keep

343
substantial Reserves in the future. But we believe that those Reserves must be structured for the tasks that are relevant to the new strategic setting. They must also be an integrated part of our forces; and must be usable in support of our foreign policy aims.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend recall the irritation felt in another place in the previous Parliament when the Government repeatedly blocked a debate, for example, on the Royal Air Force? In view of the irritation that that caused, will my noble friend ensure that a sympathetic view is taken of the arrangements for the debate of the SDR when it is published?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I shall take on board my noble friend's comments.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that uncertainty breeds discontent; and that hope deferred makes the heart sick?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am aware of what the noble Baroness says. I agree that we must end the uncertainty as soon as possible. I repeat that we hope to be able to make our views, and the SDR, available very shortly.

Vehicle Excise Duty: Budget Proposal
3.10 p.m.
Lord Blyth Lord Blyth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the tax concession for vehicles over 25 years old was withdrawn in the recent Budget.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor announced his intention of introducing a new, fairer and more environmentally sensitive system of vehicle excise duty. In the meantime, the level of vehicle excise duty has been frozen for all vehicles and the rolling forward of the exemption for vehicles over 25 years old has been stopped so that only vehicles manufactured before 1st January 1973 will be eligible for the exemption. A consultation document setting out the options for reform will be published soon.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, which seems useful. I have in front of me a document entitled Budget 98, HM Treasury 16, which gives environmental reasons for the decision. Can the Minister comment on the fact that when a Boeing 747/436 takes off for a United States west coast destination in the first three minutes it uses fuel at the rate of more than 19 gallons a second which makes the Deputy Prime Minister's Jaguar look like a fuel miser?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the aeronautical information which the noble Lord gives me in his supplementary question. The fact
344
that other people use a lot of fuel does not reduce in any sense the obligation on us to ensure that our cars are as environmentally sensitive as possible.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as vehicles over 25 years old are normally in the hands of collectors and probably travel only 1,000 miles a year, perhaps a little more, it is unjust to expect the owners to pay for the full licence?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if such cars are off the road for a large part of the year it is always open to the keepers of the vehicles to apply for the vehicle excise licence to be suspended and to be given a refund for the period of the suspension. Therefore, there is no discrimination against those who use their cars for a short time.

House of Lords Reform
3.12 p.m.
Lord Denham Lord Denham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they had been prepared to discuss without preconditions fully comprehensive single stage Lords reform before talks with Her Majesty's Opposition were broken off.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, yes, on the basis of our manifesto.
Lord Denham: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that he would be far more likely to be able to reach the best agreement among all parties in both Houses over a single package than by first removing the hereditary element and only then starting to argue about what to put in its place?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Labour Party manifesto was perfectly clear on the issue. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me at least on that. We said that we would reform your Lordships' House in two stages. The first stage would be a discrete stage standing on its own, which would be the abolition of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote. As to whether a different posture on the part of Her Majesty's Government would make an agreement more or less possible, that must be a matter of judgment.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, if, as it seems, the Lord Privy Seal is underlining the Government's total commitment to a two-stage process, can he say when they will announce their intention as regards the second stage? Will it be before the first stage legislation is introduced, at the same time or somewhere in the distant future?
Lord Richard: My Lords, if matters proceed in the way set out in the Labour Party manifesto there will be the first stage, which is the abolition of the right of hereditary Peers in this House to sit and vote. There will then be a period, as I have described in the past, of full-scale public consultation. The manifesto mentions

345
that taking place by means of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. Another possibility might be a Royal Commission. In the course of that process Her Majesty's Government will have to make their views clear.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is the manifesto a sacred cow? No item in the manifesto is loaded with respect to who voted for it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course the manifesto is not a sacred cow. If it had been a sacred cow I would not have been talking to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, to see whether it was possible to reach agreement on a single stage. Just as it is not a sacred cow, it is impossible, with great respect, for noble Lords in this House to ignore the fact that that was the policy which we put before the electorate upon which we were overwhelmingly elected.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, if it is not a sacred cow, is it a Papal bull?
Lord Richard: My Lords, with respect, it is neither. It is a strong piece of evidence as to the views of the British electorate on the reform of your Lordships' House.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the Leader of the House discover what was the opinion of the Opposition on the two proposals that he mentioned, the Royal Commission and the Joint Committee of both Houses?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am not sure that I understood the noble Lord's question. Is he asking whether I know what the Opposition's view is?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, quite right.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord must ask the Opposition.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord the Leader of the House in forming the judgment to which he referred in answer to my noble friend Lord Denham. I suggest that the answer might be yes. Can he give a guarantee that after the Government have introduced the stage 1 Bill, which he has promised, they will proceed with all due expedition to stage 2, bearing in mind that the last time a rapid stage 2 was promised was in 1911 and we are still waiting?
Lord Richard: My Lords, if we have been waiting since 1911 that underlines my view that this is unfinished business since 1911. We committed ourselves in the manifesto—I do not want to use it as a sacred text—to the first stage being precisely that; namely, the first stage.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, understandably, such exchanges are becoming very repetitive at Question Time because there is concern in all parts of the House about where the future lies.
346
Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House indicate when the debate that he has promised will take place? If we knew that it would be before the Summer Recess a good deal of your Lordships' time could be saved.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the date of the debate is a matter for discussion between the usual channels. I can tell the noble Lord that those discussions are taking place. What I cannot do today is give him a definite date upon which the debate will take place. But he is right; we have promised a debate and it will take place.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is little or no demand by the general public to do away with the hereditary peerage in toto? If that is so, why the headlong rush? Does he agree that it might be better to look at the possibility of making this House totally independent in mind and view by abolishing the whipping system so that we can all speak our own minds, give an independent view and vote for or against the argument on merit rather than by whipping?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I note the joy with which the noble Lord enjoys the freedom that he now possesses, having given up the Whip on the Conservative Benches and moved to the Cross-Benches.
The noble Lord speaks of a headlong rush. It has been 87 years! That can hardly be a rush, even at the snail's pace which constitutional reform usually takes in the United Kingdom. I cannot help but remind the House that on at least three occasions during those 87 years this House accepted that the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote should no longer persist. That was in 1917, in 1948 and in 1968, when, if my memory serves me correctly, the majority in this House in favour of a package which deprived hereditary Peers of the right to sit and vote was five to one. In those circumstances, for us to be accused of indecent haste in respect of what this House has accepted three times in those 87 years seems to me to be pushing it a bit!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Lord Cockfield: My Lords—
Lord Richard: My Lords, in my other capacity I should say that we are entitled to one question from this side.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure he is—that parliamentary government is, whether we like it or not, an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary process? Is it not also the case, as the Fabians pointed out some time ago, that evolution is inevitably gradual?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am in favour of a long period of gestation. However, I believe that that period has been very long and it is time that the birth took place.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am sorry to have interrupted earlier. I had not realised that the noble Lord's

347
own supporters were prepared to support him. Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House take time out to read Standing Order No. 20? It needs to be read in the original because it is not correctly transposed into the Companion. But if that standing order were correctly and rigorously enforced, it would largely solve the problem which worries the noble Lord and the Government and would thereby give them sufficient time to make up their minds as to what to do about the problem as a whole.
Lord Richard: My Lords, for the benefit of the House, and indeed for my own benefit, as perhaps my bedside reading is not the same as that of the noble Lord, Standing Order No. 20 deals with leave of absence from the House by Peers. I do not believe that there could be compulsory leave of absence and, as far as I know, that has not been proposed.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I was rather thrown by the noble Lord's original Answer. My question was:
''To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they had been prepared to discuss without preconditions fully comprehensive single stage Lords reform".
The answer that I received was yes. Since then, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has been suggesting that he is going to go ahead with his plan to take away the hereditary principle first before going on with the second stage. That is neither comprehensive nor a single stage. I ask him to consider whether it would not be better to discuss first whether there is any way to achieve universal agreement before possibly punishing this House for what he no doubt considers to be its intransigence. Is he or is he not prepared to discuss single stage reform?
Lord Richard: My Lords, with great respect, I am not saying that this House is intransigent. Of course I am not.
Noble Lords: Answer the question!
Lord Richard: My Lords, I shall answer the question but I shall answer it in my own way and not perhaps in the way that the Opposition would like me to. I cannot forbear from making the point that the party opposite was in government for no fewer than 18 years and that in those 18 years we heard nothing whatever from it about reform of your Lordships' House.
My party has been committed to that reform for a very long time. We included the matter very clearly in the manifesto and we were elected on it. Therefore, we are committed to that course of action. The noble Lord asked me about the reform being undertaken in a single stage rather than in two stages. I entered into discussions—somewhat desultory discussions, if I may say so—with the noble Viscount and members of the Opposition to see whether there would be sufficient support for an agreed reform which could take place in a single stage. Unfortunately, there was no such agreement.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal aware that this House contains many hereditary Peers who will make no effort to defend their continued membership of this House but nevertheless feel a
348
legitimate curiosity about the nature and quality of their successors? Does he agree that he might have a quieter life if he were to do a little more to satisfy that curiosity?
Lord Richard: My Lords, anybody who takes on the leadership of your Lordships' House when there is a Labour Government cannot, by definition, expect a quiet life. There are ways in which my life could be made quieter, less frenetic and less wearing. The suggestion that the noble Earl has made is obviously one of those that I shall consider for my future better health.

Israeli Settlements
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Government of Israel with regard to plans for further expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law. They are also an obstacle to peace, pre-empting final status talks and destroying hard won trust between Israelis and Palestinians. EU missions in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem carefully monitor the situation on the ground and produce quarterly reports summarising settlement activity. Those reports are then put to the Israeli Government.
As EU presidency, we issued a statement on 21st June expressing concern at the Israeli Government's endorsement of plans to expand the boundaries of the Jerusalem area. We also issued a statement on 12th June urging the government to take urgent measures to prevent provocative settlement activity in East Jerusalem.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and for the steps already taken by the UK presidency within the European Union. Does she agree that the state of Israel is a key factor in the economic and political development of the Middle East? In those circumstances, does she agree that abiding by the Oslo accords is crucial to making that contribution? Will she assure the House that in addition to the representations that she has described on settlements, the Government are making representations, together with the United States, on the issue of the bulldozing of Arab housing and the unilateral extension of the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, I can agree with what the noble Baroness said. The United States has indeed been a prime mover in working to get the Oslo accords implemented. In recent months it has worked hard to get the parties to agree to a package of ideas designed to restore confidence in the negotiating process and to break the current deadlock. That is based on the Oslo process and backed by key players in the region and by the international community. We continue to urge the United States to come forward with its

349
proposals to which the Palestinians have agreed in principle. We urge it also to stand by that package despite domestic pressures in the United States. While the Americans feel that they are still in with a chance, we all agree that our role should be to back them up. We want to keep international activity focused on the need for Mr. Netanyahu to sign up to the American package. That is a view shared by the regional leaders.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome very much what the Minister said about the boundaries of the city of Jerusalem. However, will the Government ask the European Union to remove Israel's trade privileges for as long as the illegal settlements continue to be built, contravening the Geneva Convention and the Oslo agreements?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we agree that the status of Jerusalem must be determined in the final status talks. We believe that neither side should pre-empt that and we have condemned Israeli policies which are aimed at altering the demographic balance in East Jerusalem, including the settlement building, confiscation of Palestinian identity cards and house demolition. But we do not believe that a confrontational approach would help the peace process. A comprehensive settlement needs to be based on trust and co-operation and in that context the measures which the noble Lord describes would be counter-productive.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's strong and wise words. Does she not believe that it is time for Europe to take some action in view of the fact that, as I recently saw for myself, illegal settlements and robbery of Palestinian land are continuing every day. Surely, it is high time that there was a confrontational approach because clearly the United States Government are in thrall to the current Israeli Government because of the strength of the Israeli lobby. Therefore, some additional action is now needed.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe I have made the position clear as regards the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. There was full discussion of the Middle East peace process at the EU summit at Cardiff. EU partners shared Her Majesty's Government's grave concern at the continuing deadlock and the threat that that poses to the stability of the region. We reiterated our strong support for the efforts of the United States to gain the agreement of the parties to the packages of proposals. We welcomed Palestinian acceptance of the proposals. We must continue to call upon the Government of Israel to give a clear and positive response.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what project work is going on in this difficult area? I am sure the Minister will know that people on the West Bank are extremely deprived as a result of actions taken by the Government of Israel. Some two years ago there was a great deal of planning for project work, backed by the
350
European Union, to try to make the lives of those poor people on the West Bank a little more bearable. What has happened?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Ministers agreed at the 23rd February General Affairs Council to renew the EU aid package to the Palestinians and discussed proposals for improving the efficiency of our assistance. The EU remains the largest aid donor to the Palestinians—£1.68 billion in grants and loans committed for 1993–98—plus, of course, bilateral contributions from member states. The UK contributes 16 per cent. of the EC aid budget. Our bilateral programme provides £10 million a year towards the elimination of poverty on the West Bank and Gaza to help underpin the peace process. The priority sectors include technical assistance to improve basic services such as health, education, good government, water and micro-finance.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many like myself, who are both Jewish and loyal friends of Israel, completely support the policy of the British Government in resisting any further expansion of settlements in the West Bank? We support withdrawal from the West Bank and the giving of full rights to Palestinians in that area as being in the best interests of Israel and its future.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I know that that is the case. Recent opinion polls have shown that 70 per cent. of Israelis back the peace process. The actions of the Israeli Government last weekend have been criticised by many people within Israel, including President Weizmann.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at the conclusion of proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill today my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the energy review.

School Standards and Framework Bill
3.32 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 11,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 12 to 20,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 21 and 22,
Schedule 3,
Clause 23,
Schedule 4,
Clause 24,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 25 to 30,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 31 to 33,
Schedule 7,
Clause 34,
Schedule 8,
Clause 35,
Schedules 9 to 11,
Clause 36,
Schedule 12,
Clauses 37 to 39,
Schedule 13,
Clauses 40 to 48,
Schedule 14,
Clauses 49 to 51,
Schedule 15,
Clauses 52 to 54,
Schedule 16,
Clause 55,
Schedule 17,
Clauses 56 to 67,
Schedule 18,
Clauses 68 and 69,
Schedule 19,
Clause 70,
Schedule 20,
Clauses 71 to 74,
Schedule 21,
Clause 75,
Schedule 22,
Clauses 76 to 92,
Schedule 23,
Clause 93,
Schedule 24,
Clause 94,
Schedule 25,
Clauses 95 to 120,
Schedule 26,
Clauses 121 and 123,
Schedule 27,
Clauses 124 to 132,
Schedule 28,
Clauses 133 and 134,
Schedule 29,
Clauses 135 to 142,
Schedules 30 to 32.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Number of MEPs, electoral regions and electoral system]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("registered").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to remove the word "registered" from the Bill where it refers to registered political parties. This is a fairly small point and it is a probing amendment. It is a little odd that this Bill should depend on another Bill which we shall discuss later. I have mentioned that point on a number of occasions and I do not wish to labour it today. Can the noble Lord give us some indication when the Government think the Registration of Political Parties Bill will arrive in this Chamber, and when it will therefore receive Royal Assent? Is it the Government's intention that the Registration of Political Parties Bill will receive Royal Assent before the Welsh Bill? If it is done the other way round, that would seem to me—if I may say so in the context of a Welsh debate—a little Irish, because this Bill depends entirely on the Registration of Political Parties Bill. I hope that the noble Lord can enlighten me on that matter.
If something happened to the Registration of Political Parties Bill which is still in another place, would we be able to go ahead with the Welsh assembly, or are there powers within this Bill to bring forward a registration system by regulation? I am not certain about that. I should be grateful for the noble Lord's advice on these matters. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord has not spoken to his amendment at all, for which mercy I offer grateful thanks. Therefore, I shall not deal with what he might have said. As regards the timetable, that is a matter for the usual channels. I have no precise knowledge of the stages involved. However, I have the moral certainty that all will be in perfect order by the time the Welsh assembly elections take place.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: When the noble Lord replies in such a manner I am never sure whether he wants me to make a slightly longer speech. I do not intend to do so, but the next time I move a probing amendment and explain what it is probing rather than what the amendment may or may not seek to achieve, I might be tempted both to probe and to explain what the amendment seeks to achieve. With that warning I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 26 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 26A:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF ELECTION OF MEPs
(".—(1) Within six months of the first election held under this Act, the Secretary of State shall appoint an independent

353
commission to consider and report within two years on the relative merits of—

(a) the method of election of MEPs in force before this Act was passed, and

(b) the method of election of MEPs provided for by this Act.

(2) The commission's report shall be laid before Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 26A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 26B, 26C and 27A. These amendments ask the Government to appoint an independent commission to consider and report within two years on the method of election of Members of the European Parliament which has existed in this country up until now, and the new method of election which will be introduced as a result of this Bill. However, after the discussion last night in this Chamber I am in some doubt as to whether it will be the method of election favoured by the Government, given the considerable expressions of doubt as to the wisdom of the closed Member system.
These measures contain two variations of the same theme. The reason I think we ought to reconsider the position after the European elections is the following. As the Committee knows, we have had a long tradition of first-past-the-post single Member constituencies in this country. However, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is present and I must concede that quite a long time ago—yet still in my lifetime, although at a young stage in that life—a few constituencies in this country had two Members. However, they were not elected by any fancy electoral system but simply through inviting electors to mark two crosses. Indeed one constituency, known as the Scottish university seat, was elected by single transferable vote, presumably on the assumption that graduates from Scottish universities could understand such complicated systems. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, and I would certainly agree with that.
Essentially, for half a century we have had single-member constituencies and first-past-the-post in parliamentary elections and local government elections. Although there are some places with multiple councillors, the system for election is the one I have described which was used for the double seats that we used to have. For the European Parliament we opted for the single-member constituency and first-past-the-post.
So the provision in this Bill is novel. We are introducing very large constituencies—in fact, I shall not call them constituencies at all; a constituency has a link to one Member. We are introducing large areas where there will be a number of Members: I suspect every number from four to 10 or 11 is represented in the scope of the number of Members per area. That is a major change from our normal method. In future, Members of the European Parliament will not have a one-to-one identity with a particular geographical area or with the people who live in it.
That means that we shall lose one of the great strengths of the system that we have employed in this country over many decades. It will certainly be an enormous change. I suspect that the governing party has not even understood the nature of that change. However much the individuals who succeed for one party decide to divide up the area, I suspect it will mean Members of
354
the European Parliament having to tramp about very large areas. Many of the ways in which we expect our Members of Parliament or MEPs to deal with constituencies will no longer be valid—or will be valid only in so far as the Members will be in competition with each other. Labour Members will compete with each other in the strong Labour areas, and the same will apply to Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members.
There will be a huge difficulty for individual Members. Where a party has only one person elected, I hope that that person will be prepared for what will happen. He or she will suddenly find themselves the Member for the whole constituency for members of their party. I rather fear that as a consequence the link between a Member and people who voted for other parties in the constituency will be broken. Human nature being what it is, if someone came to my surgery if I were the European MP for the whole of Scotland and told me that he or she was a strong Scottish Nationalist, I think I might invite them to take their complaint to the Scottish Nationalist Member of the European Parliament. I suspect I should find myself overwhelmed by the problems and complaints from Conservative voters for the European Parliament for the whole of Scotland.
Even if, as I believe, two or three Conservatives are elected, the net result will still be that we shall have to look after the whole of these huge areas, whether it be Scotland, the north-west, Wales or London. It will introduce a huge complication in the lives of Members and the relationship with voters. I believe constituents will be "switched off" from the whole idea by the break in the link with the constituency Member.
It always amazed me how the great majority of my constituents seemed to know very well the name of their MP when it came to writing me a letter or telephoning me. I am not vain enough, like some, to think that that was because everyone knew me intimately. It is something I discovered, as did my colleagues in the House of Commons. People who would never consider voting for us knew who we were when it came to writing us letters. Very few letters began, "Dear MP". Whether they liked us or not, most constituents named us. The relationship will be extraordinarily difficult once we make the change to the proposed large constituencies. That is the first big change that we are making.
The second is the change to a closed list—if that is indeed what the Government eventually drive through both Houses—and how that list works. Many noble Lords expressed considerable reservations in the debate yesterday as to how the closed list would work and the centralising power that it will give to the various parties. Interesting discussions arose as to the difference between the Belgian system, my suggestion of a fully open list, and the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of moving to a single transferable vote system. Undoubtedly, whatever we do, it will represent a dramatic change from anything that has been done in the past.
Surely, therefore, if we are to try this experiment we ought to do something to see whether we can validate it after it has been completed. After the elections have taken place, we should look back and examine the decisions taken at this time to see whether they were wise: whether or not it was wise to move away from a constituency-based system, whether it was wise to move to a list system. We should be doing the people of our country a service, and indeed those who will be elected to the European Parliament, if we do something along the lines of these amendments. Within six months of the first election, the Secretary of State could appoint an independent commission to examine the method of election of MEPs that was previously in place and compare it with the method set out in this legislation. That report could be laid before Parliament, and then Parliament could have a good discussion, based on the report of an independent commission, on how the new method contrasted with what had happened previously.
It may well be that those who advocate this new system will be vindicated in their view and that the percentage poll will dramatically increase. However, it may well be the case that those of us who are less persuaded by the new systems will be vindicated and we shall see the percentage poll decline again. In the one case, that would be to the advantage of the Minister. It would indicate that his arguments had worked. In the other case, and if the percentage poll went down further, it would be perfectly valid to look seriously at whether we had made a correct decision.
I shall no doubt be told that at any time in the future Parliament can review the electoral system that it puts in place. I know the way of government. That is not only the long grass; that is the long grass on the other side of the river. The only way to make absolutely certain that a review and reconsideration of the new method of voting and a comparison with the previous method take place is to opt for some form of independent commission. I offer the Minister a number of ways to proceed.
I am a realist. I know that down the corridor there is an enormous government majority. We need to persuade people by argument. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, listens to argument. I am grateful for the way he has listened in relation to some of the Bills that we have dealt with and has taken on board some of the arguments from all sides of the House. However, in this case I rather fear that even if we persuade the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, we shall not be able to persuade his parliamentary colleagues, who take a more—I was about to say "masochistic" view; perhaps they do: perhaps they like being defeated by the House of Lords—a more "macho" view of riding roughshod and not changing their minds.
I am therefore being realistic in considering that next year's parliamentary elections will probably be done in the way the Government want. In that light, we ought to set in place now a mechanism for a review of what has happened. If it has gone swimmingly and excellently, the Government have nothing to fear at all. Indeed, it will reinforce the judgments that they have made about changing our system. If, however, it is
356
proved to be less than a total success, the Government and Parliament will have an opportunity to change matters before the following European elections. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: There is certainly a very strong case for having an election commission in this country to deal with the very large number of issues which arise in a democratic society with regard to the conduct of elections. That was the conclusion of the commission of the Hansard Society chaired by the right honourable Christopher Chataway on an all-party basis. Indeed, it was a manifesto commitment of this party and, I think, of the Government that there should be established an independent election commission to deal with a range of matters, including the efficacy of voting systems, the conduct of elections, broadcasting and other matters which are otherwise argued on a wholly partisan basis. We on these Benches very much support the idea of such a comprehensive election commission rather than having these matters reduced, as they so often are, to partisan sharp elbows. When the Minister replies, I shall be interested to know whether it is still the position of the Labour Government that there should be an election commission of that kind.
I find it more difficult to support the proposal in the amendment that there is something so idiosyncratic about this particular election that it needs a particular commission to look into it. When the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, replies, he might substantially affect my views by telling me whether the Conservative Party supports an election commission with a wider general role rather than a commission which is slipped in when there is a particular Bill that it does not like the look of.
Earl Russell: I am in entire agreement with my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham. If I were to think of a text to apply to this amendment, I fear I would choose:
"Use not vain repetitions, as the [Pharisees] do".
The amendment addresses a task which can already be done three different ways. I do not think we need a fourth.
The noble Lord should be aware of an article written by Edward McMillan-Scott, leader of his own party in the European Parliament, in the House magazine of 25th May. The European Parliament is itself reviewing its methods of election with a view to reaching a common system. I notice that the noble Lord's party is proposing the outlawing of the closed list through that system. That would bring about change without any need of this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, so carefully explained to the House with regard to Gibraltar, a British Parliament cannot alter European law. If the matter were addressed as the noble Lord's party wishes, it would make the amendment entirely redundant.
Secondly, there is a case for making a greater degree of uniformity between the different electoral systems which we are setting up in the British Isles. Before the next European parliamentary election, the commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead will have reported. The electorate will have formed a

357
view upon it. That might give guidance to what type of electoral system would be most appropriate if there were a change.
Thirdly, the noble Lord's attachment to first-past-the-post appears to be totally immutable. He has been accused of having learned nothing and forgotten nothing. I am certain that if the noble Lord's party should by any chance be in office at that time, it would then, using the sovereign power that Parliament has until European law restricts it, achieve the distinction of being the first government ever to introduce first-past-the-post anywhere since the invention of political parties.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I fully appreciate and understand the intention behind the amendments and I am grateful for the way they were described. I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 26A and 26B. We do not believe that these are necessary devices. We already have a working group which has been set up on the basis of past experience with other elections. It is chaired by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office. It is now reviewing all aspects of electoral procedure in the light of last year's general election. In response to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, the discussions of that working group will include consideration of whether or not there is a case for establishing an electoral commission.
The European parliamentary election in June 1999 will be the first to be held under a new electoral system. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Obviously, we shall want to review the conduct and operation of that election. I am happy to tell the Committee that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave an assurance when the Bill was in another place that such a review would take place and, importantly, that the results would be placed before Parliament. There will therefore be an opportunity for parliamentary review and scrutiny.
We do not believe that it is right to prescribe by statute that a particular kind of review should be established. We believe that it is best to leave the procedure as it has been in the past; namely, that the most appropriate review is decided by the government and then discussed by Parliament.
Amendments Nos. 26C and 27A would have the effect of preventing the new Act coming into force until an independent commission had, first, met; secondly, considered the relative merits of first-past-the-post and the system provided for in the Bill; and, thirdly, reported. That would mean that the new electoral system could not be in place for the next European parliamentary election on 10th June 1999. That would be quite impossible. I am sure that that is not the consequence desired by the noble Lords who put down these amendments. We have a clear manifesto commitment to have a proportional voting system for European parliamentary elections. That is what we seek to deliver in the Bill.
Amendment No. 27A is a little different. It requires both Houses to affirm that legislation, which both would have passed, should come into force. We do not believe
358
that that is necessary. There are limited precedents for this. The Easter Act 1928 springs immediately to mind. That introduced a fixed date for Easter, subject to an affirmative resolution, so that Parliament could consider whether religious objections to the fixed date had ever been overcome. As far as I have been able to detect, they have not been overcome and that provision has never been brought into force. There is also the Representation of the People Act 1985 which contained similar provisions relating to absent voting in Northern Ireland which could be commenced if the issue became a problem there. Those provisions were also subject to affirmative resolution and have never been used. The precedents depend on contingent events. There are no contingent events in this case.
We shall have the reviews, and they will be discussed by Parliament. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the Committee on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and on the point on the electoral commission raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for the assurance that there will be reviews, although, if the reviews are to be chaired by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, I am not sure that they will be of quite the status that I asked for, nor that they will have the independence that I should like to see. I leave that aside because, of course, I accept that all Ministers of the Crown are entirely independent when they chair committees of this nature and that they do not bring any political baggage with them. At least, that is what happened in the previous government, and the opposition always believed it.
I am not sure that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right about nobody starting first-past-the-post. As I understand it, the New Zealanders are trying desperately to get back to it as quickly as they possibly can, having gone down this road. Although I would have to check, I think that the Italians have gone at least part of the way back to first-past-the-post from the electoral system they used to have. The noble Earl dissents, and I accept his dissent. I know that it was the intention of the Berlusconi Government to try to get back to first-past-the-post and that they made some changes to the electoral system.
I am not one of those who thinks that in Britain we should ape what is done in other countries. If we did that, our history would be very different. Indeed, the history of the world might be quite different and a deal more unpleasant when it comes to most of this century. I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing that we do things differently in this country; nor do I think that it is a bad thing that other countries do things differently from the way we do them. As someone said yesterday—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—uniformity is a bit like silence; it is what you get in a graveyard. I am not too bothered about the fact that we do things differently from the way other countries do them. I am prepared to learn from them, but I am not prepared to work on the assumption that

359
they must always be right, and I must always be wrong. It is possible that our system suits us and their system suits them.
Turning to the commission, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, may recollect that last summer, when we were dealing with the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, I was keen that the Government should set up a commission and introduce a proper Bill dealing with referendums. That would involve a commission studying those referendums. To say therefore that I am a "Johnny-come-lately" to this matter omits many happy hours we spent last July on these issues.
However, whether it be this Bill, the Scottish Bill or the Welsh Bill, we will have three different systems—I know that the Scottish and Welsh systems are almost the same, but they are not quite because of the number of additional members in each constituency. I am still attracted to the idea of setting up an independent commission to look at all of those elections, not just this one. I accept that Amendment No. 26A concerns just this one, but one must ride one's hobby horses on the vehicle available and it is the European Parliamentary Elections Bill that is before us.
Perhaps at a later stage we can explore the possibility of the Government setting up an independent body to look at all the electoral systems that will be in being in this country by the end of next year, thus giving us a chance of an independent report. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would like to intervene.
4 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am sorry that I am unable to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on behalf of the Opposition. In particular, the instrument of this Bill does not seem to me to be the correct place in which to put the idea that we should appoint a commission. We do not need to prevent the operation of the Bill by insisting on the insertion that we should now appoint a commission to do something after the Bill has come into operation. That will be a matter to consider after the Bill has come into operation and after the forthcoming elections have been held.
At the same time, I urge my noble friend to realise to the full the implications of what we are about to do, particularly in relation to the existing political divisions—both the Westminster constituencies for the election to our own British Parliament and also the existing constituencies for the European election that will be subsumed in the new arrangements.
The dislocations will be considerable. In that connection I tried to do some research as to the effects that will occur when redistribution of seats takes place. It has been a little difficult for me—I suspect for other members of the Committee also—to obtain copies of the precise boundaries involved in the various divisions. I found considerable difficulty in obtaining maps that show the three positions to which I refer—the Westminster constituencies, the European constituencies as they now exist and the European boundaries as they
360
will exist on the assumption that this Bill is passed. It would be nice if one could be furnished with copies of the maps that show the precise divisions.
In so far as one has been able to make an examination, there can be no doubt that the effects on constituency parties will be considerable. If one endeavours to superimpose one map upon another, the constituencies that will be affected and the members of the constituency parties that will be invited to work the new constituencies—very much larger ones than the European Parliament—are as follows: Hampshire North West will be split; Newbury will be split; Penrith and The Border will be split; in the London constituencies there will be cuts in Hertsmere, Broxbourne, Brentwood and Ongar, Enfield, Chingford and Woodford, Upminster, Orpington, Epsom and Ewell, Hayes and Harlington and Twickenham.
All those areas will be split in their membership allegiance across the final constituency boundaries with all the consequences that I ventured to suggest last night. They will be torn as to which lists they will vote for—those with which they formerly had some parliamentary matters in common or those about which they know nothing. Complications will arise. Similarly, when the present European parliamentary constituencies are spread around over the new series of 71 (or 81 in total), once again existing constituencies will be split and transfers will take place from one to another. That will produce further enormous complications.
What I am troubled about and venture to reiterate is that, in view of the fact that most of the active work in all the new European constituencies will be carried out by members of existing constituency parties returning candidates to Westminster, a degree of apathy and uninterest may be produced which will reflect badly upon the whole election. I ask the Government to consider the point very seriously. I express no hope in the matter; I am all for full participation in the democratic process. But if, in the event, the total amount of the electorate that participate is as low as 15 per cent. nationwide, then somebody's face would be extremely red and there would be no anxiety to continue the system.
I therefore urge that these matters be considered now before we commit ourselves irrevocably. I do not believe however that at this stage we can put anything in the Bill. Rather, the Government should themselves prepare for what is likely to occur after the election.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was beginning to feel pleased to have given way to the noble Lord because it gave him a chance to support his noble friend on the Front Bench. But towards the end I believe he was coming round to my view that we should be prepared to look at these matters after the elections are over.
We have had an interesting debate. I listened to the assurances of the Minister. It would be helpful if we were to find some way—perhaps the Minister will think about this from the Government's point of view—to set up a review of all the different systems after the events are over in order for Parliament to have a reasonable

361
and well-balanced report on how they all operated. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26B to 27A not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [New Schedule 2 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978]:
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Boundary Commission for England").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 30, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 to 36, 39 and 41. This is a simple group of amendments which I trust will receive a degree of support from the Government and other parts of the Chamber. It replaces the Home Secretary—the Secretary of State—as the person who makes adjustments to the various regions which might become necessary in the course of time with the Boundary Commission.
The Bill sets out what the regions will be. In fact, I shall have something to say about the shape of the regions in due course, particularly when I come to deal with other amendments standing in my name. It is important that we discuss the shape and size of the regions for which those MEPs will be sitting. The Bill also sets out how many Members of the European Parliament shall be elected for each of those regions. But the Bill then gives the Secretary of State the power by order to change those. That is set out in paragraph 4(1), and specifically in paragraph 4(1)(a), and (b). Paragraph 4(1) states that the,
"Secretary of State shall … consider whether the ratio of registered electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible the same for every electoral region in England, and, … make by order such amendments of column (3) of the Table as he considers necessary to ensure that result".
That order—the order, as always, will not be amendable—will be subject to the negative procedure. I cannot remember whether the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee made any comment on this issue but it seems to me that this should be done not by the negative procedure but would be more appropriately dealt with by the affirmative procedure.
I maintain that the Secretary of State is not a proper person to make such adjustments; or if he is the one to make such adjustments, he should make such adjustments on the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, as happens in the case of parliamentary elections. The Boundary Commission acts in a totally independent and non-political way and brings forward its recommendations to Parliament. As far as we know, those recommendations are virtually always followed. My noble friend Lord Waddington, who very much regrets that he cannot be here today, made the point that there had been occasions, which some noble Lords might remember, when the recommendations of the Boundary Commission were not followed quite as faithfully as they might have been. Those noble Lords who can remember 1969—it is sad that the then Home
362
Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is not present today—will recall that, on that occasion, though he laid the order before the House, the then government issued a whip to their members and ordered them to vote down the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, recommendations which, as we all know, were long overdue, the previous alterations to the boundaries having taken place as long before as 1951. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, remembers that case.
Our view is that it would be proper to allow the Boundary Commission to make the recommendations and trust that, as always, the Home Secretary would then lay the recommendations before the House and make the appropriate order. Both Houses could then, as our amendments do, make sure that those were dealt with by the affirmative procedure.
These matters are not purely about the ratio of electors to the Members of the European Parliament as set out in paragraph 4(1)(a). It is also important that we consider the size of the regions. As my noble friend Lord Mackay made clear at Second Reading, it is much harder to achieve true proportionality with very small regions. It is interesting to note that some of the very small regions—for example, the North-East—are very much Labour strongholds whereas the Conservative strongholds are not quite such small regions. That might merely be chance but it is certainly a matter we can come to in later amendments.
My principal point on this group of amendments is that we should involve the Boundary Commission in looking at these matters and not the Home Secretary and that they should be dealt with by the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with a little surprise because, as the Minister will also no doubt point out, the amendment is entirely misconceived. The power of the Secretary of State under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 is not a power to alter the boundaries of the regions; it is a power to alter the number of MEPs returned by each region. The result is that what the Secretary of State is required to carry out by paragraph 4 is a simple mathematical calculation which could be carried out by a computer. Therefore, it seems wholly inappropriate to require that to be transferred to the Boundary Commission. In those circumstances, we are unable to support the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right. In fact, I sympathise with the motive behind the amendments, but they are not necessary. It is important that one should understand that the Bill does not give the Secretary of State power to change the boundaries of the regions. All the Secretary of State has to do is carry out a purely mechanical, arithmetical calculation.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I spent a moment on the background. The total number of English electors was divided by 71—that is the number of MEPs.

363
That produced an average figure of electors per MEP of just over 520,000. In fact it was 520,475. Then the MEPs were simply allocated to regions to ensure that the divergence was as low as possible. This is entirely arithmetical. There is no discretion available to the Secretary of State. The formula is provided in paragraph 4 of the schedule. It can produce only one result. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, the computer's calculation will be exactly the same as that of an official in the Home Office doing it with pencil and paper.
Therefore, there is no purpose in involving the Boundary Commission, which has a very delicate role in adjusting boundaries. This has nothing at all to do with boundaries. There is no good reason to invoke the affirmative resolution procedure. I specifically checked the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee did not see any reason for objecting to the negative resolution procedure, given the purely mechanistic nature of the procedure involved. It is entirely an arithmetical calculation. If the Secretary of State were to get his decimal point in the wrong place, there is one at least among us who would be able readily to correct him. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the Committee with my reply.
Lord Henley: I am not totally satisfied and it is a point to which I shall probably want to come back at a later stage. The noble Lord said that the Home Secretary has no discretion whatever in this matter, that it is entirely mathematical and that he must merely follow the answer which his pocket calculator gives him. However, paragraph 4(1)(b) states:
"make by order such amendments of column (3) of the Table as he considers necessary to ensure that result".
It strikes me that the words "as he considers necessary" allow him a degree of discretion. The point I am making, if I may put it in the politest terms, is that the history of the noble Lord's party, particularly going back to 1969, is not entirely a clean one on these matters. I think it would be right to involve an independent outside body such as the Boundary Commission. It should be allowed its input into these matters so that Parliament can see that it has exercised the appropriate mechanistic discretion.
I appreciate that the changing of boundaries is another matter and is one that would have to be left to Parliament itself. Parliament is setting out the boundaries in the Bill and it is Parliament which on some later occasion will have to change them. Therefore, from that point of view, I accept that that limits what I consider to be the excessive powers of the Secretary of State to gerrymander these matters should he so wish. But, obviously, he would not be able to do so without the agreement of Parliament. I shall come back to that point on a later amendment. In the meantime, I wish to withdraw my amendment at this stage but assure the noble Lord that I will want to come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 41 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 6, line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 50 on page 7 and insert—

("North East

Darlington Unitary Authority

4

Durham County

Hartlepool Unitary Authority

Middlesbrough Unitary Authority

Redcar and Cleveland Unitary Authority

Stockton-on-Tees Unitary Authority

Northumberland County

Tyne & Wear Metropolitan County

North West

Cumbria County

10

Cheshire County

Halton Unitary Authority

Warrington Unitary Authority

Greater Manchester Metropolitan County

Blackburn with Darwen Unitary Authority

Blackpool Unitary Authority

Lancashire County

Merseyside Metropolitan County

Yorkshire and the Humber

East Riding of Yorkshire Unitary Authority

7

Kingston-upon-Hull Unitary Authority

North East Lincolnshire Unitary Authority

North Lincolnshire Unitary Authority

North Yorkshire County

York Unitary Authority

South Yorkshire Metropolitan County

West Yorkshire Metropolitan County

East Midlands

Derby Unitary Authority

6

Derbyshire County

Nottingham Unitary Authority

Nottinghamshire County

Leicester Unitary Authority

Leicestershire County

Northamptonshire County

Rutland Unitary Authority

Lincolnshire County

West Midlands

Herefordshire Unitary Authority

8

Warwickshire County

Worcestershire County

Shropshire County

Staffordshire County

Stoke-on-Trent Unitary Authority

Telford and the Wrekin Unitary Authority

West Midlands Metropolitan County

Eastern

Bedfordshire County

8

Hertfordshire County

Luton Unitary Authority

Essex County

Southend-on-Sea Unitary Authority

Thurrock Unitary Authority

Cambridgeshire County

Norfolk County

Peterborough Unitary Authority

South East

Bracknell Forest Unitary Authority

11

Buckinghamshire County

Milton Keynes Unitary Authority

Oxfordshire County

Reading Unitary Authority

Slough Unitary Authority

West Berkshire Unitary Authority

Windsor & Maidenhead Unitary Authority

Wokingham Unitary Authority

Hampshire County

Isle of Wight Unitary Authority

Portsmouth Unitary Authority

365

Southampton Unitary Authority

Kent County

Medway Towns Unitary Authority

Brighton & Hove Unitary Authority

East Sussex County

Surrey County

West Sussex County

Suffolk County

London

Greater London

10

South West

Bath & North East Somerset Unitary Authority

7

Bristol Unitary Authority

Gloucestershire County

North Somerset Unitary Authority

South Gloucestershire Unitary Authority

Swindon Unitary Authority

Wiltshire County

Cornwall County

Devon County

Isles of Scilly Council

Plymouth Unitary Authority

Torbay Unitary Authority

Bournemouth Unitary Authority

Dorset County

Poole Unitary Authority

Somerset County")

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall touch on Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that I shall not be moving those two amendments. They are matters that I prefer to return to at a later stage. It may be that some Members of the Committee, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, might wish to follow me in some of my comments.
Amendment No. 42 is a brief drafting amendment. When the noble Lord's advisers drafted this Bill and Schedule 1 they used the old names for the local authority areas. I do not know why they did that. It struck us that it would be more appropriate if the new names were used for the different areas. That is all that Amendment No. 42 does. It does not change the size or the shape of the areas.
Speaking as a true reactionary of the finest sort, I would prefer to go back to the old county names in their entirety and, as regards the North West, to speak simply of Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire and Cheshire and none of the nonsense about Merseyside and so on. But if we are to be modern then we should be truly modern and use some of the new areas. That is why my amendment is filled with odd bodies such as the Warrington Unitary Authority and others as they should be, rather than the older form used by the noble Lord. I merely offer that to the Government by way of a drafting amendment.
Behind these amendments there is something more serious and that is the size of the regions. We believe that it is important for the regions to be of similar size as far as possible. Since it is the purpose of the Bill, they should be of a size which allows a degree of proportionality. As regards the smallest region, the North East, it is very difficult to get true proportionality. Obviously, I have to be careful about the criticisms I make of the Government's attempt here. For the North East they have produced the smallest figure of four Members. I shall not be moving the two amendments on
366
this occasion because we have produced regions with only three for East Anglia. We would like to come back to that in due course and try to find another way.
The Government's justification for the regions that they have chosen is that we set them up when we were in government, but that was for quite different purposes. In effect, they are the DTI regions. I do not believe that simply using the regions for this purpose is good enough. They were created for an entirely different purpose and not to be parliamentary regions for the European Parliament or to be developed later into regional entities of the kind that might gradually be allowed to become regional assemblies along the lines of those being constructed for Wales and Scotland. In other words, I do not believe that we should encourage their use to allow the gradual regionalisation of England.
As we all know, the regions are entirely artificial, as my noble friend Lord Waddington made perfectly clear yesterday. There is very little community of interest in some of the different parts. I believe he mentioned the South West; it stretches from Swindon to the Isles of Scilly. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, and myself know the north west well. It stretches from Cheshire to the Scottish border. There is very little community of interest, as it were, between Cumbria and Merseyside. The South East region extends from darkest Kent to Milton Keynes. The regions cover large areas and they have to if there are to have 10 or so Members of the European Parliament. I do not believe that they should necessarily be fixed in stone and remain in existence in perpetuity, particularly if that gives greater validity to them as regions and allows them to develop yet further into something which they are not. The noble Lord will say that they were first used by us for DTI purposes; then they were taken over for this electoral purpose; and later they will be developed in other ways.
It is important that we should try to find slightly different areas. They should be larger in some cases, particularly the North East with only four Members. I suspect that that will be very much to the advantage of the party opposite. In due course it should be possible to alter the size of the regions, should that be necessary. At that point one would want to involve the Boundary Commission if regions grew or shrunk according to changes in the population. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I do not wish to say anything about Amendment No. 42 itself, but since the noble Lord has touched on Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 which involve some change to the proposed boundaries, I would like to speak to them briefly. It seems that in one or two instances there is a case for boundary changes; for example, it is arguable that the northern region, including Cumbria, would be a more satisfactory region on the grounds of greater equality of population between the regions. I accept that it is desirable that the regions should be broadly equal in size.
However, it is also arguable that the main communication links of Cumbria are with the North West via the M.6 and the west coast main line, rather than with the North East via the A.69 and the Carlisle-to-Newcastle railway line. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has not spoken in detail about the

367
proposals, but those for the South East are unsatisfactory. There is a problem with that area because it is already too big. It is the largest of the constituencies. To add large parts of the eastern counties to it would simply unbalance the figures still further, let alone adding Greater London as well, as proposed in Amendment No. 43 but not in Amendment No. 44.
One could argue for weeks about the desirable boundaries between the regions, but, broadly speaking, it seems to us that the regions, if not ideal, are acceptable. Therefore, we would not support any amendment for their further variation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: On the basis of such research as I have been able to undertake, it seems to me that it is going to make very little difference to the final membership whatever the size of the new constituencies and their total representation. The South West division has seven Members; the South East has 11 and the North East four Members, giving divisors of eight, 12 and five respectively. Taking the results of the proportion of votes cast at the last European elections and those cast in the constituency elections to Westminster, the result will not be very different.
In the South West constituency, based on the results of the 1994 European elections, Labour would have five seats, the Conservatives two and the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and others would have nil. On the basis of the Westminster election results, apportioning percentage-wise the votes gained by the respective parties, once again the divisor would be eight and there would be seven Members. That would yield the result of four Labour Members and three Conservative Members. There is not a very great difference between those two results.
I turn now to the South East and North East constituencies. It is surprising that once again the results do not differ. Labour would have seven Members and the Conservatives four in the first example and in the second, Labour would have three Members and the Conservatives one. The results do not differ materially.
However, it is a bit depressing—since the impact of the figures first struck me only when I had them calculated—that if any party gets below about 16 per cent. of the vote it has no representation at all. I did not realise that when the Bill was first published. Therefore, on the basis of the same electoral percentages, party-wise in both the last European elections and in the 1993 Westminster parliamentary elections, the result would be very little difference in the number of Members per party. As I have said, it is depressing that a party with less than 16 per cent. of the vote will not get a say, whatever the distribution. I sincerely hope that that was considered when the existing calculation proposals were first incorporated into the Bill. This certainly worries me; I do not know whether it worries my party.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendment No. 42 is in a different category from Amendments Nos. 43 and 44
368
which go together. Amendment No. 42 seeks to insert the word "county" instead of "unitary authority". If that were to be the position, the table would be wholly meaningless. The Bill specifies geographical areas. A unitary authority does not refer to a geographical area; it refers to the body which administers a particular area. It is right to refer to the "County of Derby" as that is a geographical area. It is administered by the Derby unitary authority, which is now separate from the county of Derbyshire. As drafted, the Bill is correct. The term "unitary authority" does not relate to a geographical area.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, did not quite strangle Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 at birth, but he abandoned them very shortly after birth. As the noble Lord rightly confessed, the result of his provisions would be a region comprising three Members, which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has assured us is much too small. There would have to be a minimum of four Members if it were to be at all proportional. There would be a vast region of 26 Members if we adopted Amendment No. 43 or of 16 Members if we accepted Amendment No. 44. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, did not dwell on those delights and I must therefore reciprocate and not pour any further scorn upon them. Amendment No. 42 is not necessary. I do not believe that the noble Lord intends to move Amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
Lord Henley: I am grateful for the noble Lord's explanation. I imagine that it will be news to the unitary authorities that they are not geographical areas. However, if they are not geographical areas, I do not know what they are, but that is for them to worry about. I shall take in good part the noble Lord's assurance that my amendment is unnecessary and, as I have said, I shall not press my simple, neat, little drafting amendment.
As regards the other two amendments, as I said, I shall want to return to this matter at a later stage with revised versions of the amendments—versions that do not include regions as small as those having only three Members. As I am sure that the noble Lord will be the first to appreciate, getting this right is a difficult art. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to the possibility of placing Cumbria within the constituency of the North East and thus increasing the number of MEPs in that region from four to five which would obviously improve one's chances of getting some degree of proportionality. As I understand it, however, if the area of Cumbria were to be included in the North East constituency not enough people would be transferred into the North East constituency to increase its Members from four to five. At the moment, Cumbria is only six-ninths of a European parliamentary constituency—in other words, Cumbria plus three other parliamentary constituencies comprise the existing European parliamentary constituency. Therefore, one would have to start transferring other areas into that North East constituency.
If, at the same time, one was trying to create a community of interest within that area or region—or whatever one wants to call it—one would have even

369
greater problems. I can speak about Cumbria with authority. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that Cumbria's links are obviously with the North West and follow the west coast mainline and the M.6. That is true, but north of Shap, people look to Newcastle whereas south of Shap, people look to Manchester—or even to Warrington, if I may dare say that to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. There is a division between the two. It would be difficult to find the right constituency into which to transfer the electors of Cumbria. I imagine that that could be true of all areas.
Therefore, I suggest that it is not necessary to look for a particular community of interest within any particular region, desirable though that may be, and that one should simply try to make the constituencies the right size, with the right number of electors and Members. We do not want to see these regions being used and being given greater validity and greater authority so that it can later be argued that it is appropriate that those are the areas that should be used for the regional parliaments, regional assemblies, or whatever.
As I said, I have no intention of moving Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, but this is a matter to which I intend to return later. Meanwhile, I thank the noble Lord for his assurances about the undesirability of including the words "unitary authority". I hope that the unitary authorities will be happy with the noble Lord's expressed view that they are not geographical entities. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 42.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 not moved.]
The Earl of Dartmouth The Earl of Dartmouth moved Amendment No. 45A:
Page 7, line 41, column 3, leave out ("7") and insert ("8").
The noble Earl said: I am conscious that I shall probably be trespassing on the goodwill of the Committee in moving this amendment. However, the anomaly in the Bill which I am seeking to draw to the Government's attention is of significant concern to people living in the region of Yorkshire and Humberside. Earlier in our Committee proceedings, I disclosed my interest in that region in the European elections and in the system of election which appertains thereto.
The Yorkshire and Humberside region covers nearly 6,000 square miles. It contains large areas of social deprivation, especially in the former urban county of South Yorkshire, 85 per cent. of which has development area or enterprise zone status. Even taking the region as a whole, it has a per capita income of only about nine-tenths of the European Union average. However, under the schedules to the Bill, of all the regions in the United Kingdom, Yorkshire and Humberside has the largest number of electors per Member of the European Parliament. Perhaps I may make the same point in a more telling way: Yorkshire and Humberside has the smallest number of MEPs—namely; seven—allocated to it in relation to its electoral population of 3.8 million. The purpose of this amendment is to correct that
370
injustice. In so doing the noble Lord the Minister will earn the lasting gratitude of people resident in Yorkshire and Humberside. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Earl makes me an offer that I cannot refuse except with difficulty. This matter develops from the scheme I sought to set out earlier. The number of seats to which the United Kingdom is entitled is fixed. We are entitled to 87 Members—incidentally, the same as Italy and France—and no more. If we give the Yorkshire and Humberside region, which the noble Earl contends is presently a disfavoured region, one extra MEP, that MEP must be taken from another region. Someone more unkind than I may invite the noble Earl to specify which region should give up the prize of an MEP to be transferred to Yorkshire and Humberside. I am far too kind to ask that question.
England has 71 of the 87 MEPs. Schedule 1 sets out the arithmetical mechanistic calculation which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has accurately described. We have sought to get the ratio of electors to MEP as nearly as possible the same for each region. That calculation can only ever produce one result. Yorkshire and Humberside would be over-represented if I took the route that the noble Earl invites me to take. I hope that I have explained the position fairly. I shall not ask the noble Earl to specify the happy candidate that must give up one MEP.
Lord Henley: Before the Minister sits down and my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps the noble Lord with his government-issue calculator and the authority of the Government can tell the Committee about the variations between all of the English regions. Can he say how many electors there are per MEP in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Obviously, there must be a degree of variation between all of the English regions and the other parts of the United Kingdom. I should be interested to know how large is that variation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not have to hand a list of every variation in every constituency. Should the noble Lord wish it, a list can be provided without any great difficulty. I am aware that in the nature of things there are divergencies, although they are not large. As I see a number of noble Lords nodding it may assist if I send a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and place copies in the Library.
The Earl of Dartmouth: I was present for the earlier part of these gripping proceedings. I am well aware that the 87 Members of the European Parliament have been allocated by the European Union and that that figure is not readily susceptible to change. As a chartered accountant I have some familiarity with the figures. I have to hand the very list to which the Minister referred. However, the Committee will he glad to hear that I have no intention of going through it now.
The Minister referred earlier to this matter being a straightforward arithmetical calculation made by a computer without any particular judgment being made

371
upon it. I believe that, as in the drafting of the Bill, the calculation has been made in a totally direct and objective manner, just as Ernie picks out premium bond winners, or so one is told. It follows that there are certain anomalies thrown up, not least the disadvantaged area of Yorkshire and Humberside. Perhaps one should look at London where I was born. No one should accuse me of being anti-London. On the contrary, I regard London as being both a locomotive of the British economy and a jewel to the western world. London currently has an allocation of 10 MEPs, each representing 494,000 electors. If that number was reduced to nine the number of electors per Member would be 548,000. That is only 5,000 electors more than the current electorate of each MEP in Yorkshire and Humberside. I am not a Government Minister and it is not for me to make decisions. However, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to this anomaly despite the objectivity of the computer.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene. I am a little surprised to hear the noble Earl suggest that one MEP should be taken away from London. As someone who hopes to become a representative of the Yorkshire region, surely the region from which he suggests there should be a deduction is the region that includes Lancashire.
The Earl of Dartmouth: I am not sure that I entirely follow the noble Lord's point. I do not suggest that an MEP should be removed from London. I simply draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that despite the objectivity of the computer these anomalies arise.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may assist my noble friend and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I have now found the answer to the question that I put to the Minister. That answer appears in a research paper prepared by the Library of another place. Page 36 makes clear that my noble friend has a point. The average electorate per MEP in Yorkshire and Humberside is 543,000. As my noble friend suggests, it would be unfair to take one away from the North West because that region has an electorate per MEP of 520,000. The United Kingdom average is approximately 508,000, whereas London is a mere 494,000. I understand that there must be some variation between the regions and that mathematically it is impossible to do it any other way, but there is a degree of disparity between Yorkshire and Humberside and, for example, London and others in terms of numbers.
The Earl of Dartmouth: I thank my noble friend for his telling and most helpful intervention. The boundaries under this system inevitably give rise to anomalies and unfairness, of which this is merely one example. I commend it to the Minister for consideration at his leisure. In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments of Schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 8, leave out lines 22 to 26.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 46 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 47. In one way Amendment No. 46 is a broad brush probing amendment; in other words, it seeks to leave out a sub-paragraph and asks the Minister, "Please, what does your sub-paragraph mean?" However, the second amendment goes a little further. I believe that I may be able to help the Minister.
The Committee may be assisted if I explain my difficulty in regard to the sub-paragraph. It reads:
"Regulations under this paragraph shall, in relation to an election in an electoral region in Great Britain, make provision for the nomination of registered parties, including provision requiring a nomination to be accompanied by a list of candidates numbering no more than the MEPs to be elected for that region".
What strikes me as odd is the wording "make provision for the nomination of registered parties". One wonders what that means. It is followed by the word "including". Does it mean "including the list"? If so, what else is included? Is this some kind of failsafe provision in case something happens to the Registration of Political Parties Bill? Can the Government in some way bring in a provision by this route?
I believe that my second amendment makes the point clear. However, I suspect that it contains a drafting problem which no doubt the Minister will point out in due course. The amendment is consistent with the previous amendment and deletes the word "registered".
My second amendment, Amendment No. 47, would make the sub-paragraph read:
"Regulations under this paragraph shall, in relation to an election in an electoral region in Great Britain, make provision for the nomination from each party of a list of candidates".
I accept that that should probably be "from each registered party of a list of candidates", but that seems clearly what is going to happen. The party managers in an area or the candidates—currently, it is supposed to be the candidate and his agent, so I am not sure whether it is to be all the candidates in the list and their agents or their agent—will go along and launch their nomination papers. There is no provision currently for the nomination of a party; it is the nomination of a person with a party label.
I understand that even the changes proposed to be made to what goes on the ballot paper, such as symbols and so on, do not take away from that. It is the nomination of an individual who will stand for the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrat Party, or whatever. It is quite clear. I would have expected the wording to be, "for the nomination from each registered party of a list of candidates". In other words, one goes along and nominates a list of candidates. I wonder about the words, "nomination of registered parties". Is there some significance? That is what I am trying to glean from the Minister.
I hope I have explained the position adequately. It is quite complicated, as I found when trying to work out what to say. I hope I have made myself clear because I am puzzled as to why there are these additional words about the registered parties, including provision requiring a nomination. I am interested to know why these words appear. They seem unnecessary. The Bill would not be any the poorer—in fact it might be clearer—if they were not there. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the way the noble Lord developed his questions. It partly relates to the question the noble Lord put to me yesterday, as did the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, as to whether or not it was anticipated that on the ballot there would be a list of names as well as the party name. This contemplates that situation. That is to say, paragraph (3B) of Schedule 2, on page 8 of the Bill, requires that a party be nominated. Also, hand in hand with the nomination of the registered party, there would have to be a list of candidates, the list being limited numerically to not more than the number of MEPs it is possible to elect. This deals with the point the noble Lord raised yesterday.
I deviate slightly. The reason we wish the phrase "registered parties" to appear is that it is dependent on the Registration of Political Parties Bill, which is making good progress in another place. Committee stage has already been completed, so there is no doubt that the Bill will receive Royal Assent. So this is in no way a fallback in case the Registration of Political Parties Bill does not get through. An extremely helpful consequence of the Registration of Political Parties Bill is that we shall then be able to avoid the mischief about which the party of the noble Lord has rightly complained in the past and about which the Liberal Democrats have rightly complained because, if we have registered political parties, we will not be able to have "Literal Democrats" or "Conversatives", which are intended to mislead and sometimes do produce some feeling of "We was robbed" among various parties. I hope that that explanation is clear and that it satisfies the noble Lord's complaints or questions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I thank him too for changing "complaints" to "questions", because they were not complaints. They were questions. I believed that I had reasonably placed myself in the mindset of this new system but, clearly, I was not quite in it enough. I see the point about needing to nominate a registered party because the party name will be at the head of the column, so to speak, and people will be asked to vote for the party. I understand that and I am grateful for the explanation and for the information about the Registration of Political Parties Bill. I am pleased to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 to 50 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 8, line 31, at end insert (": and
(b) provide that any candidate selected to fill a vacancy from a party's list shall be a member of that party at the time of his selection to till the vacancy.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that the gremlins must have got at this amendment because I rather suspect the Minister is going to tell me that it is wrongly placed. I suspect that it may relate to a previous draft of the Bill; I wonder if I have the right draft. In any event, I know what I mean and I suspect that the Minister knows what I mean because we discussed this issue in relation to the Welsh Bill.
The problem I am trying to overcome is this. In the event of someone who has been elected either dying or resigning, the way I understand the list to work here, as it will in Scotland and Wales, is that the next person on the list standing for that party who failed to be elected would, if that person was willing, be returned as the Member. There would be no need for a by-election. That is fine.
But what happens if, two years later, Joe Bloggs, let us call him, having been nominated to the list and having failed to be elected, there is a death. His is the next name but he has left the political party that nominated him. It seems to me rather daft—I believe that the Bill would inevitably lead to this—that he would then find himself as the Member of the European Parliament for the party he had just left, with no obligation to do the decent thing and fall on his sword, so to speak. He would happily go off to Brussels and join the other party despite the fact that he had been in the list of the party whose seat it was.
We discussed this matter on the Welsh Bill. The noble Lord brought forward an amendment at about the same time that I put down an amendment to get round the difficulty. As I see it, that has not happened here. I do not believe that the Minister can accept my amendment because it is wrongly placed, but I hope that he will acknowledge that this is a difficult problem and will come forward with an amendment at the next stage to deal with it. I am sure that we all agree that we are faced with an entirely unfair proposition.
There is the related issue of the person who is elected and then decides to abandon the party. Currently, we take the view that that person was elected as the individual for that constituency and that is that. However, if we move to party lists and party systems, that nice argument cannot apply. I wonder whether the Minister has given any thought to that. I know that in the Welsh Bill we decided, at least in Committee, that we would not address the matter although the Minister did address the problem I am attempting to deal with here. I would be grateful if he could give me his advice on where the Government stand with regard to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and what might happen in the circumstances I have outlined.
Earl Russell: I can understand why the party of the noble Lord believes that it may be worth putting forward this amendment. His final remarks crystallised the

375
suspicion that had been forming in my mind as he was speaking that this should be known as the "Temple-Morris amendment".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not unless the noble Lord had the gift of prophecy, or at least serendipity. I take the points that the noble Lord made because I believe that they are soundly based. Perhaps I may offer this solution which the Government have in mind, at least in part. If there is a vacancy, as the noble Lord rightly says, arising from death or resignation of the candidate originally elected on a party list, that will be filled by the next eligible person on the relevant party list. Of course, he is quite right. One has to include the description "eligible and willing person on the party list". We are quite at one there.
If the person whose death or resignation caused the vacancy was originally elected as an independent, or if the relevant party list has been exhausted, then a by-election would be held. That is the general way that the system works in jurisdictions which have a similar regime to the one that we propose here.
It would of course be wrong if the person filling the vacancy, on the example given by the noble Lord, had left the original party and was in his own party or in a completely different party after the election. That is a potential problem. What we propose has been set out in an Answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place given by my honourable friend Mr. Howarth. We propose to make regulations under the Bill. That will require the regional returning officer to work down the party list to find the first eligible and willing candidate to fill the vacancy. I have dealt with that already.
There will, however, be an additional hurdle. The Registration of Political Parties Bill creates the position of a nominating officer in each party. The nominating officer or his representative, on behalf of each party, will have to signify that at the relevant date, which is triggered in the circumstances that the noble Lord posited, the candidate remains an approved candidate of the party concerned.
The question of an elected member who wishes to leave his party to join another party or his own party is different. That is a matter that should be dealt with in the usual way; if one is elected one cannot then be deselected or expelled merely because one has changed one's party allegiance. I take the point that the noble Lord put foremost in his question, and that is the way that we intend to deal with it. It means that the party can set up the additional hurdle so that one does not have absurd situations of the sort that the noble Lord feared. I hope that that is helpful.
5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I think we agreed about someone changing his party after he was elected. I think we agreed in the Welsh Bill that parties would just have to live with that. I think I have come to the view that on this Bill we probably have to do so as well.
376
I am pleased to hear that the matter will be put into regulations. My only concern about the rules which the Minister outlined is that it is the nominating person from the party who decides whether the party still wants the individual to be on its list. My concern about that is fairly obvious. There is a difference between someone who leaves say, the Conservative Party, and someone who remains inside the Conservative Party and who falls out of favour with the people running and controlling the party, and so being in a position to influence the nominating officer.
I am giving the Conservative Party as an example so as to be fair to everyone else. A similar situation could occur in the Labour Party, and—dare I say?—has occurred to a large degree in the selection of individuals who are allowed to present themselves as candidates for the Scottish parliament, where at least two Members of the other place have been judged to be unfit to be members of the Scottish parliament, although they have been reasonable Members of the other place for over 20 years. We will leave that aside. That is my reservation.
The Minister knows that I have that reservation. I would rather that it were simply membership of the party so that the parties would not be able to decide that someone had become too difficult a customer and could be ditched. I worry about that just as I worry about the closed list. That is a minor worry. I ask the Minister, whether it be in this Bill, the Welsh Bill or his colleagues on the Scottish Bill, to consider that worry and to ask themselves whether, in the interests of democracy and looking to the future, it might not be wiser just to make it membership of the party.
I would rather see the Minister's proposition on the face of the Bill. It is, after all, going to be on the face of the Welsh Bill. This Bill is not nearly as long as the Welsh Bill. Another two or three lines in this Bill would not come amiss. If they were there, we would all be clear as to how the system would work. Will the Minister perhaps reflect on that matter to see whether it would be possible to put it, as it will be in the Welsh Bill, and, I trust, in the Scottish Bill, on the face of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill? However, with the assurances that I have been given. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 69 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have three points. I think that the Minister answered one of my questions. I shall put the matter this way rather than put down a probing amendment. I am looking at the filling of vacancies and the question of by-elections. I was going to ask about the circumstances in which by-elections would occur, but I have had the answer that I thought I would get. I take it that when it comes to a by-election in one of these enormous seats, it will be run as—dare I say it?—a first-past-the-post election. I should be grateful for confirmation that I have worked out the system correctly.

377
Lines 15 and 16 of page 8 provide that regulations will be made about the limitation of election expenses, and then:
"(including expenses incurred in relation to a general election as a whole)".
We have not, heretofore, in this country regulated the expenses incurred in relation to a general election as a whole. I know that these are issues currently under discussion by the Neill Committee. Do I take it that the Government are just being prepared in case Neill suggests that there should be limits, or have the Government already decided that there should be limits? I should be grateful for some advice on that.
My next question might be in the way of a "daft laddie" question. One of the problems—people complained when I did it to them—about a Bill which is devoted entirely to amending a previous piece of legislation is that one has to look backwards and forwards. What lawyers describe as a Keeling schedule might have been handy here.
When I go to line 6 on page 10 I see £200 substituted for £5,000. I presume that that is the deposit. I cannot for the life of me see the deposit-saving percentage anywhere. That leads me to another question. I presume the deposit is for the party's vote.
I appreciate that it is always difficult to be asked questions on clause stand part. So if the Minister cannot find the pieces of paper and follow my questions—I am giving him a little time to do that—I shall fully understand if he writes to me. It would be easier, especially for the non-lawyers among us, if we had Keeling schedules for Bills of this nature. I hope that the Government Chief Whip is taking note of that request.
Lord Renton: I am shocked at the possibility of six Members, for example, in the East Midlands having to represent the whole of that large and well populated area when it could be divided into six constituencies with each of the Members elected responsible therefore for a particular part of that area.
I have been through the whole of the schedule. I shall not weary the Committee with my proposals for splitting up each of the areas, or regions as they are called. I shall just take the East Midlands. There the first constituency could consist of Derbyshire and Derby; the second, Leicester and Leicestershire; the third, Lincolnshire; the fourth, Northamptonshire; the fifth, Nottinghamshire and the County of Nottingham; and then Rutland could be a separate constituency. That makes six constituencies, each Member having responsibility for a particular part of the region. That is so much more sensible and democratic. I hope that the Government will keep an open mind about this, bearing in mind that the proposal is capable of improvement. I know that it means getting away with party lists for a region. I understand that that is what is intended. But having fought and won 10 general elections starting in 1945, I have to tell the Committee that generally 70 per cent. of the electorate voted, of whom no more than 10 per cent. were paid up members of the various parties; and no more than another 20 per cent. were by nature and habit party minded people, although not paid-up
378
members. That meant that less than half of the 70 per cent. who voted were party politically minded. However, under this system they would have to become so; and I think that it is absurd.
We have always had party members who were somewhat off-beat and independent—and jolly good luck to them. I see one or two in this House at present who served in that way in another place. We occasionally had independent Members elected for a constituency where a party was well organised and had produced a Member for some years.
If the Government wish to take any pride in democracy and the responsibility of elected Members of the European Parliament being answerable to the people in the county or town—or a combination of county and town—where they were elected, the Government should think again about the matter. We shall not finalise the Bill for several months. There is plenty of time for the Government to do so in the Long Recess. I implore them to think in more democratic terms.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: On past occasions, we have debated the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I do not wish to be unduly repetitive. We have a fixed number of MEPs. In England a fixed number has been divided into the number of electors. The injunction in the Bill is that in each region the number of MEPs should be reasonably proportionate to the population.
The regions have been chosen because they are existing, established regions currently used by government offices for the regions, and to be used in the future for the regional development agencies. The only difference is that Merseyside has been added to the North West because it was too small to form an electoral region on its own.
We have debated these matters on earlier occasions—not least the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. If one goes for a proportional representation system—I accept that the noble Lord disagrees with that in principle—one has to have a minimum level of population in the region.
I deal now with the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. First-past-the-post is retained for the by-election—really so that the noble Lord may part from this Bill somewhat happy. As regards expenses, we propose to wait for the Neill Committee to report. That is a sensible way of dealing with matters. In respect of percentage, the figure is 2.5 per cent.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we take the Statement on the energy review, I should like to take

379
this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on the Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of others.

Energy Review
5.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade on the energy review. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the Government's Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and the preliminary conclusions upon which I am now consulting.
"The review was set up following the crisis in the coal industry last autumn, amid claims that the electricity market was rigged against coal. In response, the Government set up a wide-ranging review of electricity generation.
"The review has looked widely at the issues, with the assistance of independent consultants, about 150 outside representations and meetings with some 40 parties. It has confirmed that there are indeed serious distortions in the electricity market. As a result, prices have been higher than they should have been. New gas stations have entered the market, benefiting from these high prices, displaced coal and failed to bring prices down for the consumer.
"Without action to address these distortions, prices for consumers will continue to be higher than necessary and diversity and security of supply will suffer.
"Some have pressed the Government to go further and actually guarantee a specific share of the electricity market for UK deep-mined coal. The Government have given careful consideration to these and all other proposals. We do not, however, believe that to identify a defined share of the market regardless of other considerations would be the right course to take. Our aim is to put all fuels on a level playing field, and not to give priority to any one. We do not propose to subsidise any part of the UK coal industry. Coal producers themselves have asked for fairness, not favours.
"I must therefore make it clear, against a background of speculation in the press, that there is no deal with the generators by which the Government have offered to introduce new policies in return for the generators buying British coal. Neither are the Government's policy conclusions in any way conditional on them doing so. This, and the fact that coal purchase decisions are a matter for them, has been made clear to the generators.
"I have asked the advice of the Director General of Electricity Supply and his views are set out in our consultation document. He has identified significant problems both in the electricity pool and in the market structure. These, and the high prices arising in the market, have been among the factors encouraging the growth of gas in electricity generation at the expense of coal. He has advised me that action is needed to reform the trading arrangements, so that all plant plays a full role in competition, and to address the market power of the major generators. He also sees new entry as important. We agree with him that reform of the market is needed.
"The review has confirmed that the main objective of our energy policy should be secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. This includes our concern to achieve environmental improvements.
"Taking account of the advice we have received from the DGES, we intend to achieve this objective by creating a competitive electricity market, founded on diverse fuel sources, providing secure supplies and, into the bargain, delivering significantly lower electricity prices to customers.
"The Government are therefore making the following proposals to remedy the market distortions. We will promote competition by reform of the wholesale electricity trading arrangements and by pressing forward with competition in electricity supply. We will seek practical opportunities for divestment of coal-fired plant by the major generators. We will establish separate licensing of distribution and supply and ensure fair trade in electricity with our European partners. We will ensure that all generators are fairly remunerated for the services they provide to the grid. Taken together, these measures should remove the current distortions which work against coal.
"Market distortions disadvantage consumers, but they also have an impact on fuel use. This could put our energy policy at risk both from high prices and from the loss of diversity and security which the squeezing out of coal and the consequent loss of coal-fired power stations would produce. Projections by our independent consultants, based on the current operation of the market, suggest that gas-fired generation could rise sharply, accounting for over 75 per cent. of our electricity within 20 years. In our view, a properly functioning market could well produce a different result.
"There are also technical issues arising from the growing use of gas on the grid. Our independent electrical engineering consultants report that the present arrangements have failed to resolve them. The DGES has said that better arrangements are needed. We propose to take this forward.
"There is a wide reform agenda to pursue. This will take time; our aim is that once it is achieved the market will operate in a fully competitive way. But the risk is that before market reform is complete, fuel choices will be distorted and diversity and security of supply will suffer. Therefore, during this period, we

381
propose to apply a stricter energy policy to power station consents. In fact, significant market entry is still likely. Additional gas-fired power stations in various stages of development, equal to about 10 per cent. of system capacity and owned by competitors of the major generators, need no further authorisation.
"Although the DGES has reservations about restrictions on consents, he recognises the Government's responsibility for energy policy, including diversity issues. In my view, it is of primary importance to avoid the pre-emptive destruction of our scope for diversity and security while reforms are yet to feed through.
"The new consents policy will be in place only while our reform agenda is being addressed. I have asked the DGES to keep me informed of progress in addressing the competition issues. I would expect the new consents policy to be relaxed when, on the basis of his advice, we conclude that our reforms have been undertaken and the distortions removed.
"I turn now to the details of the proposed policy. We propose to approach new and pending applications for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 on the basis that new natural gas-fired generation would normally be inconsistent with our energy policy concerns relating to diversity and security.
"However, combined heat and power projects have environmental and other benefits which may outweigh those concerns. They would normally do so where the project is properly sized to meet on-site or nearby heat and electricity requirements and to deliver high efficiency, though each case will be examined on its merits. It will be especially important that the relevant heat and electricity uses are clearly identified.
"Other applications likely to support our environmental objectives without compromising energy security or diversity would normally be consistent with the Government's energy policy aims. They would be likely to include renewable energy projects, including energy from waste, in support of the Government's intention to launch a strong drive on renewables; proposals using clean coal technology; and fitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment.
"We would take the same energy policy approach when considering existing and new notifications under Section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 relating to the construction of gas-fired power stations. This would apply whether or not consent had been given under the Electricity Act.
"The consultation document gives further details of our proposals, including on notifications under Section 14(2) of the Energy Act 1976, dual firing power stations and black start units.
"Decisions on individual applications for consents under Section 36 of the Electricity Act and notifications under Section 14 of the Energy Act will take into account all the circumstances of the particular case. In particular, in applying the new
382
policy to cases which are already before me, I would take care to weigh carefully the impact on the interests of the promoters against the wider public interest.
"The policy I am proposing today should lead to substantially lower electricity prices by promoting genuine competition and efficiency. It would also safeguard diversity and security while we, with the regulator, press on with making the market work. There have been suggestions that in the absence of restrictions, real falls in wholesale electricity prices of at least 10 per cent. should be possible in the medium term. My hope and expectation is that prices will in fact fall under our proposed policy by even more than this. While the new consents policy is in place, I have asked the DGES to continue to monitor electricity prices and alert me to any further concerns he may have.
"Coal purchase decisions are, as I have said, a matter for the generators. But if UK coal, including Scottish and Welsh coal, can be competitive on price and other terms of supply, I see no reason why it cannot have a very positive future in the electricity generation market. Achieving that success is a matter for the management and workforce of coal producers.
"Decisions on any pit closures would also be a matter for coal producers. However, in the event of any closures taking place, this Government are firmly committed to taking early action to put effective regeneration programmes in place. Consideration will be given to establishing a regeneration fund to help affected communities.
"My right honourable friends are reviewing separately the planning policies for opencast coal developments in England, Scotland and Wales in the light of the pre-election 10-point plan, environmental and local concerns and relevant conclusions of this review. They expect to announce proposals following the final outcome of this review.
"Safeguarding the environment is a priority for the Government. Sulphur dioxide emissions from the major electricity generators in England and Wales are already programmed to fall to 365 kilotonnes in 2005. This target, and significant interim reductions, must be achieved.
"We believe that coal-fired generators should take all reasonable steps to run their plant with flue gas desulphurisation more than their plant without it. And major coal-fired generators should be encouraged to have at least one FGD-equipped plant.
"Against this background, the Environment Agency will be discussing with generators its proposals for revision of emission limits. We expect these discussions to encompass the implications of this announcement, such as for the likely lifetime and usage of coal-fired power stations and policy on flue gas desulphurisation.
"On climate change, the Government remain committed to achieving their targets. Our policy remains consistent with a decline in carbon emissions from the electricity generating industry. We shall be consulting this summer on meeting our legally

383
binding Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent. cut in greenhouse gas emissions and on how we can move beyond that towards our own aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010.
"The proposals I have made today are open for consultation until Monday 20th July, and we intend to announce our conclusions shortly thereafter. Until then, I propose to defer decisions on power station consents and notifications; where decisions are necessary and should not be deferred, I propose to apply the proposals announced today, subject to the circumstances of each particular case.
"A consultation document, with full details of our proposals, is published today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.28 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. We on these Benches are not surprised by the content of the Statement as it is largely a reiteration of the difficulty in which the Government find themselves. That stems from a romantic attachment to the coal industry.
According to the report of the Select Committee in another place, it took the Government six months to realise that they did not have an energy policy. It has taken them a further six months to make this Statement, which is entirely "stopgap". The only decision made appears to be to continue the Section 36 moratorium, except for CHP projects. Does the Minister agree that, yet again, there is this short-term decision which does not allow industry to undertake long-term planning? When will the Government make a substantive decision?
The electricity pool trading arrangement has already delivered a 21 per cent. reduction in the cost of electricity but, at the same time, emissions have also been severely reduced. However, the pool can clearly benefit from further improvements in the light of experience. There is no indication as to how that may be achieved although it is the key policy initiative that is required.
Unfortunately, the Government do not appear to have grasped or understood the basic laws of physics and chemistry. Gas turbines are "internal combustion engines" which are thermo-dynamically more efficient than steam driven coal-fired equipment. Indeed, some gas turbine plants can be 60 per cent. efficient. The ratio of hydrogen to carbon is much more advantageous with natural gas than with coal. As a result, more water and less harmful CO2 is produced when burning natural gas. In addition, coal contains sulphur which produces harmful SO2 emissions, although they have fallen overall by 25 per cent. at least with the dash for gas.
I am sure that the Minister will accept those facts. But does he agree that, as the policy increases coal burn, it will also increase SO2 and CO2 emissions? The SO2 emissions can be cleaned with expensive FGDS
384
equipment, but also there is nothing that the Minister can do about CO2 emissions. In that context, does the Minister agree that paragraph 27 of the Statement is extremely weak? It states:
"We believe that coal-fired generators should take all reasonable steps to run their plant with flue gas desulphurisation more than their plant without it".
Will the Minister assure the House that the Environment Agency will not be allowed to relax emission limits?
The Section 36 moratorium is not to be lifted but instead, the Government will generally find that,
"new natural gas-fired generation would normally be inconsistent with our energy policy concerns relating to diversity and security".
Does the Minister agree that that flies in the face of the considered view of the Labour-dominated Select Committee in another place? Its recent report states quite clearly that diversity and security of supply is not a problem. Indeed, if anything, matters have improved over recent years. Does the Minister agree also that that will result in a field day for lawyers attempting to secure Section 36 approvals? I have already heard from one generating company which is considering legal advice and action.
The Government will claim that they have increased the market for coal, but what is to stop the generators from importing more economical, low-sulphur fuel from abroad? In any event, they may have to import some coal to mix with high sulphur UK deep-mined coal in order to meet the SO2 emissions limits per unit of electricity. That will increase CO2 emissions still further.
Why should the generators decide to act like turkeys voting for Christmas and agree to sell their moth-balled power stations to others, desirable though it may be for competition? To be quite blunt, what will be in it for them?
In the Statement, it is claimed that wholesale electricity prices will fall by at least 10 per cent. in the medium term. That is the spin which will be given to the Statement. But how is the "medium term" defined and what do the Government understand to be the current wholesale price?
The Government do not appear to understand the damage that they are inflicting on British industry, including the coal industry, with their policy, or lack of one. A highly polluting sunset industry is being supported at the expense of a clean, new, high technology industry. Does the Minister not understand that more employment and inward investment is being put in jeopardy than can be saved in the coal industry?
This Statement is extremely disappointing because the Government have done absolutely nothing to dispel uncertainty in the industry. Does the Minister agree that in the first 12 months of office it would have been better to have arranged for the overhaul of the electricity pool and the setting of durable emission limits, and then allow market forces to provide the security, diversity and sustainable energy at the lowest cost?
5.35 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. Before I comment on it and

385
ask questions, I should remind the House that I have worked in the energy sector for many years and am still actively involved therein.
The Government have had to face a very difficult task in tackling the problem of reviewing energy sources for power generation. They have had to try to reconcile on the one hand their desire to improve the prospects for coal with which, in view of my past activities, I fully sympathise and to do that by removing the distortions which they have identified in the market place and to aim for diversity of supply. But, at the same time, there is a need to avoid undue interference in market competition and to safeguard the environment. Those are three very difficult issues to reconcile.
Unlike the noble Earl, I feel that on the whole the Government have made a reasonable attempt to deal with the matter but there is still a long way to go. There are a number of questions which may well be asked. First—and I am with the noble Earl on this—I have pressed on other occasions for the Government to come out with an overall energy policy. This is one part of the energy scene, albeit a major one. But it is important that there should be an overall statement of energy policy within which these various individual reviews can be considered.
Secondly, there is the question of the review of the pool. That will be a very complex issue. How long will it take? The longer it takes, the more uncertainty it will create within the electricity generation and supply industry. Therefore, that is a review which it was undoubtedly necessary to carry out but it is extremely important that the results should be applied as soon as possible.
The Statement referred to the divestment of coal-fired power stations, which the noble Earl mentioned. I should like to know on what terms these will be offered in the market place. The plants are all written down. They were written down substantially at the time of privatisation and have probably been written down a good deal more since. Will they be offered at something reflecting their written-down values or at what the generators disposing of them consider to be their market values? Obviously that will be a key issue on whether those plants can be operated effectively and competitively on coal.
Then there is the interim period during which the consents will be restricted. I was extremely pleased to note the exception made for combined heat and power plants. But that period of restriction will obviously be undesirable if projected beyond a relatively limited period. The Government accept, by the general wording of the report, that that will be an interim measure. It is linked with the other measures which have been mentioned and so it is important to have some idea of how long that interim period will last.
Finally, on the question of the environment, great emphasis is made in the Statement of the Government's continued commitment to their environmental objectives. As regards coal, its longer term prospects are closely linked with clean coal technology to which reference is made in the report. But there is no indication of the way in which the development of clean
386
coal technology will be advanced. In my opinion what is now needed is a large-scale demonstration plant. As far as I am aware, there is no provision made for that. Is this something which the Government have in mind?
5.39 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whose contribution to the coal industry is one of great repute and well deserved. I am most grateful for the physics lesson given by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. That takes me back. It is important that he should explain such matters. I shall attend his tutorials in due course. This subject is not my main remit in the Department of Trade and Industry but I am grateful for the thought that he has applied to his response to the Statement.
To talk in terms of a romantic attachment to the coal industry is a little misplaced. Human tragedies are associated with the dramatic run-down of the coal industry. Not so long ago there were 280,000 miners; today there are just over 12,000. That is associated with the collapse of communities, aspirations, desires and hopes. We should not dissociate ourselves from that. To talk of a romantic attachment to the coal industry is not the way that I should have thought we would want to consider these matters.
The noble Earl said that gas turbines are more efficient than coal and cleaner. We as a Government have made it clear that our proposals are not inconsistent with our targets. The noble Earl said that paragraph 27 of the Statement is weak. He asked me to assure the House that the Environment Agency would not relax the limits. The Environment Agency is an independent body. It will discuss these matters with the generators and it will set the limits. As I have said, our proposals are not inconsistent with the targets that we have already established.
The noble Earl asked why generators should buy United Kingdom coal. That is a commercial matter for the generators. Our proposals are designed—I think the noble Lord missed this—to "derig" a rigged market. We believe that the United Kingdom will be able to compete. The United Kingdom coal industry has repeatedly said that it wants fairness and not favours, as was mentioned in the Statement. The noble Earl asked about the report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee. It is not appropriate for me to give a considered answer to the points raised in that report. We shall do so in due course. That is in accordance with precedent.
The noble Earl asked many questions. I did my best to note them down but I was a little overcome. I believe he said that gas is a clean, high tech industry and our proposals would impair investment. However, new gas investment is effectively being subsidised by the consumer. That is hardly a sensible arrangement. I hardly noticed any comment from the noble Earl as regards the current unfairness and how the market is rigged against coal. The Statement mentions the evidence that the Government have relied on to come to that conclusion. It is noticeable that there was an

387
ambivalent response to the Statement by the shadow Secretary of State in another place when he shed some crocodile tears over coal. Yet at the same time the shadow Minister here sheds no crocodile tears and hardly refers to the value of the coal industry.
I turn now to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. He is right to say that we face a difficult task. Securing a balance here is a formidable challenge. We have made a reasonable start to that. Some complaint was made about delay. The Opposition when in government imposed this incredibly complex and unfair system upon the energy industry of this country. Some were able to take advantage of it but others were not. Others were plainly disadvantaged. We seek a fair, unrigged market. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would share that view. He asked me how long the review will take. The DGES will announce details of the full review next month. I cannot go beyond that for obvious reasons.
The noble Lord asked about clean coal and a demonstration plant. We are working with the industry on relevant research and development but no firm proposals have yet been put forward for a demonstration plant. The most likely option is fundamentally American. The noble Lord has put his finger on an important point. We shall certainly look further into that issue. I am most grateful for his comments.
The noble Earl asked about the sale of mothballed plant. We have made it clear that we shall seek practical opportunities for divestment of coal-fired plant by the generators. They will, of course, seek a fair price for their mothballed assets.
I believe I have dealt with most of the points that were raised. I shall certainly examine what has been said. I thank both the noble Earl and the noble Lord for the contributions they have made this afternoon.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. As he said, this is an exceedingly difficult area and the problems which the present administration inherited are serious ones. Will my noble friend comment on some of the wilder observations which have been made over recent weeks, many of which are not particularly well informed? Will he request the Official Opposition to be absolutely clear about their position? Do they seriously expect to see the British coal industry completely eradicated and our highly technologically advanced mining engineering industry virtually wiped out in a world where vast quantities of coal will be burnt, and perhaps not burnt cleanly if there is no base on which to improve the technology?
Does my noble friend accept that the Government's efforts to provide a future for coal, and therefore a broader base for the British energy requirement, deserve to be applauded? One hopes that they will maintain their efforts not only to ensure that the playing field is level, but also to ensure that that field is clean and green.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I remember his clear dedication and
388
commitment over many years when we were both in another place to the welfare of the people who served in the coal industry.
I do not know where to start in relation to the wilder observations in the media. I shall not take up the time of the House in seeking to rebut such a wide, disparate and negative component of argument, if it may be so termed, as has been displayed over recent weeks.
We have been accused, even in this House today, of delay. But when one thinks of the inheritance to which my noble friend alluded, it takes time to begin to unravel those complexities and injustices. We have not received any evidence of a determination to deal with that position from the noble Earl today. I believe that it was his party's intention to cause severe injury to the coal industry. There were an amalgam of reasons for that, most of them ideological and certainly political. What we now seek to achieve is a policy that offers fair competition for all fuels and an end to the unfair discrimination against coal that has persisted for so long. We need a range of fossil and non-fossil sources. It would be wrong to see a total dependence on gas. So it is a balanced market with different fuels competing fairly within an environmental framework that has been set by the Government. I believe that that is the way forward. I thank my noble friend for his constructive observations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on bringing forward this Statement on energy policy, which is presently a very complex area. It exercises many minds up and down the country. I assure my noble friend that those of us who were brought up in mining areas and whose fathers were miners have no romantic attachment to the coal industry. However, we do realise that it is still an important part of our energy source and indeed has strategic value. Wars have not gone away forever. It would be very difficult to extract North Sea gas in a period of war, although it would be possible to extract coal if we had any deep coal mines left. So we have to examine the strategic value of coal as well as its existing commercial value.
I wish to ask my noble friend one or two questions about future assistance for the coal industry. It is not unrespectable for the Government to give assistance to a particular industry which has a value, both strategic and commercial, particularly since that industry has been denied finance for research over a long period of time. Do the Government intend to assist in alternative coal technologies such as the fluidised bed system of firing power stations? Are we to go in for gasification of coal, as they do in the United States? That would completely answer the question put by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in relation to the overall efficiency of coal-fired gas turbines and natural gas. It is possible to gasify coal and use the gas in power stations to provide electricity. So there are some very good reasons why the coal industry should be supported and why we should bring it up to modern standards. One final important

389
question is: how many years of natural gas supply is still available to us? That ought to figure in the thinking of the Government and the country.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his contribution. I am aware of his familial background in relation to the coal industry. We served together in another place over many years.
My noble friend is right in saying that the coal industry remains a very important, indeed vital, energy source for this country. As he says, it has a strategic value. However, as I said earlier, the coal industry is not looking to the Government for subsidies or support of that kind. It is not looking for favours; it is looking for fairness.
So far as concerns alternative coal technology, that is an industry where a great deal of time and money has been spent on research and development. I am sure that will continue, and it is to be encouraged.
Fluidised bed technology is mainly a US technology, and is not to be disparaged for that reason. I have indicated the sort of progress that can be made in that regard. Gasification is an area where we should welcome proposals from the industry. I certainly do not claim to be nearly as expert in this field as the noble Earl with his background and his extraordinary knowledge of physics. But of course he is much younger than I am and learnt physics rather more recently.
I cannot tell my noble friend how many years of natural gas we have available. However, I shall be happy to write to him on the matter.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, why does the report ignore that part of the United Kingdom where energy prices are at their highest for both the consumer and commerce, a part of the United Kingdom with the greatest need for inward investment and with the greatest number of people per capita on social benefits? I refer to Northern Ireland.
There is a proposed link from Scotland to Northern Ireland in the power field. That policy will affect the Northern Ireland generators. Yet it would seem that there has been no mention of that, and no plan has been proposed. That will make it very difficult for people to invest in energy in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister explain where the future lies in that area?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House is well aware of the noble Baroness's contribution to the affairs of Northern Ireland. She remains very much concerned about that part of our country. The way in which we deal with Northern Ireland in the context that we are discussing today is a matter for the Northern Ireland Office and not the Department of Trade and Industry. I am sure that that department will take into account the points made by the noble Baroness.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, speaking as a member of the science and technology sub-committee examining the management of nuclear waste, is the Minister prepared to comment on the Government's policy for future nuclear generation, bearing in mind
390
that it has an important part to play in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide and other carbons released into the atmosphere?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. Future nuclear generation is not dealt with in this report. We have no plans to develop that particular aspect of industry. No doubt it is an issue to which we shall return in due course in the context of energy policy.

Digital Images as Evidence: Science and Technology Committee Reports
5.59 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley Lord Craig of Radley rose to move, That this House take note of the reports of the Science and Technology Committee on Digital Images as Evidence (5th Report, HL Paper 64), and Digital Images as Evidence: Government Response (8th Report, HL Paper 121).
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate. The subject of our report, Digital Images as Evidence, led us into a far broader spectrum of topics than a purely scientific or technological scrutiny of digital systems might reveal. We therefore co-opted to our subcommittee a wide range of skills and expertise. We were most ably supported by a former Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner; by a Bishop, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester; and by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, who has a remarkable wealth of knowledge of imaging and photography. They and our other co-opted member, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who is no stranger to our committee, brought knowledge and insight which were of the greatest value to us. I should like to put on record my appreciation and heartfelt thanks for the help, support and guidance which I enjoyed from them and all committee members.
As always, the Committee Office, and in particular Dr. Rolt, our Clerk, and Dr. Bradshaw, our special assistant, contributed greatly to the preparation and finalising of our report. As specialist adviser we had Mr. Chris Reed, Reader in Information Technology Law at Queen Mary and Westfield College. As his title suggests, he was most ably qualified, and we are grateful for his many contributions to our work.
Our meetings started in late October 1997. We set ourselves a tight timetable. We took all our evidence and considered our report in just over three months, which included the Christmas Recess. It was published in early February of this year.
One of the important drivers to getting our report completed was the new Data Protection Bill. We knew that the Government would be introducing it in the course of this Session, and in fact it appeared here on 16th January, as our report was being finalised. It cannot often happen that a Select Committee report will coincide with the early stages of an important Bill to which it is so closely related. The Data Protection Bill has to become law by October this year to give effect to the 1995 EC data protection directive. Our recommendations are therefore timely.
It is unfortunate that the very short notice of the date of this debate has precluded a number of committee members from participating tonight. I know that they regret this, as do I. In their absence, I shall do my best to highlight the main thrust of our recommendations.
We received an excellent response to our call for evidence and are most grateful to all those who, either orally or in writing, or both, provided us with the evidence we needed. We were also able to see for ourselves examples of some of the new technologies in use. Our visits to the City of London police, the Greater Manchester police and the Forensic Science Service, for example, were most ably organised and informative.
I do not propose to go through all of our report and recommendations in detail. Suffice it to say that they have been welcomed and generally supported by the Government. In only a couple of instances has there been some variation between us, and in the time available I shall concentrate on those. I should add that the committee is grateful for the way in which the Government have responded. In particular, we appreciate the trouble taken by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, at a very busy time for him, in replying in greater detail to those points which we felt had an impact on the new Data Protection Bill.
To appreciate the thrust of our recommendations, it is perhaps necessary to know why a digital image can be different from other captured and stored information. We have set out the facts in Chapter 2 of our report. The key point is that digital technology allows repetitive and identical replicas of text, still and motion pictures, and even sound to be generated from digitally stored information.
It is also becoming increasingly easy to modify or "doctor" such stored information. Without a comprehensive audit trail, it may not be possible to determine whether information captured at the start is the same as that which is being presented as evidence. We were interested in exploring whether this feature of digital technology would alter or affect the reliability and credibility of evidence which had been collected and/or held in digital format. We decided that our study should be centred on photographic-like images and bounded on one side by documents and on the other by closed circuit television (CCTV) and video. We also wished to explore how familiar those who used and relied on digital evidence were with the unique features of this relatively new technology. We have made a number of recommendations, which we hope the appropriate legal authorities will follow up.
One of the many implications of the use of digitally recorded images is that the erstwhile reliance in court on paper and photographic originals, or authenticated copies of these, will no longer always be feasible. For example, the national automated fingerprint identification system has no original paper source to retrieve as best evidence. Nor will there always be a digital original which recorded the scene or event. The digital camera which records a red traffic light infringement, for example, will download from its temporary store into a computer. The original captured
392
image in the camera's memory will be overwritten when a subsequent infringement is recorded. No visible or readable information will be available from it thereafter once it is overwritten.
However, provided that appropriate verification and authentication measures of digital material are in place, paper originals will rarely be necessary. Yet we found that there may still be reluctance to come to terms with this development. For that reason we recommended that the Government should encourage the appropriate legal authorities to draw greater attention to the fact that paper originals were rarely necessary. Although the Government agreed with this recommendation, they went on to comment that retention of the original digital file, captured from the original paper or other source, is highly desirable, if not essential. It seems that we still have some way to go before we can escape from a presumption that there will always be such a thing as a unique, original digital file. As we say in the summary of our report:
"many people think there will he difficulty in obtaining legal acceptance of digital images. And many who understand there is no legal problem fail to appreciate fully the potential for tampering that the technology creates. The perceived difficulties mean that opportunities are missed—a reluctance to use digital imaging technology or to dispose of paper records, for example—and the failure to understand fully the process means that too great a reliance can be placed on photographic or video evidence. The doubts and scepticism normally associated with unsubstantiated pieces of paper may be suspended when confronted with a very believable picture".
Yet that picture can be a fake, undetectable without an audit trail.
The other topic on which there was much agreement between the Select Committee and the Government, but some points of variance, was that of closed circuit television. We had not originally thought to widen our inquiry to issues of privacy and civil liberties—that is not normal for a committee considering science and technology—but the evidence we received made us realise the ubiquity of modern surveillance systems, and particularly closed circuit television. More and more of them cover our streets and other places to which the public has access. We were concerned to learn from some of our witnesses that public acceptance could be fragile. Approval for the use of surveillance in public places is important. It should be maintained and encouraged.
Systems which help to deter crime and assist the authorities to catch and prosecute criminals should be widely valued. But if the material which those systems record appears in the media, where it is often used to amuse and even titillate, public support for the intrusive nature of the systems may be lost. On that we are on all fours with the Government. However, they were reluctant to take up our recommendation to study the cost-effectiveness of the systems. Considerable sums of public money are being devoted to them. We should not be relying so much on anecdotal and subjective judgment to substantiate such expenditure. I do not feel that the Government's response to this recommendation, which we saw as part of the measures necessary to sustain and enhance public support for CCTV systems, was that convincing. Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General will agree with us.
For the most part, it was clear that the Government and our committee were of the same mind about most of the steps we recommended to keep public support strong. We recommended a number of measures to control the installation of surveillance systems and their recordings. We envisaged some form of statutory enforcement code of practice. We were concerned about the control of data matching. That is where the new Data Protection Bill is so important.
In the course of the Committee stage of that Bill I, along with other members of the Select Committee, tabled a probing amendment to satisfy ourselves that the Bill as drafted would provide strong and effective safeguards for the public. I am no lawyer and recognise the drafting difficulties of using non-technology-specific language to achieve the desired results. Once again we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for the care with which they rehearsed their views and their confidence that the Bill as drafted would provide the safeguards that our Select Committee was seeking.
One of the difficulties is that the language of information technology is developing its own lexicon and dynamic; for example, extensive mark-up language—XML—will enable new software to be written which will select data and manipulate information in ways which had previously been impossible. Whether every new term and concept which is developed for information handling, matching and retrieval will be captured by the Bill, only time will tell. But it is encouraging that the strongly-held view of the committee on those intrusive aspects of the digital age find a close affinity in the Government's thinking and actions. I welcome that. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the reports of the Science and Technology Committee on Digital Images as Evidence (5th Report, HL Paper 64), and Digital Images as Evidence: Government Response (8th Report, HL Paper 121).—(Lord Craig of Radley.)
6.14 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I start by saying what a pleasure it was to sit under the chairmanship of my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley who kept us in order and particularly restrained some of us from straying beyond our terms of reference, which is extremely easy to do.
I propose to speak mainly about the civil liberties aspects of our inquiry and the Data Protection Bill, presently under consideration in another place. But, first, as the title of our report speaks of Digital Images as Evidence, it is important to emphasise the enormous benefits which have arisen from digital imaging in the conduct of litigation and arbitration, particularly in the commercial field, in the building and shipping industries and others involving heavy documentation.
In our inquiry we focused principally on criminal cases and the problems relating to evidence in the context of digital imaging. My noble gallant friend Lord Craig spoke of our conclusions and I shall therefore
394
refrain from doing so. But it would be a pity if, because of those problems, the enormous benefits of this technique were put in question.
Discovery—the disclosure to other parties of documents held by one—involves copying vast quantities of papers many times for solicitors, barristers and the court. It involves a great weight and volume of paper. Where the originals are paper documents, they can now be scanned and converted to digital images on computer. The exchange of documents, instead of involving the transfer of much paper, can be achieved by exchanging disks. In the proceedings a computer operator can throw up on request, on screen, the documents in question which are then available for all to read. That has the additional advantage that members of the public in court are able to see the documents under discussion which, hitherto, has not been practicable.
Exactly the same advantages arise in criminal cases, such as those involving fraud, where heavy documentation is involved. I am not aware of any problems or difficulties arising which offset the advantages of using digital imaging techniques in those contexts. So the matters on which we concentrated in our inquiry, important though we believe them to be, represent only one aspect of the use of digital imaging in legal proceedings.
The Government, in their response to our report, reacted affirmatively to our main concerns in relation to the use of CCTV in places to which the public have free access. Much of the burden of ensuring that the system is not misused will lie on the Data Protection Commissioner under the new Data Protection Act. Control over capturing images, secure storage and use of them, is essential, but not easily achieved.
Mr. John Burrow, Chief Constable of Essex and chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers' Working Group on Data Protection, in his evidence to us, mentioned the strong public pressure for CCTV systems. He felt—and I agree—that at the moment there is confidence in its use, but he believed that that confidence is "fragile" and could be reversed. The effectiveness and confidence in CCTV would then be lost.
As we mentioned in our report, some have been used to raise money by selling to the media; the potential for making money out of their use is always there. It may be claimed that publication is in the public interest. By contrast, a picture may be used for blackmail and, in view of the ease of manipulating pictures, to create them for that purpose. Upon request it is possible on a screen to track someone walking alone to provide a measure of protection. It is therefore possible to track a suspect. It is possible for an operator to track someone he wishes to meet for legal or illegal purposes.
There was widespread concern at the publication on a television programme showing pictures captured on CCTV relating to the attempted suicide by Mr. Peck. If, as a result of celebrated court cases or for some other reason, the public become aware of the potential for misuse—for public entertainment or otherwise—of pictures captured on CCTV (and indeed of the ease with

395
which images can be modified to make them represent something which the original did not)—public confidence will be undermined. The present enthusiasm to see CCTV installed would then be converted to hostility and opposition.
A balance has to be struck between the right of the individual to the freedom of privacy and the right of an individual to go about his business free from molestation. CCTV inevitably represents an intrusion into privacy.
One of my main worries during our inquiry related to the increasing use of CCTV surveillance by private businesses engaging others to instal and operate the system. That presents a rather different situation from a system operated by the police who are accustomed to establishing surveillance systems appropriately controlled and operated by their own staff subject to the discipline of the force. It is not the directors of a retail shop who will be involved in operating the CCTV system, though no doubt they will have a responsibility for the installation of appropriate controls. It is therefore the system and those actually operating it to which any controls must directly apply. So the control of those operating the systems is crucial and far from easy.
A question arises as to whether the purpose of the surveillance is to be closely defined and the images used only for that defined purpose. For instance, for the avoidance of terrorist attacks, a system was installed to great effect in the City of London. Only eight entries to the controlled area were open and so many streets giving access were made one-way. Surveillance showed a number of delivery vans reversing up them. I saw them on the surveillance screens! They were caught for this traffic offence. Of course it may be said that this was all part of the security regime and the vans might have been trying to defeat the purpose of the ban on entry. But by use of number plate identification stolen cars were identified together with their occupants, and car theft was therefore brought within the scope of the system. So what started as an entirely acceptable system created in special circumstances has turned into general crime prevention. All this demonstrates the need for close supervision of the operators of CCTV systems with a view to ensuring that the public have confidence in them.
The Commissioner of Data Protection will need all the support of government they can give. With further advances in technology—and perhaps its misuse—government must be ready to intervene speedily. I hope the noble Lord the Minister will confirm that that would be the Government's intention should those circumstances arise.
In their response to our report and in the accompanying letter from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, published with it, the Government have been very supportive of most of the conclusions we reached. But the additional duties of the Commissioner of Data Protection, which I greatly welcome, will impose great burdens upon her. She must promote good practice, issue codes of practice and encourage others to do so. She may get involved in assessing processing of personal data for compliance.
396
Processing includes capture, storage and use of data, as well as destruction. She can require information if she suspects breach of the data protection principles and may enter premises to carry out inspections and indeed seizures.
These are all most welcome and will go far to satisfy and forestall public worries about digital imaging and CCTV. But the staff which the commissioner will require to carry out these new duties—additional to those of the registrar under the 1984 Act—would seem to be substantial and their effectiveness will depend on their high quality. The cost is likely to be substantial. Yet the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, under Financial Effects, says:
"The costs in a full year of the Data Protection Commissioner and his office, together with the Tribunal, are estimated to be £3.7 million at current prices".
Can this be right?
My concern is that the excellent arrangements set out in the Bill will work effectively. I have seen in other contexts excellent arrangements being stultified by inadequate funding. I hope the noble Lord the Minister may reassure us that that will not happen in this case.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, there seems to be a strange phalanx from the Cross-Benches speaking in this debate. I am very grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for introducing the debate, for co-opting me onto the committee and for the words he said about my assistance to the committee. I at once declare an interest in that I am a member of the Royal Photographic Society and of the British Photographers Liaison Committee. I had assistance and guidance from both those bodies while I was working on the committee, but I am in no way personally affected by anything that is mentioned in the report. As I am talking about photography, perhaps I may say that I found it helpful that, in addition to our two major assistants, the Clerk had a knowledge of photography and he and I understood some of the technical terms I brought forward to the committee. I believed that that helped him in the preparation of the report.
I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, with regard to closed circuit television. I shall look at the question of the audit trail and draw on the fact that I attended a medical and forensic imaging symposium in Bath at the beginning of April which looked at digital imaging in the presentation of evidence from and in digital form and the management of evidence digitally. I shall conclude with a question to the Minister to the effect that to do what I am suggesting will require equipping the courts with a number of devices, either permanently or on hire, for particular trials.
In paragraph 3.24 of the report we quote Lord Taylor, who said that,
"as technology develops, evidential practice will need to be evolved to accommodate it. Whilst the Courts must be vigilant to ensure that no unfairness results, they should not block steps which enable the jury to gain full assistance from the technology".
I believe that the jury should be given this full assistance so that the court itself can see the evidence on a screen. At the conference I mentioned there were about 150 of

397
us in a room. There were two screens, a computer projector, two slide projectors and a video projector, all of which were visible to the 150 people. This meant that the presentation could be understood clearly.
Going back to the need for an audit trail, even with photography some 40 years ago images could be manipulated just as they can now be manipulated digitally. The only difference was that it took time. You had to get the exposure right and you had to develop the print, but it had an advantage because you were doing it in this way. You noted down what you had done and therefore you had a written audit trail. A computer can do exactly the same thing at the movement of a mouse or at the click of a button. Although you have a record on the screen, if you do not save it you do not know what you have done; and you certainly do not record how it has been adjusted. However, as I shall explain in a moment, if you then recall the various series of images in front of a jury, you can show the audit trail.
A specific case was demonstrated to us at the symposium. An expert showed us how bite marks could be identified from impressions of teeth. But he first showed us how to take an impression from the jaw and get a photograph of the teeth. He then showed us how a dentist, a forensic scientist and a "man in the street", using a felt-tip pen, tried to trace the bite marks on the screen on a piece of film. They achieved widely differing results. He then gave them exactly the same images with a computer program. All three of them got as near as maybe identical images. What is more, he then asked a computer literate member of the audience to come up, and he did exactly the same thing. So you can show the original image of the teeth and then show the zone which was the bite mark.
Then he showed us the image—I believe it was on a face, but it does not matter where on the body—of the bite that had occurred. He was then able to call back the file of the bite on the jaw, the "teeth marks"; move it round the screen; tilt it slightly and show how it matched. That was done almost within the time that I have been explaining it. The idea of having to produce these photographs to the jury, have them slide a film over the original photographic image of the bite mark and things like that, would take half to three-quarters of an hour as opposed to five minutes. I believe that this is a cost effective way of doing things.
There are other ways. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, explained, we saw how the images could be constructed using a programme known as "Photo Shop". I saw exactly the same sort of thing. In America there was an original photograph where you could not see the number plate of the car; you could not see that there was another car in the hedge in the background and things like that. But, using digital imaging in front of us at that symposium, the contrast and the colours had been changed and the number could be identified. Exactly what had happened to the car in the background was clearly visible. That was using an ordinary film camera and then digitally imaging it. Again, it was done in front of us.
At this conference, besides the forensic scientists, there were also police officers. In conversation over lunch with them—again allied to my final request about
398
equipment—they complained that some of them had put highly sophisticated closed circuit and interviewing equipment in their interview rooms, but, unfortunately, when it came to presenting it in court, the standard of the equipment available was not adequate to get all the nuances.
What I am saying is this. The Government have already supported the major parts of our report. I ask them to find enough money to equip enough courts. It does not need to be every court. On some occasions it may be necessary just to hire the equipment for part of a trial. I can see it being highly cost effective in reducing the trial time enabling the Forensic Science Service, the Crown Prosecution Service and expert witnesses, who will have viewed it beforehand, to come to some agreement on the significant aspects of the case and, secondly, having had it presented clearly, the jury will understand the expert witness much better.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for introducing this fascinating topic. I also congratulate those who preceded me for their report. It is very intimidating to face the wealth of experience and knowledge which has gone into producing a report of this nature. I can only speak from personal experience in the courts themselves.
It would be wrong for anyone to think that the courts do not keep up with technological developments. The general acceptance of DNA evidence has proved to be crucial and has led to safer and easier convictions in the courts. There are all sorts of experts. There is one gentleman, a very senior biologist, who can be seen at various courts around the country because of his expertise in maggots. His evidence is used to establish the time or date of death in certain cases. I was fascinated by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, to teeth marks. Perhaps the Rugby Football Union at Twickenham might be very interested in such proposals. I speak as a Welsh rugby referee.
However, the enhancement of images must be treated with some caution because there is a problem in differentiating between enhancement and manipulation. I have personal experience of a case involving the enhancement of a CCTV film covering a street scene not very far from where your Lordships are sitting. The camera recorded, at a distance, images of the attack on, and the death of, an individual. The kicking took place at some distance from the camera. The enhancement of the images was so effective it also enhanced the memory of the defendants who pleaded guilty to manslaughter without a trial being necessary. That is an example of where the enhancement of imaging led to convictions.
Since there is the danger of manipulation it is essential that there should be regulation. I go so far as to say that no evidence should be received in court in the form of an enhanced video or image, save one that has been produced by a licensed authority, whether it be the forensic services or one of the private firms which would apply for licences. The methods and controls

399
operated in the production of enhanced images of this nature would be investigated. That would go a long way to assisting in the problem of authentication.
The noble Lord, Lord Brain, also referred to the importance of the audit trail. With a properly regulated body investigating matters of this sort, I am sure that courts could be satisfied that the proper procedures had been followed and the evidence was acceptable.
I turn to the issue of CCTV in public spaces. I do not doubt for a moment that crime is deterred by surveillance over public areas that such CCTV systems provide. I am quite sure that they induce a sense of security in the people who use town centres and public spaces. It is said—but as the report points out, without any concrete evidence—that crime may be displaced from the areas that are covered by such systems to other areas. In the absence of positive proof that that does occur, it seems to me that the advantages of the sense of security induced by CCTV systems outweigh that possibility. If advantages are to be gained from CCTV, again it is necessary to ensure that proper controls are in place.
I was particularly struck by the Local Government Information Unit code of practice, which was annexed to the report and which provides in terms that recorded material must not be sold or used for commercial purposes. In my view, it would be entirely wrong for CCTV films to be used for entertainment or even for educational purposes because the potential infringement of people's liberty is so great.
Although in paragraphs 4.11 and 4.14 of their response the Government seem to be satisfied that the new Data Protection Bill will provide a regulatory framework to some degree, I note that the introduction of statutory regulation for all operations involving CCTV systems is to be considered in the future. If such systems are to be widely used throughout the country, it seems to me that it is necessary now to develop the necessary controls. The national licensing scheme, which the Government say that they are considering as an option, is, in my view, essential if we are to ensure that the systems are used properly.
There is much in both the report and the response to be considered. I commend again the authors of the report for the comprehensive way in which they have dealt with a most serious problem.
6.41 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on his report. Thanks must also be offered to the Government for their considered response. I am, as it were, the first of the two laymen to speak in this debate. We have already heard from three speakers who were members of the Select Committee which produced the report and from a lawyer. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, and I are neither lawyers nor members of that committee.
The first time most of us come across cameras being used to provide evidence is when we are caught speeding. It has certainly happened to me. I got a letter one day which was a notice of intention to prosecute
400
and which stated that I had been driving at 40-something miles per hour in a 30 mph zone and asking me whether that was the case. I wrote back saying that it could easily be the case, but that I had absolutely no idea of whether or not it was the case and I asked whether the police could kindly send me a copy of the photograph so that I would at least be likely to know. I received back a very nice letter saying, "It is far too expensive to send a copy of the picture", but that I could call in at a police station to see the photograph. I wrote back, saying that perhaps the police would let me know when it was convenient to do so. I duly went to the police station, and there was a photograph of me in my car travelling at 47 mph, or whatever, and I said, "Thank you very much".
That brought home to me the fact that in such circumstances we are confronted by the fact that we are guilty—one is probably guilty—without having known about it. The installation of digital technology has the advantage that when the prosecuting authorities decide to send one a notice of intention to prosecute, they could presumably also send one something showing one that one is guilty. If one drives up and down the same stretch of road every day, it is confusing two-and-half or three months later to be asked whether on any particular day one was driving at more than 30 mph.
I read the report with great interest. Various themes arise from it. One concern about digital technology is that it is a fairly new technology. There is not necessarily an original. I noted that in the report Abbey National said that alterations could not be made to the digital copy, but that annotations could be added in the form of overlays. However, later in the report (paragraph 2.6) it is stated that there is concern because such changes can be made and are almost impossible to detect. I have asked a few computer wizards about what is possible and, as far as I understand it, one can do almost anything with a computer and it is almost impossible for anybody to know what has been done. The report states that the timing mechanisms used are often inaccurate. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, referred to the audit trail. Such developments are vital before the public and the courts can feel satisfied about this new technology. Presumably, fingerprints can be stored digitally, but the question is: should the original also be kept?
One must always remember not to be bowled over by scientific evidence. There have been some quite famous trials in recent British legal history in which, as a result of the scientific evidence, people were sent to prison for conspiracy to cause explosions. A number of years later, that evidence was shown to be wrong and the courts threw it out. I repeat that it was supposed to be clear scientific evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to manipulation and to enhancement. Enhancement is, in effect, a form of alteration. Although it is carried out for a perfectly respectable purpose, it is nevertheless alteration. I agree totally with the noble Lord that perhaps there should be a licensing authority. It is important that if an image is enhanced, at the very least everybody should know that it was enhanced, how it was enhanced, and who enhanced it.

401
Scientific evidence, whether based on digital technology or DNA, is constantly moving forward. Science can now produce evidence that was never available to us in the past. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, the courts are used to this and they deal with it all the time. However, we must remember not to be misled and not to assume that because a scientist says, "This is it", he is necessarily right. Science is often wrong, so there must be safeguards.
I turn now to CCTV in public areas and to the concerns about invasion of privacy. The previous government encouraged the use of CCTV in public places and its use has, indeed, returned public places to the public for their benefit. That is clear. The use of CCTV has worked. I am not sure of the evidence about it displacing crime, but it has certainly made many town centres safer places. However, that has created separate problems, such as the questions of how we deal with the images and who is responsible for them.
I sat through the Committee stage of the Data Protection Bill, which is shortly to return to your Lordships' House, as did the noble and gallant Lord in part. The Government clearly said that CCTV is covered by the Data Protection Act. It must be right that the images that are held are not used for gain or sold to be shown on television without some form of control, whether by health authorities, councils or local authorities. Someone must take responsibility for that.
There was one area of the report on which the Government disagreed somewhat with the Select Committee. That concerned the encouragement of legal bodies to draw greater attention to changes. I support the Government's response to the recommendation of the Select Committee that evidence should not necessarily be inadmissible because it does not conform to some specific technological requirement. I believe that great care must be taken in this area, and I agree with the Government's response.
To return to the Data Protection Bill, that measure will provide a statutory code that will be extremely important. Noble Lords are aware that it will be possible to have data matching in a way that affects our private lives. We do not know how the advances will be used. The Data Protection Bill is an important element in that. This report is an important addition to the debate on the Data Protection Bill. The report is a very good one and I congratulate all members of the committee. Thanks should go to the Government for their considered reply to the report. I welcome both documents.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, as was said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the Government greatly welcome the report of the Select Committee. It has helped to clarify the key issues on the use of digital images as evidence. The Government are most grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for the work that his committee has undertaken. The committee's recommendations have been largely accepted by the Government, in particular that consideration be given to removing the uncertainty surrounding the use of digital images as evidence.
402
The Government also support the use of CCTV surveillance in public places to help tackle crime and disorder. However, the Government share the committee's view that to be successful CCTV schemes must command the confidence and support of the local community. These systems must be deployed and operated with integrity and respect for personal privacy and civil liberties. The Government also share the view of the committee that CCTV material should be used for the detection of crime and the prosecution of offenders. I say to the noble Viscount that the Government deplore the sale of CCTV material for entertainment purposes.
Until now CCTV has been subject to voluntary regulation through locally adopted codes of practice. While model codes such as those developed by the Local Government Information Service are now widely accepted, the Government accept that there is a need to underpin good practice in law. The Government believe that the controls available under the Data Protection Bill will be able to address the Select Committee's main concerns in relation to CCTV systems. Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill gives effect, among other things, to the 1995 EC Directive on Data Protection. It also builds on the tried and tested regime established under the Data Protection Act 1984. However, one of the problems with the 1984 Act is that because of the limitations in some of its key definitions, many CCTV systems fall outside the scope of its control. We believe that the far wider definitions in the Data Protection Bill are sufficiently broad to encompass not only the sophisticated types of CCTV systems, as did the 1984 Act, but much simpler equipment that merely projects images of identifiable individuals passing a shop window without actually recording.
In practice it means that the controllers of CCTV systems have to notify details of their processing to the Data Protection Commissioner (as the Data Protection Registrar will henceforth be known) and comply with eight enforceable data protection principles. Among other things, the principles require personal data to be processed—a term that encompasses obtaining, holding, use and disclosure—fairly and lawfully and not to be further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes.
The Bill gives the commissioner wider enforcement powers. I believe that that has been sought in the debate tonight. In particular, I single out the fact that the commissioner will no longer have to wait for a complaint before beginning an investigation. She will also have power to issue codes of practice and encourage other bodies to do so. There will also be a duty placed on the commissioner to advise on the adequacy of codes submitted to her for consideration and power will be given to the Secretary of State to direct the commissioner by order to prepare codes of practice.
I welcome the speech of the noble and gallant Lord. There are few differences between the approach of the Government and the comments of the noble and gallant Lord. He drew attention to the recommendation that appropriate legal bodies should be encouraged to draw greater attention to the changes in digital processing and to widen public awareness that paper originals are rarely

403
necessary. Although we agree with the proposal, we stress that while paper originals may rarely be necessary, retention of the original digital file, captured from the original paper or other source, is considered highly desirable, even essential. It is very important that we proceed with this matter.
The noble and gallant Lord asked about the recommendation of the committee that the Government should commission a substantial, rigorous and independent study of the costs and effectiveness of a publicly funded surveillance system. The Government recognise that there are already a number of professionally conducted case studies which indicate that CCTV can have a real impact on crime and disorder. All of the schemes funded by the Home Office are required to conduct an independent evaluation. But if we are to proceed with an evaluation at national level it will be a very significant task to undertake. The Government believe that it is better to focus limited resources on particular schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was quite rightly concerned about the aspect of civil liberties. It is right to take account of CCTV operated by private companies. We shall introduce legislation to regulate the private security industry. That will be done as soon as parliamentary time is available. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord. He has raised a very important matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Brain, was very concerned that full assistance should be given to the audit trail. He said that if it was necessary the equipment could be hired. I am quite sure that if a good case has been made out, that can be provided. Of course, the CPS will also meet the costs of its equipment. All of that in itself was very important.
In relation to funds and fears that progress might be stifled, we believe that it is possible that the existing staff will be able to deal with matters but, if needed, extra funds will be made available to meet the cost. I hope that that meets the demand that has been made.
Also, in relation to the equipment in courts, of course the courts are keeping the developments under close review. Currently, as was said, there is no bar to the use of technology in criminal proceedings providing the evidence is otherwise admissible. For example, both computers and CCTV material, as has been said tonight, have been used in proceedings. Of course, it is now true that CCTV links which use standard VHS technology are available in nearly all Crown Court centres. As I said earlier, if there is a good case made out, they would be used, but there is nothing to stop anyone who wants to use more sophisticated equipment applying to the court to bring along their own specialist equipment as well in relation to these cases. The Crown Court service is aware of the need to ensure that the quality of playback of VHS video recording is to an acceptable standard. That is also being taken into account.
In relation to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, of course I cannot enter into the needs of Welsh referees and the question of biting, but I can imagine it and I can sympathise with him over the fact that as there are now playbacks in television,
404
referees need every aid they can get. I believe that I have covered most of the points he raised. We are concerned, as he is, that the public must have confidence that there is no tampering with any of the evidence that is produced in court.
I was very sorry to hear that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, fell on the wrong side of the law and that he was not, in effect, able to prove his innocence. However, we believe that it is very necessary indeed to prevent the use of CCTV footage, which he was concerned about, for entertainment or other purposes. Any such use of that material will, we believe, be caught under the Data Protection Bill when it becomes an Act. It will need to comply with data protection principles' requirement for personal data to be processed fairly and lawfully and not further processed in any manner incompatible with the purpose or purposes for which they were obtained. In practice this will prevent those who operate security cameras from passing on for entertainment purposes footage in which individuals can be recognised without the consent of those individuals. For completeness I should add that the Bill, like the 1984 Act, provides limited exemptions from some of these requirements. We hope that it does prevent any more stories coming out in the media about certain authorities selling footage of events.
Finally, this has been a very useful debate in what is a rapidly developing area. We as a Government are co-ordinating a broad criminal justice approach to this developing area, an approach that ensures that the Government have complete confidence in what is exhibited in courts.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it remains for me to express my thanks to all those who have made kind remarks about my chairmanship and about the work of the committee. I should like to thank all who spoke, particularly my two wing men here on this side, but from every speaker we have learnt as well as understood that this is a growing area of complexity which is going to impinge on all aspects of crime prevention and the prosecution of criminals.
Of course, I was sorry that so few members of the committee were present. I have a considerable number of apologies because of the short notice of this evening's debate.
I finish by drawing an analogy with the early days of the breathalyser, when, if one was caught—fortunately, I was not—there was almost immediate agreement that one would accept the verdict of the breathalyser, plead guilty and take one's punishment. As we all know, it is no longer always the case that a breathalyser leads to an automatic conviction. All sorts of devious and less devious defences have been developed. In the age of digital technology and digital imagery, I believe that this sort of development is likely to occur. If somebody other than the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, were to fall on the wrong side of the law, a good defence lawyer would be extremely tempted to question the veracity of the image presented and to seek to establish that the thing could have been manipulated at some stage in its passage from

405
the catcher of a digital camera whose memory is no longer available to be read and the presentation of the image to the court.
I thank your Lordships very much and I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Quarrying
7.7 p.m.
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they intend to demonstrate their determination to go further in addressing the environmental damage caused by quarrying.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should first declare an interest as a vice president of the Council for National Parks, the national charity that promotes the conservation, enhancement, quiet enjoyment and understanding of the National Parks of England and Wales. My comments relate mainly to national parks, although it is also my intention to signpost some broader issues about which I am concerned and that I understand other Members of this House intend to raise during the course of this debate. Tonight's debate is very timely because of the Minerals '98 initiative which is being promoted this week.
While I fully recognise society's need for minerals, the environmental damage that can be caused by quarrying cannot be overlooked. It includes permanent changes to the landscape; loss of biodiversity; increased coastal erosion and damage to the historic environment. In view of this I welcome the plan that the quarrying industry's professional body, the Quarry Products Association, announced this morning to review its operations in national parks. It is most interesting, too, to note that Aggregate Industries UK Ltd is prepared to give further undertakings with regard to dormant quarries and named working quarries within national parks. I am pleased that the industry recognises that national parks are special places that have the highest status of landscape protection. National parks are beacons for the sustainable management of the whole countryside and I hope that this plan will raise standards generally and influence practices in an industry whose environmental impacts have often been too high.
The sustainable development approach demands that because of those environmental impacts we manage demand for minerals and seek to minimise any damage to the environment from supplying that demand. One of the key issues in the debate about the environmental impacts of mineral extraction is the supply from national parks. The environmental impacts relate to the location—in very sensitive and beautiful landscapes—and the volume of extraction. National parks supply 10 per cent. of the construction aggregates in England and Wales—the same proportion as the land area they cover—and the same level as is supplied from outside the parks. There is also the extent of permissions in the parks (they cover 36 square kilometres, the size of the city of York) and also the length of permissions. There is an historical legacy of old permissions in the parks,
406
many issued on the eve of national park designation and remaining in place today, more than 50 years later. Those permissions often have end dates set at the year 2042, something mineral planning authorities can seldom address without facing huge bills for compensation.
This evening I want to focus on how this environmental damage can be addressed. The way forward for everyone—as this is a problem minerals companies themselves are now seeking to address—seems to me to involve two sticks and one carrot.
The first stick of course is regulation. Tighter policies on mineral extraction should help prevent some of the environmental damage from occurring. It is also important to ensure that policies are properly implemented, and this necessitates the adequate funding of mineral planning authorities and ensuring that they have a full and workable toolkit of powers available to them.
One of the main tools in the toolkit, when it comes to the extraction of aggregates, is minerals planning policy guidance note 6 (MPG 6). The Government's approach here is that future sources of aggregates and other minerals are likely to become increasingly constrained in terms of the areas of the country where they can be acceptably worked. Wise resource use is a policy objective many minerals companies embrace. Within the terms of sustainable development, future generations need national parks as they will need minerals, and using resources wisely means taking that into account.
I ask the Minister, therefore, to ensure that during the forthcoming review of MPG 6, the Government will look again at the policy concerning mineral extraction in national parks, as set out in paragraphs 70 and 71 of the guidance note. We have seen the policy applied with rigour in the recent North York Moors quarry extension decision, to which I shall return to later, but I fear that its present wording, specifically criterion iv of paragraph 71, is acting as a disincentive to companies in reaching voluntary agreements on restoration and land management. It also encourages a growing tendency by companies to emphasise the potential for reshaping the landscape in order to justify applications for extension.
When it comes to mineral working, incremental permissions of this kind seriously undermine the first purpose of national parks: to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. Clarity of wording in the revised MPG 6 will help to remove uncertainty and ensure that the Government's determination to protect national parks is not hindered. Since the 1995 Environment Act now enables mineral planning authorities to review old permissions and to impose modern restoration and aftercare conditions, there is no need to refer specifically to enhancement of existing quarries in the revised version of MPG 6. I therefore seek the deletion of this obsolete criterion.
I also ask the Minister to confirm that the issue of end use control will be looked at during the review of MPG 6, as I believe that this is essential to moving towards a more sustainable mineral planning system. The review of MPG 6 also provides an opportunity to subject the broad policy aims of mineral planning

407
to public consultation. The Government have a real opportunity at last to abandon the "predict and provide" approach to minerals planning and adopt an approach that is much more environment led. I hope that this is seized.
Individual decisions which implement the regulatory measures are of course vitally important and send signals about the stance of the minerals planning authorities and the Government. The Government's decision in April of this year to refuse permission for the extension to Spaunton Quarry in the North York Moors National Park is a landmark decision for mineral planning in national parks. I believe that it is a welcome and important demonstration of the Government's determination to protect national parks.
In refusing permission, the Government have reaffirmed that national parks are afforded the highest level of statutory environmental protection and that their natural beauty must be protected in the national interest. These are both very welcome commitments, whose reiteration today would be helpful. However, the good news at Spaunton is only one decision. The fact remains that national parks bear a heavy burden in supplying aggregates, even though there is a lot of slack in the mineral supply system. Special protection should mean parks only provide minerals to meet a national need and where no alternatives exist, yet they provide as great a proportion of aggregates as anywhere else. This undermines the principles for which the parks were designated. Reducing demand, increasing recycling and the use of secondary aggregates and choosing the least environmentally sensitive locations as sources of supply will all help to relieve the unsustainable burden on the parks and to prolong the mineral resource for future generations.
I hope that this Government will promote better husbandry of the mineral resource and its efficient use. In order to ensure that the least environmentally sensitive areas are targeted for minerals extraction, I urge the Government to undertake a strategic environmental assessment of the minerals resource. This would be wholly in keeping with the recent recognition by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, Richard Caborn MP, when he said, in his keynote speech at an international seminar in Lincoln last month,
"strategic environmental appraisal is one of the most important policy areas which Government will need to develop further as we move into the next century. It is an essential part of the drive for sustainable development".
It would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about this and I would welcome reassurance that this will be looked at.
The second stick available to the Government is fiscal measures that will encourage best practice and discourage damaging activities. I know that some speakers tonight intend to address the Government's willingness to consider a minerals tax. For my part, I ask the Government to give serious consideration to imposing a premium rate on any aggregates, taxed or not, extracted in national parks and other sensitive areas as mentioned in MPG 6, including the New Forest. This
408
is in recognition of the historical legacy that these areas face from old permissions and in view of their outstanding environmental quality, which is too often compromised by minerals extraction.
Now the carrot, which is the potential for minerals companies to increase their environmental performance, thereby strengthening their position in a competitive market and improving the public image not just of the individual companies but of the minerals industry as a whole. Recently, the Minister, Richard Caborn, invited the industry at the annual seminar of the Quarry Products Association in Solihull last month to,
"consider whether its interests overall might not be better served by a policy of voluntary self-restraint over further proposals to extract aggregates in the National Parks, bearing in mind the strong policies of planning protection which are already in place, which will remain in place".
He reiterated this on Monday of this week at the international launch conference of Minerals '98.
This is a great opportunity to do something positive. In national parks, two positive actions would make a real difference and I am very pleased that the quarrying industry has indicated that it will be looking at both of these in its plan to review its operations in national parks. Minerals companies may be able to consider undertaking not to extend sites in national parks where there is no national need for the product and where there are alternative sources of supply or ways of meeting the need for that product. National parks also have many dormant permissions in very sensitive locations which would never be granted permission today. Minerals companies which hold some of those dormant permissions would receive much credit for giving up some of those very sensitive sites, whose working in any case is unlikely ever to be acceptable. Those are just two ideas of what voluntary self-restraint in national parks might mean in practice.
I hope that the Minister can indicate what positive steps she would like to take to encourage minerals companies to raise environmental standards in a world where we increasingly need good business practice. That message of voluntary self-restraint should also go to the construction industry to encourage lean build technology on a "built to last" basis.
In conclusion, I believe that the objective for the Government in going further to address the environmental damage caused by quarrying should be minerals being supplied at the right specification, from the least environmentally sensitive locations, in the most environmentally acceptable way and at the most efficient levels. To achieve that, the Government need to add together all the tools at their disposal: a minerals tax with a premium rate for extraction from national parks and other special areas such as SSSIs; tougher policies on aggregates extraction; and a firm stand on individual cases.
This firm stand, combined with encouragement to the industry to redirect away from bulk supply at least cost with reliance on some of our most beautiful and popular national park landscapes as sources of supply, to adding value to a wider range of products from a greater

409
diversity of sources, is what is required. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic answer to the points that I have raised.
7.19 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, for raising the important question of the environmental impact of the quarrying industry. I declare an interest as chairman of English Nature, the statutory nature conservation agency.
It is probably true to say that four industries currently have most impact on the natural environment: clearly, agriculture is one of the most important; the water industry; the ports; and minerals abstraction. All mineral working must be planned and managed using the principles of sustainable development to safeguard and increase wildlife and natural features while recognising the vital role of the aggregates industry in supplying raw material needed by national and local economies.
I wish to make three points. They mirror to some extent those made by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, although perhaps extending beyond the remit of national parks. First, I refer to the question of long-term strategic environmental assessment of minerals policy. I welcome the planned consultation on the review of Minerals Planning Guidance Note 6 later this year. It is important to move away from the predict and provide model, and to take account of concepts such as that of environmental capacity. On the last occasion quarrying was discussed in your Lordships' House, the Minister said that there should not be unrestricted growth in quarry capacity through the planning system, particularly through aggregates, to meet projections of demand that are not based on the principles of sustainable development.
My second point refers to the management of demand for primary aggregates. It is important to achieve that to reduce long-term pressure on the environment. We need to encourage the use of secondary and recycled aggregates. I recognise that recycling is increasing, but more still needs to be done; and I am pleased that the Government are actively exploring the use of economic instruments—an aggregates tax in particular. Such a tax could not only send signals about the need for an increase in recycling, it could also raise valuable revenue (that is not against the Chancellor's rules) to pay for measures to offset environmental damage, including compensation for revocation of planning permission. The Treasury appears to be struggling with the technicalities of monetary valuation of impacts on the environment. I wish to make the case for it simply. In the case of designated nationally and internationally important wildlife sites, society has already invested in law that says that those should be regarded as beyond price, thereby making the monetary valuation extremely simple.
My third point relates to designated sites. They are the foundation of nature conservation in the United Kingdom. By designated sites I refer to that alphabet soup of sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), special protection areas (SPAs) and special areas for
410
conservation (SACs). Those have been designated for a reason: because they are fundamental building blocks in the conservation of nature in this country. But too often we still see aggregate extraction causing loss of important wildlife habitats or natural features. Pollution, noise, infrastructure impacts and changes in water systems can also threaten wildlife. The minerals planning system still does not fully recognise that at present.
I should like to see three things happen. First, extraction should be sited away from those critical sites. Secondly, revocation should be sought of planning permissions where aggregate working is likely to damage designated irreplaceable sites. Thirdly, I should like to see the industry and planners working together on working arrangements during extraction and after-use of aggregate extraction sites, taking measures to minimise adverse environmental impacts and increase environmental benefit.
In all those measures, adequate environmental assessment is imperative. I look forward to seeing the details of the implementation of the environmental impact assessment directive in the UK in March 1999 as a good start.
Finally, it is extremely welcome that the quarrying industry is moving to address some environmental issues on a voluntary basis. I ask the Minister to assure us that the Government will enhance the voluntary principle with swift progress on the three regulatory and incentive measures that I have raised today.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Addison for raising this topic.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I believe that I am to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Brain. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, I declare an interest as Vice President of the Council for National Parks and as an adviser to a minerals and waste company which does not have an interest in national parks. So I hope that I can offer some help and a balanced view.
My noble friend Lord Addison highlighted some ways in which the Government can address the environmental impacts of quarrying. The burning question is how to generate sufficient funding to raise environmental standards.
In identifying those areas which are most vulnerable, we need look no further than MPG 6, which has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Addison and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Those are areas for special treatment when it comes to aggregates extraction. Those include sites of special scientific interest, national nature reserves, areas of outstanding natural beauty, the New Forest heritage area and national parks.
If the Government are to introduce a tax on minerals extraction, that will provide a method for addressing environmental impacts. Let me suggest how this could be done.

411
Any method needs to be based on research which demonstrates what those impacts are and how they are to be addressed. I am aware of the recent research that the Government have commissioned on the environmental costs of aggregates extractions. That information is intended to help the Chancellor to decide whether there should be a tax on aggregates extraction, and how best to impose it. However, I, among others, have doubts about it. Because of the way it has been conducted, and the type of method used, it is inevitable that the research findings underestimate the environmental costs of aggregates extraction. I hope that the Government will recognise this undervaluing and will not try to put a figure on impacts that cannot be measured in monetary terms. Those impacts include damage to the landscape, loss of biodiversity and destruction of the historic environment and coastal areas, all of which affect national parks in one way or another. I know that the minerals industry also believes that that research is seriously flawed. Can the Minister provide reassurance that that research programme will now provide a more accurate understanding of the impacts of aggregates extraction?
I turn now to what I believe is a great cost of minerals extraction and one way in which the Government can address the issues. The Government have stated in paragraph 6 of their consultation document on the revised UK sustainable development strategy that,
"sustainable development is a very simple idea. It is about ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come".
The environmental condition of national parks is fundamental to both our quality of life and to the Government's achievement of their sustainable development objectives. That must be reflected in any tax on aggregates extraction, and I welcome the Minster's reassurance on that point.
With that in mind—we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young—I, too, support a premium rate on any aggregates tax for extraction in national parks and those other special areas mentioned in MPG 6. I was pleased to learn that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Nick Raynsford, has not ruled out the important principle of rebate in relation to a possible tax on greenfield development. I ask the Government to ensure that any tax on aggregates extraction includes an element of rebate.
Let me draw a simple analogy. If, for example, the Government decide that the going rate for an aggregates tax is £10 per tonne, for those areas recognised as special in MPG 6 the aggregates tax should be increased to £15 per tonne. The extra £5 per tonne would be rebated for the benefit of those special areas.
Once rebate had been generated, it could be used to buy out dormant permissions in highly sensitive sites, where working quarries would be unacceptable by today's modern environmental standards. The rebate could also be used to restore unsightly or abandoned quarries to an acceptable environmental standard.
412
Generating a green tax in this way will help the Government address the environmental impacts of quarrying. An aggregates tax alongside strong regulation will make for a stronger system of protection for our environment.
Noble Lords may be concerned about the possible loss of employment. It is absolutely correct that this aspect should be addressed to its best advantage. Jobs may indeed be lost over a long period of time at specific sites in national parks and other areas mentioned in MPG 6, but those interested in rural regeneration must take a wider view.
In some national parks, a relatively high percentage of the local population rely on the minerals industry for employment. However, this is not true in all the national parks. Also, as the minerals industry diversifies there may be an increase in the number of jobs overall—quarries in national parks are generally not labour intensive in view of their scale and highly mechanised operations.
With an increase in recycling activities and use of secondary aggregates, we should see the industry once again becoming more labour intensive, with jobs becoming differently distributed. It is also important to bear in mind that minerals extraction can act as a disincentive to other kinds of employment.
When one considers that somewhere between 70 and 100 million people visit our 11 national parks every year, the importance of the tourism industry is clear. People visit national parks to find peace and quiet, open spaces and places of great natural beauty, all of which can be impaired by scars on the landscape.
Similarly, another important and growing employment sector is the kind of high-tech, remote working professionals attracted by high quality environments in rural areas. These people have chosen a high quality environment from which to carry out their businesses. These rural-economy based activities sustain rather than harm the environment, and I believe point the way to a sustainable future in all the rural areas in which they exist, including national parks.
A final pointer to a sustainable future is the plan by the Quarry Products Association to review its operations in national parks. It is a welcome step in reducing the environmental impacts of quarrying and I look forward to seeing what positive benefits this will mean for national parks in practice.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for rising to speak. I had been down to bat at number three in the previous debate and had forgotten that I had been demoted. I also apologise to the House for that error.
Again, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, for initiating the debate. I may surprise him because I do not intend to talk about a problem in a national park nor even in the hills. I intend to talk about a lowland esturial problem. I may be closer to the noble Baroness, in that I shall talk about the problems of enlarging a quarry in the Bovey Tracey basin, an area between Newton Abbot and Bovey Tracey in Devon.

413
There, a local company has submitted a planning application. I do not expect the Minister to prejudge the planning permission but I hope that some of the issues I raise may lead the department to ensure that they are considered while the application is being made. I also hope that, when the department decides whether to accept the inspector's report, it, too, will take them into consideration.
I declare an interest, in that the extension of the quarry will involve the moving of two rivers, the River Bovey and the River Teign. I have a membership of the Upper Teign Fishing Association and the run of sea trout and salmon, such as it is, may or may not be affected. That said, one wishes to understand what is happening in the area.
Over the years, the company has taken what is known as "ball clay" from a bed in the area. It has gradually extended its quarries by limited reapplication or new applications. This time it is asking for a major extension which it says will extend the life of the quarry by 60 years. However, it is asking for the extension at the end of the period of the county's structure plan; it expires in 2002. The consultation drafts on the new structure plan indicate that it would be unlikely that such a quarry extension would be allowed in the future. Furthermore, the minerals plan for the area is under revision, which is likely to lead to problems.
It has also been suggested that the Bovey basin, which consists not only of the two rivers and the claypits by them, but to the north of the A.38 an extensive area of heathland which is important as adjoining the boundary of the Dartmoor National Park. It provides lowland heath with nightjars and so forth. The whole area must be considered as one cohesive unit because, although some clay beds have already been exploited, it is well known that there are equally important clay beds under the area of heathland. Therefore, my first question to the Minister relates to the planning controls. In the light of the public inquiry and bearing in mind that the work will not start before 2001 and there is only one year of the structure plan to run, can the Minister comment on the progress of the new structure plan?
My second point is probably closer to the noble Baroness's heart. It is said that the existing river beds are nesting sites for 30 per cent. of the sand martins in Devon. It is also suggested that there is an active otter holt in the area and of course otters are protected under EU legislation. I ask the department to look carefully at the report and consider all the information about the natural history of the area in order to see whether it has been studied adequately.
The applicant company will consider environmental rehabilitation as it undertakes the work. It believes that that is a good idea, but I have been told that there is another opinion. For example, although new river beds will be produced they must be so stout that they cannot be eroded and therefore will not allow otters, water voles, sand martins and so forth easily to get into them.
Is the quarry extension really necessary? Yes, there is an important bed of clay. The reason for the extension is that the quality of clay is peculiar and there is a special need for it. However, the company admits that
414
the bed will last at most for 60 years and possibly for only 40. It is an extraction firm and we have already heard about the use of secondary aggregates and so forth. Will the inquiry take into consideration secondary methods of processing other clay to enable it to be used as a substitute for the particular clay involved? There are two reasons for its existence. Clay in that area was formed originally by erosion, by an ice floe during the Ice Ages. It gradually flowed down into a "lake" and sedimented out different-sized particles and so on in different areas.
The chemical composition of all those clays is very similar: it is the size of the particle that is significant. Has the company investigated mechanical methods of changing the particle size? Will the inquiry seek evidence as to whether or not the quarry and the relevant costs are really justified, because moving that quarry and the rivers will cost a lot of money. It may be that that money would be better spent on capital investment for future developments which will have to take place as the use of the quarry expires, especially as the environmental regulations in that area are bound, over the years, to become tighter.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, this week marks the beginning of Minerals '98, a year in which the quarrying industry is opening its doors to the public, telling them what it does, and how and why it does it. Therefore, I share the views of those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Addison on raising this issue this evening. I pay tribute, as I am sure my noble friend would, to the organisers of Minerals '98 because the activities of the past few days have certainly got it off to an extraordinarily good start.
I must also declare an interest, as I have done before, because I have worked for Hanson plc for the past eight or nine years and it owns ARC, a large aggregates producer. I shall not follow my noble friend Lord Addison entirely in his further ideas for sticks and carrots to chivvy along the industry but I have no doubt that the industry will note carefully the points he makes.
I wish to make six simple points about quarrying. First, and it is self-evident, no one quarries for fun. Quarries exist to meet a demand, a demand created by every one of us in this country every second of our lives.
The industry delivers what we ask of it. We want better housing, schools for our children, hospitals and an efficient transport system. They all depend on materials produced by quarries. As my noble friend Lord Norrie pointed out, the industry also provides 40,000 or so jobs in rural communities. It is an industry which serves us all. It has gone on since man's earliest existence and will continue until man's extinction.
Secondly, there is nothing wrong in digging up the resources given to us on this earth. Of course, we must use them sensibly, as sensitively as possible and without waste. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, talked about those SSSIs which have been damaged to some extent by the aggregates industry. I hope she will acknowledge also that there are many other sites across the country which are now SSSIs as a result of the work

415
done to restore them to the condition in which the noble Baroness, with English Nature, will have a particular interest. Therefore, there are positive signs as well as some negative ones.
It is good and not bad to use those resources. There is no question of aggregate extraction being unsustainable in this country. There is a plentiful supply.
Thirdly, despite what we hear from some environmental groups, the industry is forward looking. It is constantly changing and improving and, where possible, it responds to public concern. Self-regulation has been very much a feature of the industry in recent years as it has developed, and self-imposed discipline is something which I am sure my noble friend Lord Addison will readily acknowledge.
Only this morning, the Quarry Products Association, the industry's trade body, made a major announcement about national parks. Responding to understandable concern, some of it raised by your Lordships, it has decided to review all its operations in the national parks. A four-point action plan is proposed, and I am extremely glad that my noble friends Lord Addison and Lord Norrie acknowledge it. They agree that the package goes a long way towards meeting the Council for National Parks' own publicly-stated agenda.
The purpose is to resolve uncertainties over the extent of quarrying in the national parks. It will remove the anxieties over dormant permissions in two ways; first, by identifying them, and, secondly, where appropriate and possible, the companies will agree not to reactivate them. It will ensure that no new applications are proposed unless they satisfy the tests of national need or bring benefit to the park in question. We should not under-estimate that. It is a huge step forward. It goes beyond anything demanded by regulation or by law. The industry should be warmly congratulated on what is a fairly bold initiative. Recognition of its efforts will do an enormous amount to encourage further those who have led the industry from the front.
My fourth point is about recycling, raised, among others, by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. The industry shares the Government's objective to increase recycling. In fact, the industry has already met the targets it was set for the year 2001. But that is no excuse whatever for lessening effort. There will be no lessening of effort. Many companies have recycling operations. Where it is possible and safe to do so, the industry wants to do more and it will do more. In other words, the market is benefiting the environment so it would be encouraging to hear plaudits from time to time for the industry instead of a certain amount of knocking which can become rather self-defeating.
Fifthly, I make a plea to all those who believe that there is a simple solution to this problem. Nothing is black and white. In the real world, no solution brings all benefits and no down-sides. Perhaps I may explain by way of example. Many environmental groups want more recycling so that there is less extraction of virgin aggregates. That is all very well. As I said, the industry agrees. But let us consider what a recycling operation involves—a huge crushing machine emitting clouds of
416
dust and much noise, served by heavy lorries. To avoid the high cost of moving materials twice, the recycling takes place at the point of demolition, often near built-up areas. So that recycling has an environmental cost in the same way that extraction has a cost. Therefore, I put in a plea for a debate in which there is greater intellectual honesty and little pursuit of headlines.
I hope that we shall see some realism from the Government too. As we have heard this evening—it was raised by my noble friend Lord Norrie—and as we have discussed before, the Government are considering the possibility of introducing an aggregates tax. It is claimed that it will be a green tax. That means that we are supposed to believe that it will benefit the environment. Despite the views of my noble friend Lord Norrie, I do not believe that it will benefit the environment. If it is high enough as a tax, it will reduce consumption of aggregates. Prices will then soar to the detriment of the economy, the construction industry and jobs, damaging quality of life in the most direct way possible. Set at any other level, it will simply be a money-raising exercise by the Treasury. It would be wholly wrong for the Government to claim that such a tax was green.
I suspect that the spin-doctors in the Treasury believe that if they call something a green tax, the taxpayer will somehow find it more acceptable. I really cannot believe that that is an honest way to approach the issue. To my mind, it is the fastest way to undermine the confidence of business and industry in the principle of green taxation. It will ill serve any government to embark on such a con trick.
I add a final thought. On a day when the Government have announced plans to secure a longer term future for coal, Ministers may wish to reflect on one fact: the best and most efficient way to make coal less environmentally damaging is by using large quantities of limestone in what is known as flue gas desulphurisation. Increase the cost of limestone by imposing a tax and the Government will increase further the costs on coal or on the energy produced from coal. I thought that was precisely what the Government were trying to avoid.
I hope that we can take the opportunity this evening to celebrate an industry on which the quality of life of the whole nation depends. Let us congratulate the industry for its national parks initiative—I am glad my noble friend has done so—and say that it is a proper way to mark Minerals '98. Let us determine tonight to cast aside differences which result in nothing more than non-productive posturing. We should remember that every one of us uses quarry products. We must work together to find solutions to problems which are not of the industry's making but our own.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I first declare an interest as a civil engineer and chairman of the Rail Freight Group. However, I shall not talk about railways tonight. I congratulate the Quarry Products Association on its initiative. Whatever we may think about the quarry industry, which is the subject of tonight's debate, it is welcome that it is telling the public what it is doing. It

417
is hoped that the industry is educating the public and perhaps convincing the public that it is doing good things, especially as regards the environment.
I wish to discuss recycling. About two months ago in this House my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip, in response to a question from me, said that when No. 2 Marsham Street is demolished—for me that cannot happen too soon—the Government will make a profit because they will be able to sell the products of that horrible concrete structure when crushed for a higher sum of money, presumably, than the cost of the demolition. I have worked with crushers on construction sites. They can be noisy and dusty but that does not have to be the case. We need to find easier and more environmentally friendly ways of crushing or otherwise recycling materials rather than saying that is too difficult.
Tonight speakers have concentrated on the aggregates industry, quarries in national parks, and a river-bed in either Somerset or Devon, I am not quite sure which. However, aggregates can also be mined from the sea. I believe there is an interesting quarry situated in the Outer Hebrides which produces a fine quality of granite aggregate which was used to build the Channel Tunnel. That was transported by sea. Tonight I wish to discuss the environmental effects of production and of transporting aggregates to where they are required. Both those processes have adverse environmental effects to a lesser or greater extent.
Last week I visited a quarry in Buxton, Derbyshire. I was impressed at the minimal visual impact on most of the surrounding land and with the way in which water borne pollution was dealt with. The quarry workers sprayed the roads to prevent the dust from rising and they tried to mitigate noise levels. I asked how aggregates were taken away from quarries in Derbyshire. The leader of Derbyshire County Council spoke at a conference I organised. He said that his council had demanded that the quarry use rail to send the aggregates to the Manchester airport construction site and reduce its number of lorry journeys by 70,000. At another site near Preston, lorry journeys had to be cut by 200,000 a year. That local planning authority was able to impose those conditions on a quarry that was already being worked. I believe that council leader acted well in that respect.
However, there are other ways of transporting aggregates. One can transport them by sea, although admittedly one has to use lorries or trains to get them from the ports. I think most people would accept that rail is a good alternative in terms of transporting aggregates from a quarry. It is less environmentally damaging than road transport. However, in some cases no rail connection exists. One must also remember that one cannot move concrete as it is being mixed, or black top for road surfaces, in a rail wagon because it might go hard. Therefore road transport is necessary for certain aggregates.
There is an interesting environmental debate taking place in Cornwall at the moment in respect of an English China Clays site. English China Clays made an application to remove china clay by rail using an old
418
rail track and laying a few kilometres of new rail on it. That old rail track had been turned into a cycle track. The aim is to prevent lorries grinding through a small Cornish village. However, there was opposition from the people who use the old rail track and from the residents who live in the village. It is difficult to work out the right solution to that problem. Overall I believe one must consider the effects of the production site on the environment and the environmental effects of transporting the products and consider how long that will last.
I am not convinced that the additional costs arising from environmental protection measures, or of specifying a particular means of transport, will be too severe. The cost of the aggregates constitutes a small proportion of construction costs as a whole. I suggest that an environmental tax will not impose too severe a burden on overall construction costs.
It is easy to say that there should be no more quarries and that we should close down the existing ones. One hears the "not in my backyard" argument, especially as regards a national park or an SSSI. However, one may live in the Thames Valley and live near the pits situated near the M.4. I hope that the Government will consider ways of strengthening the ability of the planning or the mineral authorities to impose reasonable environmental conditions either on quarry sites, and/or the means of transporting quarry products. Noble Lords this evening have given me encouragement that this suggestion will receive general support.
I believe it is time to carry out what I call a "top down" review to discover how much quarrying capacity is required in the UK in the next 100 years, given the current policy on sustainable development. I suspect that the potential volumes of products to be gained from all the planning applications that are outstanding will be many times what is actually required. We need to quell the fears of local people and environmental groups about planning applications that are still outstanding.
We cannot get away from the fact that we need aggregates. Quarries, when mined, have adverse environmental effects, as does the transportation of the end products. I do not know—I do not imagine my noble friend the Minister knows—how you put a value on the adverse environmental effects of a quarry, or of a 40-tonne lorry passing through a small village every 10 minutes. It is a challenge for us all to make that work. I believe that a little more recycling would be beneficial.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest in that I think I am probably a candidate vice president of the Council for National Parks. As such I obviously have an even greater interest in this matter than those who are already acknowledged and much respected vice presidents. I shall certainly do my best to acknowledge the enormous importance of the quarrying industry as such.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, first, for introducing this debate and, secondly, for the admirable speech in which he so clearly outlined the points that he wanted to make and the situation as it is at the moment.

419
I join with him in congratulating the quarrying industry on the important announcements that it has made regarding its behaviour in the future. I congratulate the industry on the careful timing of their production before our debate this evening.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brain, for his remarks. He raised the whole question of what is happening with the Devon Wildlife Trust and the River Teign. It is a complicated and important matter. I join with the noble Lord in his pleas. However, I shall not take up your Lordships' time with repetition of much of what he said.
Quarrying is a useful industry. It is basically wealth-producing. Where it can be done in Britain, it is a good thing that it should be done. The transportation of aggregates does not help the sustainability of the planet. Anything that would mean more imports of items that we can produce ourselves is not a good thing.
However, total aggregate use should be restricted. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made an extremely good point about the large number of building permissions that have been granted so far. We must examine the permissions that are given and it should be clear that there is a specific need. Blanket extractions should not be allowed under such permissions. There are one or two rather bad case histories of companies receiving permission for specialised extraction and then expanding it to wholesale extraction of vast areas of limestone. That is a matter that the Government can, and should, control.
The first need is to restrict the amount that is needed. The second is to encourage re-use wherever possible. Those are two basic requirements of the ecological economics that we should apply in this case. In national parks and on sites of special scientific interest the presumption should be against granting extraction permissions. If necessary, existing permissions should be rescinded. Any case for compensation over a long period of time should be regarded with considerable scepticism. Profit from despoilation is to be discouraged.
We live in a world in which we now know that we must apply the principles of sustainable development if there is to be development at all, and that we must take immense care. Of course, the extraction of minerals is one of the basic ways in which mankind increases its wealth. I am not entirely certain that I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when he says that no one quarries for fun. I think we all started quarrying for fun when we were about five years old. I cannot imagine it not being fun, as well as being profitable and useful. However, like a great many activities that are profitable, useful and fun, quarrying must be controlled. I hope the Government will see their way to responding to the various pleas made to them during this debate.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I echo other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Addison for initiating this debate. There is no doubt that quarrying is an important industry, both in terms of providing raw materials and in terms of employment. In 1996, in a
420
debate in the other place, the number employed was put at some 36,000 by my honourable friend Sir Paul Beresford, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment. Bearing in mind the important element of employment, and the extra cost to the end user in both the public and private sectors, the introduction of a tax needs careful consideration before it is proceeded with.
It is true to say that quarrying can cause problems, both in the effect that the extraction has on the landscape in physical terms and arising from the transportation of extracted materials. There are many planning permissions in existence. The Environment Act 1995 contained provisions for the review of old and new permissions. If I understand the position correctly, active sites were to be reviewed in two phases, the first relating to planning permissions given between 1948 and 1969, and the second to permissions given between 1969 and 1982. National parks, areas of natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest were all to be considered phase one sites. The mineral planning authorities had the responsibility of preparing a list of phase one and phase two sites and all dormant sites by 1st January 1996. We should be interested to learn the state of the review of old and new permissions. It is possible for the planning authority to classify unworked sites as dormant. How many have been so classified? But even that may not solve the problem, as it does not annul the permission; it merely enables new and modern conditions to be imposed before working recommences.
References have been made to the question of permissions in national parks—the Broads, the New Forest and other areas of outstanding natural beauty. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the constructive moves on the part of the industry of which we have been advised during the debate. They were referred to fully by my noble friends Lord Addison and Lord Glenarthur.
However, we should remind ourselves of what MPG 6 says about quarrying in national parks. It states that the Government consider that all mineral applications must be subject to the most rigorous examination and all mineral developments should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed. Similarly with sites of special scientific interest, mineral proposals within or likely to affect SSSIs should be the subject of the most rigorous application.
However, as my noble friend Lord Addison reminded us in a previous debate in January this year, that does not address all the problems. Some of the problems that arise on these sites are the result of permissions which have already been granted but which would not be granted under today's more rigorous planning standards. In the debate in January, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to a review of all the policies in MPG 6 being undertaken later in the year. Has that been commenced, and what is the position?
However, it is not merely in national parks or the countryside that there is concern. Earlier this year, concern was expressed to me over proposals to extract sand and gravel from redundant reservoirs in the area of East Molesey. The extraction is planned to continue for

421
seven years, with the attendant disruption in the area caused by large lorries. We have to ask ourselves: does the existing planning process enable adequate protection to be given as regards this kind of problem?
There is also the question of outstanding planning permissions. I am sure noble Lords will have noted the concern expressed this month by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. It drew attention to the fact that,
"An area of countryside four times the size of Manchester is (alleged to be] at risk from quarrying and rural England faces a lurking threat from planning permissions to quarry four and a half billion tonnes of minerals".
As an example, the council cited Wiltshire and Dorset, where enough planning permissions for crushed rock quarrying exist to last for the next 132 years.
Finally, other noble Lords have referred to specific sites. Perhaps I may raise the question of the Forest of Dean. It is reported that, shortly before the general election, six areas in the Forest of Dean and the nearby Wye Valley, an area of outstanding natural beauty, were to be designated as quarries by the year 2006. Some 46.1 million tonnes of stone are to be dug up and carried by lorries through the forest's narrowest lanes. We are not talking here of the traditional rights of quarrying in the Forest of Dean; we are talking about giant limestone quarries in the forest.
It is said that, during the election campaign, Labour's parliamentary candidate promised to fight these proposals and enlisted the support of the then shadow environment spokesman. Mr. Dobson promised that an incoming Labour Government would,
"offer special planning protection to the Forest of Dean".
He said that Labour would go beyond any of the existing special categories of protection. He added,
"We propose instead to offer the Forest of Dean a new 'custom-built' special status appropriate to its unique character and status".
I hope that, in dealing with the questions, the Minister may be able to tell us what special protection is to be offered to the Forest of Dean and, if special protection is not to be offered, why that should be so, in view of the assurances that were given?
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, for securing this debate. Your Lordships last discussed this subject on a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in January. My noble friend Lady Hayman replied on that occasion. This debate gives me an opportunity to review recent progress and look forward to future developments.
I welcome the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and other noble Lords about the need for minerals. We cannot envisage modern life or economic activity without them. We should never forget that the industrial growth of this country was largely founded on minerals, in particular coal and iron.
Mineral working has always carried an environmental cost, as many noble Lords said. Large-scale mineral working in the past has left in certain areas a legacy of
422
dereliction. The great progress that we have made in dealing with this legacy over the past 30 years is a tribute to those working in local authority planning and regeneration teams throughout the country. But, as noble Lords have commented, and as my noble friend Lady Hayman recognised in the debate in January, more remains to be done. I should therefore like to outline some important recent developments.
On national parks, the Peak District National Park used its existing powers to stop a fluorspar quarry from being developed into a larger new aggregate quarry. The operating company concerned accepted that, although I understand that the freehold owner is now challenging the national park's action in the courts. Clearly, the Government will look carefully at the outcome of that case, and I cannot comment further on it today.
Also in the national parks, the Secretary of State did not allow the extension to Spaunton Quarry in the North Yorkshire Moors, a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. That strongly reaffirmed the policy that all minerals developments in national parks must clearly be in the wider national interest before being given permission. The decision was widely welcomed by all those concerned about the national parks for the signal it sends about new or extended quarry proposals.
Looking to the future, my honourable friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning has invited the industry to consider whether a policy of voluntary self-restraint over further proposals to extract aggregates in the national parks would not now be very much in its interests. Noble Lords have referred to the welcome that is being given to proposals from the industry, a point to which I shall return later. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, referred to the industry making some extremely interesting proposals. We shall wish to look at those very carefully.
My noble friend Lady Young raised the question of acting to strengthen environmental protection of sites subject to proposed mineral extractions through extension of the environmental impact assessment. One of her questions related to an important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on the issue of sustainable development and compensation. The Government have said that they would compensate for the closure of sites of the highest designation, and policy already is to avoid all designated developments in new areas.
My noble friend Lady Young also referred to the fact that we shall introduce new regulations later this year, or early next year, to implement the 1997 European directive on environmental impact assessment. In effect, all but the smallest and least offensive quarrying proposals will then be subject to mandatory environmental assessment. This is important because the assessments inform planning decisions and identify the conditions which should be applied to mitigate the impacts where applications are allowed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, it is important that we are continuing to conduct and publish research into mitigating environmental effects. That will carry through into planning guidance, which local authorities must take into account.

423
The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, raised the issue of end-use control. We would certainly look carefully at any detailed proposals which those concerned about the impact of aggregate quarrying might wish to put to us. But, at first sight, it does not appear to be consistent with the present purposes of the planning system. They are about the use of land. Planning permissions and conditions run with the land. Enforcing conditions on end-uses of particular minerals could require a very large enforcement or monitoring system. Alternatively, it could involve the attachment of conditions on other land use permissions. For example, should we set a limit on the tonnage of material that could go into a school, a hospital or a new house? And there could be possible conflicts with owners' rights. However, if there is a feasible option, we will certainly give it careful consideration.
The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, also referred to strategic environmental assessments. We shall be consulting on how this might best be done in the review of planning guidance on aggregate extraction which is about to begin. It may be something best conducted at the regional level as part of the strengthened process of regional level planning, which my honourable friend the Minister for Planning is keen to see introduced.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, we are continuing the vital work of assessment. We have recently published research on the impacts of blasting, and we shall shortly publish a report on the impacts of traffic generated at quarry sites.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lords, Lord Norrie and Lord Glenarthur, raised the issue of recycling. We are continuing to promote the use of secondary and recycled material for construction site aggregates in place of digging new material. In 1994 the previous government set targets for the use of recycled construction waste and mineral and industrial waste minerals. The aim was to raise this to 40 million tonnes in England by 2001 and to 55 million tonnes by 2006. We have been encouraging the use of alternative materials through the experimental Aggregate Advisory Service and have recently published research into better means of monitoring and reporting recycling activity.
For the benefit of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I understand that the crushing, following the collapse of Marsham Street, will take place off site. I happened to be in that building on the day of the hurricane and share the views of those who look forward to the building coming down.
As the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said, the industry has helped also by extending and developing its recycling activities. As a result, there has been a substantial increase in the amount of construction and demolition waste used as aggregate. That could now be around 25 million tonnes in England—double the 1990 figure. When secondary mineral waste and other material is added, we may already have reached or passed the target set for the year 2000; that is, between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. of all aggregate currently used in England.
424
I can also announce tonight that the Government will continue funding the Aggregates Advisory Service until next February, following the end of its experimental phase. The service has fully proved its worth in promoting suitable alternatives. We will now consider how it can become self-supporting as a service within, and for, the construction materials community.
Planning controls and guidance have become increasingly effective in reducing the environmental impact of quarrying. They set criteria for the policies in development plans and consideration of quarry applications. They also provide for the attachment of operating conditions and modernising permissions. We are about to start reviews of planning guidance governing the two most environmentally contentious minerals: that is, opencast and aggregates. In the case of opencast coal we shall be paying close attention to community concerns about the intense noise, dust and traffic generated over the fairly short period of coal working. That will take into account the statements made earlier today in relation to the Electricity Fuels Review.
My noble friends Lady Young and Lord Berkeley raised the question of forecasts. In the case of aggregates, we will review the long-term forecasts of the need for aggregate materials for concrete, road surfacing, building sand and so forth. We will also strengthen the scrutiny at regional level of future production guidelines. We will of course look at the criteria for national parks in the review of MPG6 as requested by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness.
The most important current issue concerning quarrying is the question of a tax on primary aggregates. That was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, among others. As the Chancellor said in his last Budget, research will continue into valuing the environmental impacts of quarrying. The Government have already conducted research which broadly confirmed that there are still adverse impacts with which society needs to deal. My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to the fact that those impacts are mainly the noise, dust, vibration and transport effects, together with the loss of habitats and landscapes, as referred to also by my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
Those impacts can be costed. But more work needs to be done to obtain stronger results. That is why we are undertaking further research. Customs and Excise are also consulting all interested parties on how an aggregates tax might be applied and collected. No one should be in any doubt that this Government are totally serious about developing and introducing an appropriate aggregates tax.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, questioned whether an aggregates tax will protect the environment. The Government do not regard the tax as the only solution; they still believe firmly in the value of regulation. But a tax would have a number of relevant benefits. First, a tax sends a price signal that aggregates are a valuable commodity with a cost to our environment. They should not be wasted. Secondly, there are issues relating to the

425
price of primary aggregates which boost the use of secondary and recycled material. We have made good progress with the recycling but more needs to be done. Thirdly, it is legitimate to look at the balance of taxation. It is worth looking at whether we can sensibly shift the balance towards more environmental taxation; for example, taxing environmental "bads" rather than "goods" such as productive employment, as was mentioned by many noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, raised in particular the issue that an aggregate tax could also generate revenues for local environmental improvements, should the Chancellor so decide. The Government are committed to developing and introducing a suitable aggregates tax. However, my honourable friend the Minister for Planning also said that, as a government, we would genuinely be interested in hearing from all those in the industry about alternative proposals, noting that they must be credible, deliverable across the whole industry, permanent and proportionate in effect and benefits. That is a demanding test, but those concerned about the environment and those suffering from the impacts of quarrying, will expect no less. My ministerial colleagues will give any proposals that they receive full and fair consideration.
It is difficult to cover all the points. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, raised the issue of the East Devon case. That case was called in last year by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister because it involved a nationally important and scarce mineral resource in an environmentally sensitive area. A local inquiry is about to begin and I know that noble Lords will understand
426
that I cannot comment further. However, I am sure that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, will be shown to the inspector holding the inquiry.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, asked for the cost of limestone for coal desulphurisation to be taken into account. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will make careful note of that point.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and other noble Lords who have spoken tonight for raising an important issue and enabling me to give this hastily delivered progress report. As my right honourable friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning said at the launch of Minerals '98 last Monday, there can be no argument but that minerals are important to society. However, he also strongly emphasised that more needs to be done to reduce the environmental impacts of the quarrying, to quarry only where unavoidable and to maximise the use of less damaging alternatives. I have set out a full agenda to meet those objectives and commend them to the House with the additional thought raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that perhaps when we give our children tipper trucks for Christmas we will be contributing to the interests of quarrying.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she assist me about the Forest of Dean?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have already trespassed by going four minutes over my time and undertake to write to noble Lords in relation to matters I have not answered.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past eight o'clock.