Lords Sitting of 16 November 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.
Earl Waldegrave Earl Waldegrave—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Millennium Dome: Transport Facilities
Lord Luke Lord Luke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What contingency plans are in place for transport to and from the Millennium Dome in the event of the Jubilee Line extension not opening on schedule.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government welcome London Transport's proposed strategy for phased opening of the Jubilee Line extension project and its confirmation that it will be open in good time for the Millennium Experience. Nevertheless, it would be irresponsible not to put in place contingency arrangements to manage possible problems on any of the main transport links to the Millennium site, including any major failure of the Jubilee Line.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware of the recent total chaos in the Greenwich area caused by the shutting of the Rotherhithe tunnel for repair? What would happen to visitors to the Dome should any disruption be caused to the smooth running of the Jubilee Line, even if it is completed in time?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I repeat that we are confident that the Jubilee Line will be completed in time. Nevertheless, there could be disruption as the noble Lord suggests, and my honourable friend Glenda Jackson heads a task force looking at alternative access in the event of such failures. We believe that, using all the modes of transport to Greenwich, we can ensure that an adequate number of people reach the Millennium Dome. As regards the traffic disruption around Greenwich following the simultaneous closure of Blackwall and Rotherhithe tunnels, we will avoid that during the period of opening of the Millennium Dome.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is it true that the Jubilee Line is now running £1 billion over budget? If so, from which part of the Minister's budget is that to come?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the figure of £1 billion is not correct. The estimated total cost of the Jubilee Line project is now £2.85 billion. Clearly it is a substantial project which has been matched mainly from London
974
Transport resources. The Government have now taken steps with London Transport to ensure that it will be delivered on time.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is not simply a question of anxieties concerning the Millennium Dome? There is widespread anxiety in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets regarding up to 20,000 new jobs which may be created following building in and around the Canary Wharf area. There is a need to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to enable people to travel safely to and from the area. Is the Minister aware of the concerns in particular about the stresses and strains on the Dockland Light Railway, where the platforms are often extremely congested? Is he looking at ways in which that situation might be eased?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am well aware that the Jubilee Line is not there simply for the Millennium Dome and I hope that nobody has ever given that impression. It is to help the development of that part of London. The opening of the Jubilee Line will help to take some of the strain off the Docklands Light Railway.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the vast majority of people attempting to reach the Millennium Dome ought to be carried on the Jubilee Line? The Minister suggested that an "adequate" number of people could reach the Millennium Dome, which is a peculiar expression. I do not know what he means by that; "adequate" for what? Can the Minister tell the House what other arrangements are being made? My understanding is that in theory the Jubilee Line will be working, but not under the optimum arrangements originally anticipated. Also, is not the access by river at risk?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no reason to suppose that access by river is at risk in these circumstances. I was speaking solely of a failure in relation to the Jubilee Line and the contingency provision in the event of that failure. I repeat that we expect the Jubilee Line to be able to deliver the full 35,000 people per session, of whom 60 per cent. will travel on the Jubilee Line. Nevertheless, it is right that we should have contingencies and the contingency in the event of a failure would be covered by road, rail and other tube lines.
Baroness Gardner of Parks: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Jubilee Line extension is an amazing engineering achievement? One hundred years ago there was no way an underground system could have been built south of the river. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned safety concerns and it is important that the new line should be built safely and produce something of which we can be proud for the next 100 years.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those comments. It is the case that even less than 100 years ago we were told that, geologically, south London could not have a tube line. The methods of

975
construction therefore have had to be particularly careful. When doubt was expressed about them that was the major cause for delay on the Jubilee Line, whatever other stories noble Lords may have heard. Indeed, we had to have an underground line crossing an area not previously served by the tube and of which we can be proud.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister have any figures as to what proportion of the Millennium Dome visitors will travel by bus? Does he have any plans for a wider bus lane network to accommodate them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it depends on the noble Lord's definition of "bus". An estimated 12 per cent. of visitors will be arriving by coach and a further 4 per cent. by millennium transit bus from the Charlton station and 3 per cent. by other buses. The provision of access by coach will require some priority to be given to those coaches and, indeed, to the millennium transit bus.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, can the Minister—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I think it should be for the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, to ask his question first. Then it will be the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me precedence over her coalition partner. Can the noble Lord say why he chose not to answer my noble friend's questions? If he recollects, he was asked two questions: first, if the overcost is not £1 billion, what is it? Secondly, he was asked where that extra money, whatever it is, will be found.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I chose not to reply because this is primarily a cost which will fall on the London Transport investment programme. The total cost is now £2.85 billion. That represents an overrun on the original estimated cost, caused largely by time delays. I shall let the noble Lord know in writing the latest precise estimate for that figure.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government will make up that shortfall in London Transport's budget? The fact is that other tube lines are suffering as a result. If London Transport is forced to overspend on the Jubilee line—and the Jubilee line may be a good thing—other tube lines will suffer. Will the Government pledge to make up that shortfall in London Transport's investment budget?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not believe that that is the correct question—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: Indeed, my Lords; far be it from me to define what the question should be. Nevertheless, the
976
answer that I wish to give will be slightly different—namely, that the needs of the other lines are being addressed in a very systematic way by London Transport and the Government at present. We are looking for a PPP package to meet all the needs on the other lines. Therefore, there is no effect of the overrun on the Jubilee Line on present requirements. We are looking for new and innovative ways which will mobilise some private capital to meet the requirements of the other lines on the Underground network.

Schoolchildren: Nutritional Standards
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements are in place to monitor the standards of health and nutrition of children at school; and whether any deterioration in such standards has been noted since changes were made in the arrangements for school meals in the 1980s.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the health and growth of children have been monitored since 1972 by national surveys. These have shown consistently that all population groups of English and Scottish primary schoolchildren are growing taller and heavier than before and that some are getting fatter. Field work for another survey of four to 18 year-olds was completed in January 1998. Results are now emerging which should demonstrate any variations in diet and nutritional status of schoolchildren.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. However, can she say whether particular consideration could be given to the fact that in some education action zones it has been found necessary to provide children with breakfast, as learning is not facilitated by empty stomachs? Could not special consideration be given to the standards of nutrition in those areas where the local education authority has introduced the most drastic changes in the provision of school meals?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend makes a very important point, especially about the way in which inequalities in health operate in this particular sphere. The Government have made clear that they intend to introduce compulsory national nutrition standards for school lunches. We are currently consulting on proposals in that respect. It is a recognition that, for many children, the school lunch is their main meal of the day. Therefore, its nutritional content is extremely important. I also take my noble friend's point about meals other than lunch being provided. Like him, I have seen the difference that that

977
can make to the performance of some very troubled children. It actually gives them a start to the day, which includes a cup of tea and a piece of toast.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the Minister say what proportion of schoolchildren request vegetarian meals?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, sadly, now that I have heard the noble Baroness's question, I have to admit that I do not have the information at my fingertips to reply to her today. However, I shall certainly obtain that information and respond to the noble Baroness accordingly.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that my noble friend the Minister advised the House that young children at school seem to be putting on weight, can she say whether part of the reason is that they are taken to school by car rather than walking there? Can my noble friend say what plans the Government have to reverse that trend?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. As well as the elements of diet and the preponderance of fat in the diet of children, the lack of exercise is another important reason why children are getting fatter. That is important in terms of their health status, not only as children but later in life. Certainly part of integrated transport policy is to ensure that there are safe ways in which children can walk or cycle to school and get the exercise that will be extremely valuable to them for their future health.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that in Japan, which has the lowest level of heart disease in the entire world, highly nutritious school lunches are universally provided for all social classes in primary schools? Indeed, they are eaten in the classroom and are regarded by children as the best lesson of the day. Does my noble friend agree that popular and nutritious school meals, which, I emphasise, are not incompatible qualities, should be provided for all children, paid for by parents if they can afford it, and used as part of nutritional and health education for children that will last them for the rest of their lives?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have seen a recent report in a national newspaper about the Japanese system and the value of the nutritious, attractive and nice to eat food—as my noble friend rightly mentioned—that is offered there. We should aim not only to provide well balanced and nutritious meals for children in schools but also to adopt a whole school approach to food and nutrition which involves wider health education, for example as part of the national curriculum for science, and therefore set in train good habits for the future.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, as regards the surveys mentioned by my noble friend, what percentage of schoolchildren now take school meals as opposed to
978
the percentage that took them five years ago? Are the problems that my noble friend has mentioned solely related to the uptake of school meals?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it would be wrong to say that they are solely related to the uptake of school meals. A school lunch constitutes only one meal in the day and is available only during term time. We need to consider children's nutrition at all times and the advice that is given to them and the knowledge they gain about balanced and healthy diets. There has been a change in the pattern of school meals. A greater number of children do not take school meals. However, about 15 per cent. of all schoolchildren benefit from free school meals. As I said earlier, we need to pay particular attention to those children.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I heard what my noble friend said about schoolchildren putting on weight. She mentioned that children are often taken to school by car. But is it not the case that many children are taken to school by car for their own protection? If there is a weight problem, should not schools establish an exercise programme within the curriculum?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, physical education must be an important part of the school curriculum. Whether children can safely walk or cycle to school are issues that need to be tackled both in terms of community safety and road safety. Often parents' fears exacerbate the situation in that they result in fewer people being on the street and fewer people walking their children to school. It is possible for some parents to walk with their children to school. In areas where there is traffic congestion that may not take any longer than driving the children to school and would be a great deal better for all concerned.

Development: Interdepartmental Working Group
2.53 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
On how many occasions the full interdepartmental working group on overseas development co-operation has met at ministerial level since May 1997 and what consideration it has given to security sector reform.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Interdepartmental Working Group on Development has met three times, most recently on 24th September 1998. Security sector reform was discussed by the committee at the latest meeting. The meeting considered an analysis of the link between security and poverty elimination and supported proposals for DfID involvement in security sector reform. A paper outlining these proposals will be published in the New Year.
DfID support for security sector reform is likely to focus primarily on strengthening the capacity of civilian authorities to control expenditure, to make security forces more accountable. For example, an

979
interdepartmental team recently visited Sierra Leone to examine the security needs of that country. Ministers have endorsed the recommendations that the UK provide assistance to strengthen the capacity of the Ministry of Defence to hold security forces accountable. DfID will provide some part of this assistance.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that full and encouraging reply, but does she not agree that the poverty eradication to which the Government are committed will depend upon the success of closely integrated policies in which trade, Treasury, environment as well as development all have their part to play, and that part of the test of the success of DfID is the degree to which it is able to bring interdepartmental policy together? Does she not in particular agree, with reference to security policy, that in too many places development is undermined by conflict or by the ready availability of light weapons and it is absolutely essential to look at demobilisation and the withdrawal of weapons from circulation if there is to be any chance of progress being sustained?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, one of our objectives is to ensure that there is sustainable peace as well as sustainable development. The Government seek to promote international security in a variety of ways; for example, through our membership of organisations such as the UN and NATO, and also through our work with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. We also promote security through our support for sustainable development, good governance and human rights. The interdepartmental working group has been an effective forum for promoting the Government's commitment to consistency of all policies affecting developing countries. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has had a series of bilateral meetings with her Cabinet colleagues, has addressed the Defence Select Committee, has given a speech at the Royal College of Defence Studies, and later this week will meet the chief of the defence staff to discuss issues of joint interest.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, in view of the outstanding achievement of the Armed Forces in the current emergency in Honduras, which I think everyone appreciates, will the Government report more fully on the role of the Armed Forces in international development, including long-term development?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that question. I shall report his request to the department.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, might not the noble Lord, Lord Judd, have added education to the list of elements
980
that need to be brought together in ODA policy as being the element perhaps most of all that leads to long-term, sustainable development?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, development education is a key part of the strategy and the interdepartmental working group includes representatives from that department.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, do the Government intend to continue supplying large quantities of aid to African governments which are engaged in military adventures in the Congo, or will they seek to cut back on aid if those activities continue?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, the Government have pursued a foreign policy with an ethical dimension which spreads the values of human rights and democracy. We have been committed to that since we came into power. We have, among other things, taken the lead in establishing, for example, the International Criminal Court and the EU exports code of conduct. I hesitate to mention specific countries in answer to the noble Lord's question.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, has the interdepartmental committee given consideration to the strategic role of local government in promoting democracy and development at local level? What ongoing support is being provided by the Department for International Development for UK local government to enable it to undertake technical partnerships with local government partners in developing countries?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the role of local government is not a matter which has been specifically discussed at the interdepartmental group. However, my noble friend will be aware that partnership is a central part of the strategy in the White Paper. The Government are committed to raising awareness of development issues across the country. As part of that process local authorities and local authority associations have been involved in the development policy fora at both regional and national level.
In addition, the DfID is committed to developing country strategy papers with its partner countries and those are being discussed more widely both within the UK and within our partner countries. Country strategy papers examine, for example, the nature and potential of partnerships with local government, civil societies, other donors and the private sector.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the noble Baroness failed to answer my question in any respect, perhaps I should ask it again more bluntly: are we to continue subsidising war in the Congo?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I repeat that the Government have made it clear that their foreign and development policies do have an ethical dimension. It is inappropriate for me to comment on one country in particular.

Food Standards Agency: Progress
3 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making in setting up the food standards agency.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the Government remain committed to setting up a food standards agency. However, I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I did not expect the Minister to anticipate the contents of the Queen's Speech. However, does the Minister accept that for full public protection it is vital that the new agency has a new range of enforcement powers and that it comes under the Department of Health and not the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Secondly, in light of the evidence given to the BSE inquiry by former chief medical officers, what definition of "safe" will the agency use?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the details of the proposed food standards agency are set out in full, and in great detail, in the White Paper we published in January. The White Paper envisages that that agency will have its responsibility transferred directly to the Department of Health. That will meet the essential prerequisite on page 2 of the White Paper that food safety and food health should be separated from the producer side.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can my noble friend say how the groundwork for establishing the food standards agency will be continued and how the strong pressures against it will be countered? Can the present interim food standards unit be upgraded to a commission rather like the predecessor of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority? Will the Minister confirm that there is a move by the food standards unit towards the Department of Health to ensure that the interests of consumers and of producers are separated as the Department of Health is more suited to looking after the interests of consumers?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his question. He has great experience and knowledge in this area. As I said, I cannot anticipate what will be announced about the food standards agency, although I can state that my right honourable friend will be making a statement shortly after the Queen's Speech. My noble friend's suggestion about ensuring greater separation and the transfer of interim arrangements into the Department of Health is interesting. I cannot comment on it, but I shall bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in every activity in life there is an element of risk? Will he ask those who are to form the food
982
standards agency to bear in mind that if we have sterile food—in other words, if it is totally germ-free—we shall be introducing a risk because our biological systems will not have had the priming which protects us from normal germs?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, what the noble Countess says about risk is, indeed, true. It is a most complex subject, of particular relevance to food safety, and one to which we have given considerable attention. I shall certainly draw her suggestion to the attention of my colleagues.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I do not want to press the Minister to tell us anything that he thinks may appear in the Queen's Speech. However, does he agree with the perception that there is a conflict of interest between consumers, who desire to see ever more rigorous standards of food safety, and the agriculture industry, which is anxious to resist any further controls or regulations on the way in which it works? Does the Minister believe that there is such a conflict of interest? If so, has he anything to tell us about what channels of communication the Government are setting up to overcome that problem?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Government propose to set up the food standards agency as an independent body—and as independent of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—precisely because of that perceived conflict of interest. That does not mean that we accept all that has been said about agriculture's interests. In our consultation, virtually all parts of the food industry gave tremendous support to the idea of an independent agency, realising that confidence in our food is good for the industry. I believe that that message has been conveyed to the agriculture industry itself.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, this is not a happy experience. Of course, I am in the hands of the House, but as we have had 29 minutes of Question Time and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has asked a supplementary question, perhaps my noble friend, Lord Davies, may ask his question.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the definition of "safe" can be established only when we have determined the specific dangers that have to be removed?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, that is, indeed, true. It is a complex issue and a complex definition. That is why my department and the Department of Health, which have worked jointly on this matter, have many scientific advisory committees to give us expert advice. Personally, I do not believe that it will ever be possible to have an absolute and reliable definition of "risk" or "safety".

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Iraq. That will be followed by my noble friend Lord Donoughue who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on aid to agriculture.
Perhaps I may also say a word about the debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure. The debate is not subject to any official time limit but in view of the important business to follow, including the two Statements and the debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, I hope that all who take part in the debate will be brief and will focus only on the subject matter of the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.8 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
For the convenience of the House perhaps I may add a word to what the Government Chief Whip has said about the form of the debate. As soon as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has moved the first amendment standing in his name and has spoken immediately afterwards to the second amendment, I hope that your Lordships will feel free, while bearing in mind what the Government Chief Whip has said, to speak on any aspect of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure there and then. That will avoid the need for several debates, the need for repetition and, in particular, the need for more than one further speech from myself. Of course, the noble Earl will then have his right to reply on his two amendments.
As your Lordships will have noticed, the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure is a little unusual. It enters into a lot of detail about item 1, relating to the formal dress of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. That is because the committee was divided on the two matters of the dress of the Lord Chancellor and of his speaking from the Government Front Bench. Robust views were expressed in the committee—
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, your Lordships are obviously taken by surprise by that. Robust views were expressed in the committee both by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor arguing in favour of his proposals and by other members of the committee arguing that there should be no change. As the report notes, there was strong opposition to both proposals. While, on the one hand, the proposed changes
984
in dress can be described as modest, it is also the case, on the other hand, that even those modest proposals drew strong objections. It is right to tell the House that the opposition to the changes proposed in the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's formal dress was greater than the opposition to the second proposal on the place from which he should speak. In those circumstances, I thought it was right to place in the committee's report a summary of the arguments used on both sides during the committee's deliberations on the two points. I hope that this will have helped the House to understand in more detail the background to the committee's recommendation.
On the matter of the recommendations, I believe that the report reflects accurately the summing up which I made in the committee after a very full and forthright debate there which lasted almost two hours. While no Division took place, I felt that a majority of the committee—perhaps not a large majority, perhaps a bare majority but a majority nevertheless—endorsed the proposed changes and recommended them to the House, as the report makes clear. Those who were present at the committee and who saw the report in draft certainly agreed that this was the case.
A noble Lord: No.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is of course for other noble Lords to say; it is their perfect right. I will seek to reply later in this afternoon's proceedings, if it proves necessary.
The summing up was not challenged in the committee. At the same time it was recognised by all those who took part in the committee's deliberations that the final decisions on these matters would necessarily have to be taken by the House.
The other matters in the report do not call for any elaboration from me at this stage. I will do my best, as necessary, to answer any questions about them which your Lordships may have.
Moved, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 144) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, at end to insert ("except the recommendation relating to the Lord Chancellor's Dress").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the first amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak to the second one at the same time. For the sake of simplicity, one might describe the first amendment as "dress" and the second as "moving about".
I had the privilege of being a member of the Procedure Committee. I admired the dexterity with which the Chairman of Committees summed up the proceedings of the Procedure Committee. It was not easy. He has summed up again today with fairness.
If I may, I shall deal with dress first. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes to do away with his breeches, tights and buckled shoes other than on ceremonial occasions. He wishes to wear black trousers and ordinary shoes instead—although he has graciously assured us that the shoes will be well polished. I think that this would be a retrograde step—not the well-polished shoes but the removal of the breeches, tights and buckled shoes.
The office of Lord Chancellor is one of the highest in the land. The ceremonial which goes with that office, and the uniform which attaches to that office, are very important. They are a reminder to all of us—your Lordships, Members of another place and the general public—of the stature, dignity and, indeed, the awe with which the office of Lord Chancellor is held. With the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord, it is not, after all, Lord Irvine of Lairg at whom we are looking but at the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and all that goes with that. In my view, any attempt to "dress down" is wrong.
Nor do I think that it is incumbent on whoever happens to be the holder at any one time of this most prestigious office to say "I do not really like this uniform". One can just imagine what would happen if guardsmen at the trooping of the colour said that they wanted to do away with silly old bearskins, that they are out of date. Whether it is bearskins or the uniform of the Lord Chancellor, they are both uniforms which symbolise what has gone before and upon which the present is built. Would it not be absurd, too, if Black Rod and the Yeoman Usher were to keep their breeches, tights and buckled shoes but the Lord Chancellor did not? They would, as it were, out-Peter Peter—and that does not seem to be the right pecking order. With just trousers and shoes, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would be wearing a very similar dress to the Clerk at the Table. The Clerks are fine fellows and they look resplendent in their uniforms.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Earl Ferrers: But the Lord Chancellor is different. He should keep his distinctive dress.
Indeed, if I may respectfully suggest it, it would seem curious for one who is so punctilious in ensuring that the Lord Chancellor's apartments correctly reflect history not to apply the same critical analysis to the Lord Chancellor's dress as well. When, in 1889, Queen Victoria made Kaiser Bill an Admiral of the Fleet, he exclaimed "Fancy wearing the uniform of Nelson. It is enough to make one feel quite giddy". One might have hoped that a similar flicker of excitement and engaging humility might be forthcoming from whoever happens at any one time to hold the office of Lord Chancellor. I think that for the Lord Chancellor to give up his uniform—and so to set the precedent for his successors to follow—is wrong.
So much for dress. Now for "moving about". The proposal is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should be entitled to vacate the Woolsack and sit on the Front Bench with his ministerial colleagues—without, of course, his wig and gown—at
986
all stages of the Bills with which he is involved; at Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage, Third Reading and Bill do now pass. In a nice avant garde way, I think that this is a mistake too. Other than at Committee stage, the Lord Chancellor's place is on the Woolsack and he moves to the side when it wants to "enter the House" in order to speak. He still retains the grandeur and aura of the Lord Chancellor.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor holds the curious role of being a Cabinet Minister, of being head of the judiciary and of being Speaker of your Lordships' House. If I may be slightly vulgar for a moment, part of the salary which is paid to the Lord Chancellor of the day is by virtue of his position as Speaker of the House of Lords.
The late Lord Gardiner—who was of course a Labour Lord Chancellor of distinction—when he occupied the position of Lord Chancellor, was so assiduous in his responsibilities that he was on the Woolsack almost the whole time. His stamina was unbelievable. He felt that it was his duty to the House—and it was a courtesy to the House—for him to be there as much as possible. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord should leave the Woolsack and then pass to others the responsibilities of fulfilling his role as Speaker.
There are plenty of Deputy Chairmen who help out and sit on the Woolsack when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not in the Chamber, but it is a very different thing for the noble and learned Lord to be in the Chamber and to decide to metamorphose into a Front Bench Minister, and then leave it to someone else to look after his responsibilities on the Woolsack.
We are all, in different ways, the beneficiaries of tradition; and we are all, in different ways, the custodians of tradition. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord should lightly toss his responsibilities on one side and give them over to others.
I do not like being horrible to the noble and learned Lord in opposing what he would like to do but my fear is that these proposals are yet another example of the present Government quietly chipping away at the traditions and standards of public life for no valid reason other than for what might loosely be called modernisation. And modernisation, my Lords, carries no virtue without there being a reason for it. I am bound to say that, over this, I can see no reason for it and I can see no virtue in it either. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, at end to insert ("except the recommendation relating to the Lord Chancellor's Dress").—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.20 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees for explaining the recommendations of the report and I have listened with great interest to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when explaining his amendments. I have the greatest respect for the noble Earl. In fact, he and I have known each other for a very long time. I often agree with what he says but I am afraid I cannot do so this afternoon.

987
I do not think that these modest proposals would detract from the dignity of the high office, as the noble Earl supposed, nor from the dignity of the House. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said that he believes he could act more efficiently if he did not have to act as Speaker at the same time as he deals with legislation. As a Deputy Chairman, I have observed, while in attendance, how difficult this must be, switching the roles instantly, moving to the left to speak and back again to put the Question—a continual minuet when you are trying also to concentrate on a Bill and also wearing a heavy, full-bottomed wig, even in the summer. I would not like to have to do it.
If the Lord Chancellor were able to deal with all stages of a Bill from the Dispatch Box, instead of only at the Committee stage, it would be easier for him and he would also—this is very important—be able to communicate with the other Ministers dealing with the same Bill instead of being separated from them on the Woolsack.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would be able to divest himself of his wig and gown while on the Front Bench for all stages of a Bill but he would continue to wear his wig and gown on the Woolsack. The fact that the Lord Chancellor would be wearing black trousers and black shoes under the gown instead of breeches and tights and buckled shoes should surely not make very much difference. On all formal occasions my noble and learned friend proposes, I understand, to wear the full regalia.
I realise that these modest proposals are a small break with tradition but the advantages surely outweigh the disadvantages. Surely, my Lords, we have to move with the times in this more informal age. At the beginning of this century noble Lords wore frock coats and top hats. One has only to look at the paintings outside the Chamber of the proceedings on the Home Rule Bill of 1893 to see the difference. The only dress that has not changed has been that of Lord Herschell, the Lord Chancellor at the time.
I suggest that we need also to move with the times in this respect. We all dress much more informally now and noble Baronesses, who I am glad to see are present, sometimes wear trouser suits. If it comes to a vote, I shall oppose the noble Earl's amendments.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, Walter Bagehot famously wrote of constitutions such as ours that there are two parts:
"first, those which excite and preserve the reverence of the population—the dignified parts … and next, the efficient parts—those by which it, in fact, works and rules".
This Motion and the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, require us to decide whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's dignified parts—his full-bottomed wig, gown, breeches, tights and buckled shoes—so excite and preserve the reverence of the population beyond and within this House that he should continue to be compelled to wear the full uniform not only on all ceremonial occasions but also on ordinary sitting days.
988
It is a Motion conspicuous for its moderation. It does not propose that the Lord Chancellor should be able, if he wishes, to dispense with the full-bottomed wig, the gown and the buckled shoes on ordinary sitting days, but merely that he should be able to wear trousers instead of breeches and tights on those days.
I hope that I shall not be regarded as lacking in respect for tradition, dignity and ceremony when I express regret that the present Motion will still not permit the Lord Chancellor, like other noble Lords, to wear ordinary dress on ordinary sitting days when the efficient parts are working, dispensing with the full-bottomed wig and the buckled shoes. The Select Committee on Procedure has wisely had second thoughts about the decision to forbid noble Lords from speaking with their hands in their pockets, on the ground that it is not appropriate to regulate the conduct of noble Lords in such detail. In the same way, it is surely inappropriate to require the Lord Chancellor to wear buckled shoes instead of ordinary shoes, and to be weighed down with a heavy full-bottomed wig.
The antiquity of the Lord Chancellor's costume does not equal the antiquity of his great Office of State. In the history of men's clothing and fashion, the wig and knee breeches had a comparatively short life. Wigs were introduced in polite society in the reign of King Charles II; and, until the 17th century, lawyers wore their natural hair, or no hair. One can still see judicial portraits which were painted before the 1680s showing judges without wigs. As for knee breeches, they date only from the late 18th century. Those noble Lords with a scholarly disposition will find information about this given by Professor J.H. Baker of St. Catharine's College, Cambridge, in An Outline History of the Legal Robes Now Worn In England and Wales, which is in a consultation paper of some years ago.
I do not know when noble Lords other than the Lord Chancellor dispensed with wigs and knee breeches or, for that matter, when they dispensed with the top hats and frock coats that we see in the paintings outside the Chamber marking the defeat of Gladstone's Irish Home Rule Bill by the third Marquess of Salisbury and his party. But I suggest that to allow the Lord Chancellor to dispense with all of the dignified parts of his ceremonial uniform on ordinary sitting days would in no way diminish the dignity and authority of this House.
Upon those occasions when I have had the privilege of appearing before the Law Lords in the Appellate Committee, I have never heard anyone suggest that their dignity and authority are lessened in any way because, except for ceremonial occasions, the Law Lords, unlike barristers and other judges, do not wear wigs, gowns, wing collars and bands. I have never heard anyone suggest that the Law Lords should wear ceremonial costume when they deliver their judgments in the full Chamber.
As a barrister of 35 years' standing, like many of my learned friends, I wish that the Lord Chancellor would liberate me and my colleagues from the outmoded obligation to wear such uncomfortable, unhygienic, unhealthy and outmoded dress in our daily work in court.

989
The ceremonial costume of the Lord Chancellor certainly adds to the richness and colour of the House's ceremonial and procedure. It also provides good material for entertainment and mockery in political cartoons and parliamentary sketches, and in Gilbert and Sullivan's comic opera, "Iolanthe". If this Motion is passed, it will continue to do so, because the costume, in its full glory, will continue to be worn on ceremonial occasions. And on ordinary sitting days, the Lord Chancellor will be obliged to appear in a curious new-fangled hybrid of 18th and 20th century garb.
The Select Committee's recommendation that the Lord Chancellor should be able to speak from the Government Front Bench when the House is sitting as a House rather than in Committee is surely plain common sense. It enhances the efficient parts, without any sacrifice of the dignified parts, of the procedures of the House. It recognises that he is participating in his capacity as the Minister of Justice rather than in his ornamental and symbolic role. It is surely sensible for our procedures to reflect the reality of the Lord Chancellor's role as a senior and powerful Member of the Government. It is, I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, a much altered role from the rather minor role played by the Lord Chancellor in the days of that great Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, 34 years ago.
I hesitate to state the obvious but we are not an exclusive social club, regulating our internal procedures for our own pleasure and personal gratification. This is not the Garrick Club, Buck's or White's. The public at large will respect the House more rather than less if we conduct our debates and regulate our procedures with the much-needed recognition that the way in which we use our parliamentary time is in the public interest and not in the interest of our own personal whims. We shall win much more public respect if we agree to this very modest and sensible reform. Otherwise, I dare say that we are at risk of looking ridiculous.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is the full-bottomed wig which is identified specifically in the Select Committee's report as causing the Lord Chancellor both restriction and tedium when he has to carry a Bill through this House.
Fellow feeling makes us wondrous wise. Some 30 years ago, Silks (QCs) appearing before your Lordships' Appellate Committee also had to wear full-bottomed wigs. In my capacity then as Chairman of the Bar Council, I approached the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, at whose feet I had sat when he was chairman and explained to him that the effort of filtering through horsehair some of their Lordships' more incomprehensible questions when acting as an advocate imposed a quite unnecessary strain. The result of that supplication is that QCs no longer wear full-bottomed wigs when appearing before the Appellate Committee; they wear them only when taking a judgment or in the first fortnight of October, when the Appellate Committee still sits in this Chamber because Parliament has not yet fully returned.
990
The Lord Chancellor has said that he is interested in these changes in order to do his job more efficiently. I am all in favour of the Lord Chancellor doing his job more efficiently. It may well be that it is the horsehair that is inhibiting his hearing the oft-repeated question: "Why are you going back on so much that you said when in Opposition?".
I give two examples of what the horsehair may be doing. In regard to conditional fees, I merely quote what was said by the Lord Chancellor when he was but a shadow of his current self. He said:
"I regard contingency fees in any shape or form, however diluted, as abhorrent".
In regard to legal aid, one year before he became Lord Chancellor, he said:
"Legal aid is a highly successful public social service".
Within a year it had become a Leviathan with a ferocious appetite.
Under this heading, I refer finally to the Lord Chancellor's fervent support of the separation of powers—not to be found in a very strange document, a consultative paper, entitled, The Way Ahead. I thus hope that the abolition of the requirement to wear the full-bottomed wig will redound favourably in regard to the matters I have mentioned.
As regards trousers replacing the breeches, I do not think that that would in any way reduce the dignity of the office of the Lord Chancellor. I wish to provide an analogy. The proper attire of Silks from the waist upwards consists of a tailed coat with distinctive sleeves, silk buttons and frogging, which can be seen poking through the gaps in the gown. In addition to the tailed coat there is a waistcoat which follows the same sort of decoration, with special pockets. Those of us who used to travel around the Far Eastern circuit to Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia found the wearing of those two garments oppressive. They were not suited to the climate. Legal ingenuity invented a new garb. It looks rather like a porter's jacket. The waistcoat is a true copy of the waistcoat previously worn by Silks and is, I believe, currently worn by the Lord Chancellor. That is visible because the gown is open. But tacked on to the waistcoat are the sleeves, which are appropriate to the heavy tailed coat. However, that is not apparent, because all one sees through the gown is the sleeves and the front of the waistcoat. So there is one simple garment; it is quite cool, and is able to be used not only in the Far East but in this country, where it is currently worn not only by QCs but by judges in the Court of Appeal, who wear the QC's outfit when sitting.
That has not in any way detracted from the dignity of the office of an Appeal Court judge; nor has it detracted from the dignity of the QC. It is an example of how one has ensured that dress which follows tradition should not make it more difficult to carry out one's job. I therefore support the Lord Chancellor on the "efficiency" approach to his garb, and I look forward to impressive results if his proposal is carried.
3.39 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in all the

991
arguments that he adduced this afternoon. As someone who was present at the Procedure Committee, I wish to support what was said this afternoon, with his usual wit and charm, by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. As we have been reminded, time is not on our side and I shall not repeat the points which my noble friend so clearly made.
If, as we are given to understand, there is to be a Bill providing for major reform of your Lordships' House, surely that will be the occasion on which to look at all these matters. I believe that at that time we should have a change and that the noble and learned the Lord Chancellor should determine how he would appear in the House. The Bishops, too, could presumably look at the question of their dress at the same time. My impression is that a number of clergymen dress down these days in a way which is surprising to older members of the Church. I am not sure that that has benefited everyone; perhaps they think it has.
The arguments made by the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Lester, comparing this matter with dress in your Lordships' House in the 19th century and the dress of judges in court, do not address the point so clearly made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, which is that the Lord Chancellor occupies one of the highest offices of state and presides over one of the Houses of Parliament. I do not think that the dress worn by judges or by Peers in the 19th century is a comparable matter. We are talking about something quite different.
Nor should we be put off by debating this matter. One of the difficulties about debating something such as "what is in a change of dress?", as speakers have said in various amusing and witty ways, is that this is a good example of salami-slicing. We have this today; what will it be tomorrow? We have already had an alteration to the Ceremony of Introduction. What will come next? If we want to be really modern, why not wear T-shirt and jeans, which, after all, seem to be a national uniform? People would be surprised if one went that far, but it is an argument. There is no stopping the process. There is no comparison between the matter we are discussing and the changed dress of others who have been referred to.
I believe that many professionals have not helped the dignity of their office and their public standing by dressing down. I think particularly of nurses, who have not helped themselves by adopting uniforms which are nothing like as recognisable and as fine as they were previously. I do not think that clergymen have helped themselves by dressing down. People look to the dignity of the office, which is shown by the uniform of the office-holder. The uniform signifies the importance of the office which the current bearer has taken on from previous holders of the office and which will be carried on for the future. I strongly support my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
I do not feel quite so strongly with regard to my noble friend's second Motion. I remember very well Lord Gardiner, a predecessor of the noble and learned Lord. I recall particularly two all-night sittings in which I took part, when Lord Gardiner was on the Woolsack throughout the debate, arguing a case very impressively and with tremendous wit and humour until the early
992
hours of the morning. I believe that he set a very good example, and he was held in great respect. I am sorry that the traditions which he set and the things which he was able to do are not to be continued. I do not believe that, at the end of the day, this will be to the advantage of New Labour, if that is the intention, and I am certain that it will not be to the advantage of your Lordships' House.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, when I go home this evening and am asked what important legislation we debated today, I shall have to say, "the Lord Chancellor's clothes". I shall have to tell my family and friends that there was a debate over which shoes and trousers the Lord Chancellor should wear.
I do not wish to be cynical, but what does that say about the values and culture of your Lordships' House? Those who think that we are irrelevant will have their prejudices confirmed. Those who think that we bring experience, expertise and balance to the nation's affairs will be disappointed. Some may agree with my noble friend Lord Hattersley, writing in today's Guardian, that this debate is appropriately trivial. What everyone will think is that this is yet another symbol of our inability to reform and to modernise ourselves.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that the dignity and respect in which we and the public hold the great office of the Lord Chancellor does not come from the way that he dresses. Surely it comes from the manner in which he carries out his responsibilities, the way in which he runs his great office, his work and the decisions that he makes?
Of course, there is a place for uniform, pageantry and tradition, but they must not stand in the way of progress and reform. If we do allow pageantry and tradition to stand in the way, I repeat what I said in the debate on the reform of your Lordships' House on 15th October: we shall be perceived as part of "theme park Britain" instead of part of Parliament. Theme parks are wonderful for their purpose, but their purpose is different. Do we really want to be perceived in the same way as the Tower of London is perceived? Of course not. Yet how we are perceived by the public is important, because they are the people whom we serve. We do not serve each other in your Lordships' House. That is why we have to modernise to reflect the more informal values of those whom we serve. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that, if we do not modernise, we shall lose people's confidence and become irrelevant.
I am saddened to have to speak against a Motion moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I have long admired his wit, his sense of fun and his usually progressive views. But in this case he is wrong. He is being too conservative.
Reform and modernisation are all around us. We are reforming our constitution, our society, our economy and our politics. Even the Conservative Party is reforming itself. If your Lordships' House as presently composed cannot even allow the Lord Chancellor to change his trousers, there is every justification for

993
changing the composition of your Lordships' House in order to carry out the far more urgent and pressing modernisations that will come before us.
I urge your Lordships to oppose the Motion moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees and others have put the arguments, and they are entirely reasonable. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees deserves our support.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, in order to try to assist the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I did a little reading to see whether there were any historical precedents which might be prayed in his aid. I came across one precedent involving Lord Chancellor Northington. I am a little reluctant to mention that particular Lord Chancellor because he presided over the trial of the seventh Earl Ferrers and condemned him to death! When he became Lord Chancellor he applied to King George III for leave of absence from court on Wednesday and Friday afternoons so that he could finish his bottle of port at leisure, and the King granted his request. It is not difficult to understand why the King did that. Indeed, he gave as his reason the fact that he thought that it might be a positive advantage to his subjects if the Lord Chancellor did not sit on Wednesday and Friday afternoons, having drunk his port.
While one can see the advantage to the subjects of King George III in the granting of that application in the present case there can be no advantage whatever to the subjects of the Queen if the Lord Chancellor removes his tights. Not only is there no obvious advantage to be gained by the public in the proposed change, but I am at a loss to understand what particular advantage will accrue to the Lord Chancellor. He may say that the wearing of tights is very uncomfortable. If that be the case, he has done a great deal to mitigate his suffering by sitting rather less than previous Lord Chancellors. Therefore, that is not the strongest argument that he can possibly advance.
I refer to only one other Lord Chancellor. Lord Eldon, who was known I understand as "Old Bags", used to open his correspondence when the Bishop commenced Prayers, but that is beside the point. Lord Eldon petitioned King George III that he should not be required to wear his wig. The King rejected that request. That brings us very close to home. I very strongly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who gave the show away. We are not talking simply about an application to change the dress of the Lord Chancellor in a very modest way but about a course of conduct. The Lord Chancellor petitioned that he should no longer be required to walk backwards down the steps of the Throne, having delivered the Speech to the Queen. The other day one read in the press—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. His comment a moment or two ago about the Lord Chancellor making a petition is wholly inaccurate.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, if that was not the request of the Lord Chancellor it was certainly a request
994
made by someone and it resulted in a change in the procedures to be followed at the State Opening. Therefore, one cannot look at this matter in isolation. One is looking at a request, from wherever it comes, for a change in the way the Lord Chancellor carries out his duties at the State Opening. We are today looking at a request to change his clothing. Noble Lords are also aware from a speech made the other day that the Lord Chancellor is interested in the removal of judges' wigs in court.
I listened attentively to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I believe that this is just the beginning, not the end, and if we accede to this request we merely add fuel to the flames and encourage more and more requests for modernisation. I see the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, nods in assent. Therefore, I support my noble friend's first amendment as a warning shot, as it were, over the bows of the Government and the Lord Chancellor. I believe that this modernisation has gone far enough.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may comment on the Lord Chancellor's tights. I have taken steps to find out that gentlemen's tights are available from Ede & Ravenscroft.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that information.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I rise to speak in this debate with considerably more trepidation than I did some weeks ago when I spoke in your Lordships' House for the first time. The opportunities for revealing the depths of my ignorance about the history and traditions of your Lordships' House are legion. However, I am consoled by the fact that I shall certainly leave here today better informed and more enlightened than when I arrived.
I believe it possible, even probable, that people outside your Lordships' House will not understand. and may even find bizarre, the fact that we have taken up to two hours from a busy legislative schedule to discuss articles of the Lord Chancellor's clothing. Therefore, it is important for all of us, as well as for my noble and learned friend, that the House reaches a sensible conclusion at the end of this debate. In the current climate where grand issues of constitutional reform fill the air, to spend time debating more or less intimate apparel and wigs seems quite surreal. We must agree to this modest request from the Lord Chancellor. I urge noble Lords to oppose the amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
I find odd the argument that costumes lend dignity to the office. In my short time here I have already observed that the respect which this House accords to the Lord Chancellor—indeed, to everyone—in no way depends on what he or she may be wearing at any given moment. Thus, unless we believe that we have the primary role of entertaining tourists there can be no compelling reason for maintaining the Lord Chancellor's evident discomforture. I am surprised that he has not yet

995
invoked the European Convention on Human Rights, with its explicit prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
There may be a point in insisting that the Lord Chancellor does something that he plainly does not want to do for the sake of maintaining an important tradition that somehow serves a larger purpose. If so, what is that purpose? Is our legislation improved by it? None of the arguments that I have heard so far convinces me that that is the case. In any event, it is not as if this proposal involves the permanent abandonment of the robes in question. For those who truly thirst for a glimpse of our history, it will still be on offer on ceremonial and important state occasions.
Before my introduction into your Lordships' House, like many of my new colleagues I attended various briefing sessions conducted by the officials of the House and of my own party. That is what happens to new Peers these days. Nowhere in any of those briefings was I alerted to the fact that joining your Lordships' House would bring me into contact with so many men in tights! Men in tights seem to be rather numerous here, and I feel that I should have been warned. So far I have counted four. I suspect that at least one of the four relishes his costume and is happy to wear it on all possible occasions, but I am not so sure that that is the view of the majority. Certainly there is one—the Lord Chancellor—who wishes to consign his tights to the appropriate place: ceremonial occasions. I for one, as a wearer of tights of many years' experience, feel that that is an entirely reasonable request. If the next Lord Chancellor wishes to resurrect the practice, equally I would have no objection. If the next Lord Chancellor is a woman, everybody will be happy for many different reasons.
In preparing this speech I began to think about where different traditions had come from. I have consulted one or two books about the history of your Lordships' House. We have many traditions here. Some have a sensible basis in history, some are just silly and the reason for others has been lost. It became clear to me in my researches that many so-called traditions were mere accidents of history. If the historical accident in which the present Lord Chancellor is encased had happened a little later or a little earlier, we might today be arguing about whether the Lord Chancellor should be allowed to shed a short tunic, a mail shirt, an embroidered frock coat, with beribboned high heels, a powdered face and a beauty patch. I suppose that for these small mercies we should be grateful.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I first point out to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that my recollection of the source of the abandonment of the requirement for the Lord Chancellor to walk backwards down the steps of the Throne was the Queen. She was the one who ordered it. Therefore, the Queen should be excluded from his censure of those who initiated the change. The noble Lord shakes his head. The noble Lord
996
is not censuring the Queen, is he? This change in procedure arose from her wish and command, not a request from the Lord Chancellor.
I shall be very brief because so much has been said very wisely. As for me, I should like to recall the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Those three speeches, one after the other, made a complementary but unanswerable case for what the Lord Chancellor proposes to do in relation to both his dress and his movements about the House.
I do not think that we wish to hear many more speeches. My speech will be very short indeed. I support the Lord Chancellor's proposals for the reasons made abundantly plain in preceding speeches. I detected some note of hysteria both in the committee whose report we are considering and to a certain extent in the House today. I do not believe that this new Government, or anything that they propose to do, will change the face of the House completely.
When the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spoke I could not fail to recollect a speech he made in the House 30 or 40 years ago, before women became Members of the House. The skies were going to fall when women became Members. Perhaps the noble Earl remembers. He does indeed, so my recollection is right: the skies were going to fall if women were made Members of the House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I merely signified to him that I remembered the occasion; but his remembering of it is incorrect.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, if the noble Earl was so agitated 30 or 40 years ago about the presence of women in this House, one must take that into account when considering his agitation today about the dress of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. But there we are. I do not think that the devil has changed in that respect. He has always been consistently retrograde in his views about change, and this is one example.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I must declare an interest in speaking in this debate. I am one of the jeans and T-shirt generation referred to earlier. When I first came to the House over 10 years ago I found the idea of wearing a suit every day slightly unusual. I found seeing the officials walking around in their attire utterly terrifying. I do not think that that has changed for a large part of the population.
Noble Lords in this House have gained a good reputation over the past few years. For some strange reason we became fashionable. We were listened to; we sounded better than the Commons. It was not because we wore knee breeches, ties or anything else; it was what we said.
When the Lord Chancellor formally moved the Motion, I noted that one cannot see the knee breeches or the buckles on the shoes from these Benches. As someone who speaks from these Benches, I would rather

997
that the Lord Chancellor spoke from the Front Bench. I know those who sit on the Front Bench. My neck has become used to the habit of turning that way. When someone speaks from the Dispatch Box, is it not nice to watch Ministers having to turn to deal with points made by noble Lords sitting behind them, and suffering just that little bit? That may not be quite the same suffering that the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor seeks to avoid by not wearing his wig, but it is something to bear in mind.
We are dealing with a minor issue which we are wrapping up in great reams of self-produced red tape. What matters is what is said and done in the Chamber. We have ceremony enough to spare. We are the best show in town when the Queen's Speech is presented. We do not need to have little extra bits. I suggest that we conclude the debate as quickly as possible—I have already spoken too long—and, it is to be hoped, make changes, and then deal with real issues. This matter really is playing around at the edges.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords opposite have ever noticed that for something over 50 years their party's periods in office have averaged out at one-and-a-half parliamentary terms as against two-and-a-half, and more, for my right honourable and honourable friends, and asked themselves why this should be.
Let me enlighten them. It is what I always think of as the "Gotcha" factor. Throughout the general election process they are sweetly reasonable, all things to all men, then the mask slips allowing politics of hate and spite to emerge. "We are the masters now", for example, or "I'm going to make the pips squeak." And this is indicative of a state of mind that successive electorates have never found very endearing.
It has been most apparent, in this Parliament, in its urge to modernise the constitution, not so much with regard to the changes themselves, as to the way in which they are being carried out, without any sort of consultation and with its insistence on the result being precisely as Her Majesty's Government ordain.
First, it was devolution and the Government's use of public money to campaign for one side of the argument, holding those for Scotland and for Wales on separate days so as further to influence the result and even dictating from Westminster who can and cannot stand as Welsh First Minister.
Now it is the turn of your Lordships' House and, here again, it is the method that is at fault, picking away at established traditions and practices bit by bit. It started earlier this session with the Government's insistence on curtailing the Introduction Ceremony, even though by that time some major but as yet unspecified reform was already scheduled for some as yet unspecified time later in the Parliament. Then, after much speculation, came the announcement that Her Majesty's Government were to stick to their plan for a short sharp Bill to eliminate the hereditary Peers and only then to set up the Royal Commission. This despite the fact that all the evidence and 90 per cent. of informed opinion indicate that it
998
would make it far less easy—if not impossible—to get the definitive Bill through another place. Never mind that—doing it all in one nice big clean sweep would not be nearly punitive enough to the despised hereditary Peers. After all, did they not themselves vote by four to one in favour of reform, over 30 years ago?
And now there is the matter of the Lord Chancellor's new clothes. It has an awful ring of Hans Andersen about it. Surely this could have waited at least until next Session's phase one Bill had reached the statute book. But no; it has to be done now, this minute. Go on, let these few really rather modest little changes through, or show yourselves up for the fusty old reactionaries you are!
I hold the heretical view that it is no bad thing to let a little bit of pageantry and colour into our daily lives. It is an innate part of our British national character, eccentric perhaps and one that other countries affect to laugh at, but secretly admire and even covet.
When Barry the architect and more especially Pugin the designer, of whom the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is rightly one of the foremost present day champions, conceived their new Palace of Westminster, they did not just design a lot of empty rooms. They had regard to the function of each and to the people who would participate in it. It is a matter of record that, with one day of the year in mind—that of the State Opening of Parliament—they spent more time and trouble over this suite of rooms (the Queen's Robing Room, the Royal Gallery and your Lordships' Chamber) than on any other part of the building as a setting fit for the Sovereign, crowned, robed and accompanied by her great Officers of State, to meet the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in Parliament assembled.
For the other 364 days, the Robing Room and the Royal Gallery revert to just a room and a passage. Your Lordships' House, on the other hand, is forthwith transformed into its other capacity, that of the most magnificent legislative Chamber in the world. The centre of interest moves forward from the Cloth of Estate and the Throne to the Woolsack, designed no doubt by Pugin himself as was every other piece of furniture in the Palace, every wall, every floor, every ceiling, down to the minutest detail, there to be seated the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, Speaker of your Lordships' House, head of the Judiciary, the Mace, his purse and his tricorne hat behind him, dressed in full-bottomed wig, black silk gown and train, over court dress of linen bands, coat, waistcoat, knee breeches, black silk stockings and buckled shoes, as the last 33 of his predecessors have been proud to do.
But what of Pugin now? Could he but have foreseen all those years ago, that this, the focal point of his entire vision would from this day forward be occupied by an everyday figure in plain black shoes, short socks and striped trousers, what would he have done then? He just would not have bothered.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I suggest to him that he may

999
be wrong in his reference to the Prime Minister who spoke of the "pips squeaking". I believe that that was the Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. David Lloyd George, presiding over a coalition government in which the Conservative and Unionist party played a decisive part.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I do not believe that it was the Prime Minister, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that he was quoting Lord Geddes as regards German reparations. If the noble Lord does not like the quotation I used, that particular Chancellor of the Exchequer also referred to "making them howl". Those were his own words.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps I may return your Lordships to the rather conciliatory note of the whole debate against the unfortunate background of the recent comments of the noble Lord, Lord Denham. Perhaps I may begin by saying that if I do not mention "wigs", that is to return to the opening comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who said,
"a fellow feeling makes us wondrous wise".
The author of that comment was none other than Robert Burns. It is significant that in his 37 years on this earth the only time in his life when he was unpopular was when he wore a uniform. It was in that context that Burns made the remark.
I come to this debate as a traditionalist. I regard it as a House of Lords matter and not a party political matter at all. Perhaps I may comment on the report as a whole to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. The report is written as though there is never to be a female Lord Chancellor. It is written as though the Woolsack is always going to be occupied by a male Member of your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, who intended to speak in this debate, would no doubt have wanted to say that, but unfortunately she is absent.
I shall deal with two issues in the amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wants to wear different dress to that which he wears at the moment and wants to occupy the Front Bench when he speaks as a government Minister. I openly admit that I am old fashioned and that I am unashamedly, unashamedly, unashamedly—I say that three times so that the record gets it right—old Labour. I have always taken the view that those who choose to forget their past will search in vain for a future.
However, that being said, I am in favour of the proposals, not becausee they are modest, but because of the march of time. The noble Earl who moved the amendment is a hereditary Peer. I use the term reluctantly because I am conscious that we are slipping into the routine of using that description as though it were something to be ashamed of. I am not using the term in that manner at all. I wish only to make the point that the noble Earl is a hereditary Peer and the title was created in 1711. The noble Earl does not come to your Lordships' House wearing the garb of his predecessor
1000
of 1711. He arrives as one of the best-dressed Members of your Lordships' House wearing the garb of 1998. That is all the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seeks to do; namely, to wear the garb of 1998. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is a Highlander. We say in Scotland, "Ye cannae tak the breeks off a Highlandman". "Breeks" means breeches. All that the noble and learned Lord is asking to do is to remove the breeks from the Highlandman and let him wear trousers on occasions when it suits him to do so and to wear breeches on ceremonial occasions. I honestly do not see anything wrong with that.
My final point concerns the question of moving to the Front Bench when the Lord Chancellor speaks as a government Minister. In my early days in your Lordships' House I was heart sorry for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who was the Lord Chancellor in the Conservative government. I had to watch him get up and move to the left in John Major's government in order to make a speech. My voice falls silent about the present position. I shall not go into great detail about that. The Lord Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet and when he is speaking on behalf of the Government it makes sense for him to speak from the Government Front Bench. My guess is that at this advanced stage of the debate the House has come to its own conclusion and that the request of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should be acceded to.
4.15 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, as a humble colleague of his on the Procedure Committee. I wish to make two very brief points. First, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knew what uniform he would be expected to wear when he took the job. Secondly, I believe that the manner in which people dress influences the way in which they conduct themselves. I believe that any regimental sergeant-major would agree with that. They have always insisted on correct and immaculate uniforms because they know that appearance affects the conduct and morale of the troops. I leave those two brief thoughts with your Lordships.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for the way in which he introduced the report of the Select Committee of which I am also a member. I was unable to attend the last meeting because I was in bed with flu. I very much regret that I am unable to support it for the reasons alluded to so elegantly by my noble friend Lord Ferrers and other noble Lords. I shall not go over the same points again.
As a member of the panel of Deputy Chairmen, I am concerned with the smooth running of your Lordships' House. As a panel we number 31. If one excludes the Front Bench members, our number is 24. Of these, two or three are frequently overseas. There are committees of your Lordships' House which have to be manned in the Moses Room and so our numbers are even more reduced. Until now every Lord Chancellor has conducted his business from the Woolsack, apart from

1001
the Committee stage of the Bills. That has given us, the deputies, a little leeway. But now, under the proposed scheme, more pressure will be put on us to sit on the Woolsack. That may result in our having to do two sessions a day and more than we do at present in a week, for instance, if someone is ill or absent for some reason, as in the case of my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree who is looking after his wife following an operation and who will not be back until after Christmas.
I know that my noble friend has our numbers in mind. I also know that in the past it has been difficult to find Peers who are prepared to commit time to the group because of outside interests, personal commitments and engagements. The job is voluntary and unpaid, but to my mind, it is a job well worth doing.
One other big problem looms. I am glad to see the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in her place. If the Government go ahead with the proposal to abolish hereditary Peers, they will lose over half the panel at a stroke. It will be very hard to find 12 Members of your Lordships' House to fill the gap at short notice. I hope that that has been considered; if not, the Government must find an answer.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, we live in an age of rapid developments. The pace of technology, changes and social progress is so fast and all-embracing that the world in which we live is very different from that into which we were born. The 21st century is but 14 months away, yet the Lord Chancellor is required to dress as for a 17th century court, to the bafflement of the British public. It is not a cherished tradition but an absurd anachronism. No one in this day and age, even when appearing before the Sovereign, wears anything but a day suit, except on ceremonial occasions. It is time that this House acknowledged that when the world moves on we should move with it.
This Government were elected on a radical manifesto to take this country beyond the millennium. An integral part of that manifesto is to reform the Palace of Westminster, including this House. Such reform is long overdue. And it is not about re-writing our history or throwing away our traditions; it is about making Parliament a better place to work, more accessible to the people and more relevant to the needs of a modern nation.
The Procedure Committee has proposed reforms which are eminently sensible. The Lord Chancellor should not be expected to wear ceremonial dress every day. And the Lord Chancellor should be allowed the convenience of speaking as a Minister and addressing the House from the Government Front Bench. If this House resists these minor modernisations the British public will have their suspicions confirmed; that the
1002
House of Lords is out of touch with reality. I support the Fourth Report from the Select Committee and I urge the House to agree to it in full.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when I came to this House I felt the same as the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. Up to a point, I still do, but the matter we are discussing is not so simple—
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is asking a brief question for clarification, but as she has not put her name on the speakers' list, perhaps we should get on with the debate.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, perhaps I may take the Lord Chairman at his word and move the debate on to another recommendation. As regards the third recommendation, may we know more about the proposed membership of the working group of Back-Benchers considering the procedures in the Chamber? Remembering that at present all Peers are equal in your Lordships' House—whether they be Dukes, Barons, Ladies, Baronesses, life Peers, hereditary Peers, temporal or spiritual—I hope that we shall see a true composition of Back-Benchers.
As regards the Lord Chancellor's dress, we must be careful not to start massive changes down to the lowest common denominator. The Lord Chancellor's Procession might be seen as faintly ridiculous, but many people come to the Palace to see it, as they do the Speaker's Procession. If the recommendations are agreed they will see the Purse Bearer and the Train Bearer still wearing full ceremonial dress, but the Lord Chancellor not in ceremonial dress. In the procession we will see informal and formal dress and I wonder whether that might look slightly ridiculous.
I strongly believe that the Lord Chancellor should be allowed to move to the Front Bench if he wishes. Most government speeches are made from the Front Bench and I see nothing wrong with that recommendation.
Part of the Lord Chancellor's salary is related to the fact that he is the Speaker in your Lordships' House. He receives a dress allowance for that. I presume that we shall not be so silly as to change the salary.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that perhaps this is not the time to be discussing such changes. During the course of next year we shall have a big debate on the role and composition of this House within Parliament. Perhaps rather than dealing with this small issue now we should do so when we undertake that debate.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, some of our debates are curious occasions. Your Lordships are considering the 4th Report of the Select Committee, which has made five recommendations. One is of great importance upon Questions for Written Answer concerning, as it does, the accountability of government to Parliament. However, except for two brief mentions by two noble Lords, the entire debate has been about the first recommendation.

1003
Indeed, it has engendered some strong language, which I shall not repeat, from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lords, Lord Waddington and Lord Denham.
The recommendations on the Lord Chancellor's dress are thoroughly sensible. They represent a movement of the times and no more than that. Therefore, it is curious that we have had a debate of such length; While I entirely support these recommendations, I would add a caveat. It is referred to in the committee's penultimate paragraph and relates to the suggestion that the Lord Chancellor need only move to the Government Front Benches when he "wishes" to do so.
I understand the problem when the Lord Chancellor is dealing with a detailed Bill and is having to act as Speaker at the same time as talking to amendments on behalf of the Government. However, as I remember when I was a Cross-Bencher, the noble and learned Lord sits in a particularly advantageous position in your Lordships' House; we can see him and he can see us. Indeed, when I saw the Chief Whip of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, to break the painful news that I had decided to leave his party to join this party, I was minded to give another reason for my decision. I could see him better! Now I am sitting on this side of the House I can, indeed, fully see members of the former government which used to lead me.
I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider that caveat. He should feel free to remain in his position on the Woolsack, in particular during such debates as on the Queen's Speech, so that we can have the advantage of seeing him and he can have the advantage of seeing us. He should move to the Government Benches only when he needs to do so during the detailed passage of a Bill.
As regards the other recommendations about which there has been no debate or discussion today, I commend in particular the second and third. Adherence to procedures of the House has deteriorated. There has been a great deal of takeover by some Back-Benchers during Question Time. There is a great deal of unfortunate shouting when noble Lords do not give way to one another, particularly during Question Time. I believe that the proposed committee should be set up.
I make no comment on the fourth recommendation, which is a small matter. The fifth recommendation is useful and concerns the use of e-mails. Perhaps we can consider the Fourth Report in its entirety and agree to the sensible proposals. They do not slap tradition in its face or have anything to do with chipping away at standards in public life, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The recommendations are sensible and perhaps we may accept them without more ado.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may raise one matter. He referred to leaving this "party", pointing at the Cross Benches. I believe that that is correct, but I am happy to be corrected. Hansard will tell us. Perhaps I may remind
1004
the noble Lord that we are not a "party"; we are independent Peers. I hope that he will remember that. He now belongs to a party; I do not.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I was a Cross-Bencher in your Lordships' House for 19 years and much enjoyed my time as a member. I was never a member of a party when I was a member of the Cross Benches, nor did I say that to your Lordships a moment ago. I was referring to the fact that I have visited other places in your Lordships' House and that when I made the painful decision to leave the party led by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I knew that I would have the pleasure of getting a much better view of him. I have that pleasure now.
4.28 p.m.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, I am sure that many noble Lords realise how fortunate we are to meet in this glorious Chamber. I suggest that the pageantry and uniforms which accompany our proceedings are an important ingredient and contribute an essential note of gravitas. There has been much use of phrases such as "moving with the times", "this day and age", "being accessible to the people", and so forth. Those are clichés. I dare say that your Lordships will recall how, in the 1960s, there was an expression much in vogue which was "with it". One had to be "with it". In the name of what John Betjeman called "withitry", many of our greatest cities were destroyed. We are now trying to repair that damage.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is a man of taste and discernment. His love of and eye for paintings are exceptional. Moreover, he clearly has a great feeling for the beauty of this building, a feeling to which the redecoration of his apartment bears ample witness. Why he should wish to do anything to diminish its grandeur baffles me, just as it baffles the noble Lord, Lord Denham.
A senior figure should be seen to be a senior figure and, where uniforms apply, should dress accordingly. When an admiral or a general is on parade, it is not just the other ranks who must be properly dressed. No doubt the admiral or general may be more comfortable in more casual clothes, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that that would not be right, just as I am equally sure that the troops would feel affronted were he to do so.
Therefore, I beg the Lord Chancellor to wear his breeches with a good grace in the knowledge that he suffers for a worthy cause. Let him abandon all thought of becoming a sansculotte.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it has struck me during this debate that there has been an attempt to paint the Members on this side of the Chamber as having no respect for the dignity and authority of the Lord Chancellor.
The report states that:
"There would be a lessening of dignity and … another move towards dismantling the richness and colour of the House's cermonial".

1005
Noble Lords on this side of the House are just as jealous as those on the other side of the need to maintain those aspects of the past.
A suggestion has been made, but the amendments moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, seek to challenge the idea that there has been a suggestion. In the past hour there have been attempts to block any move at all. It is said that we should have change, but not now. We are faced with a reasonable request from someone who serves us well but who believes that he could serve us better if some of the impedimenta of the past were removed.
I cannot believe that people outside this House who are affected by the work of the Lord Chancellor give a tinker's cuss about the uniform or the dress. They are concerned about the quality of the law and the dignity of the Office. There is nothing that the Lord Chancellor has done in the past, nor, I suggest, will do in the future, which will diminish that. I believe that this is a measure of practical common sense and, as such, I commend it to the House.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I shall have to speak in the gap as I was unaware that we had to put down our names to speak. I wish to make two points and not waste the time of the House further.
The first point is to meet the usual objection that the time is not ripe. The doctrine of unripe time is well known in debate, as is the argument about the thin end of the wedge if we make a change.
The second point is that when I was first appointed to your Lordships' House, it was enjoined upon us at the opening of Parliament that we should wear a morning coat under our robes. Over the course of time, it became quite clear that there was no need for that whatever and now we are allowed to wear normal dress. If that can be so on a state occasion, surely we should accede to the modest request of the Lord Chancellor.
4.34 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I intervene briefly, and I apologise to the House for arriving late but I had to attend a memorial service. Therefore, I did not put my name down to speak.
I hope that this will not be considered to be a party matter in any way. I hope that nobody will accuse me of not being extremely supportive of all the customs of this House. The recommendations of the report seem to me to be eminently sensible. They preserve the dignity of the Lord Chancellor. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that dress is not important. It is important. But customs change and conventions alter. As the great John Henry Newman said, "To be human is to change and to be perfect is to have changed often". No pun is intended.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I too take advantage of the gap to depart from the problems of the Lord Chancellor's dress in order to ask a question of the
1006
Chairman of Committees. It relates to Recommendation 3, the Working Group on the Procedure of the House. The terms of reference of the group refer to,
"how the procedures of the House can be improved".
I have certain suggestions which I should like to make for the purpose of simplifying the wording of amendments tabled in Committee and at later stages of a Bill. For example—I shall give only one example—I cannot see why a recent tabled amendment had to say:
"Leave out from the beginning to the second 'or"',
instead of simply saying, "Leave out subsection 1(b)", which would be simpler and have precisely the same meaning.
There are other simplifications of a different sort which I should like to ventilate in order to make our paperwork more user-friendly. Will the Chairman of Committees confirm that possible improvements to the wording of amendments would be within the terms of reference of the working group as an improvement to the procedures of the House? The wording of amendments is relevant to such procedure.
I appreciate that what I have in mind will hardly be a matter for rules but only a matter of exhortation.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, there is a limit on how much can be said on the topics covered by the amendments to the Motion. Perhaps it is as well that not more noble Lords emulated the ingenuity of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and I shall not say quite as much as I could say.
I sum up the underlying question as whether the proposed changes will contribute to or detract from the reputation and efficiency of the House. As my noble friend Lord Lester said, we are not a club and, in my view, both changes would be likely to contribute to our reputation and to our efficiency. Indeed, to refuse either may detract from that.
With regard to the dress of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, what is most apparent to the public, as has been mentioned this afternoon and what is most apparent to Members of this House, is the gown and the wig. I should be surprised if most people noticed the difference if the noble and learned Lord were able to adopt the discreet plain black trousers and highly polished shoes which are proposed.
There is nothing disrespectful in modern garb. For example, your Lordships have not argued for dress-down Fridays which are now quite common in offices in the City of London. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, noted, women Members of this House now quite frequently wear trousers. There would be a riot if there were an attempt to prevent us from doing so.
I recall on the occasion of my own introduction to this House, when I was in danger of walking straight out after the series of bows, the previous Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, extended an extremely elegantly clad leg which made sure that I did not walk straight past the

1007
Woolsack on that occasion. Even at that time, while I was grateful for the hint, I wondered at what he was required to wear.
I have said that in refusing these proposals we could be detracting from the reputation of this House. The publicity around the refusal to moderate what one might almost call a minimum change—I agree with other noble Lords who made that point—could indicate to the world at large that the House is more concerned with the peripheral, almost the irrelevant, rather than the substance of the House's important work. This afternoon has had its moments, but I am not sure that I care for being living material for the sketch writers. I have rarely seen the Press Gallery as full as it was at the beginning of the debate and, though it is difficult to see from down here, I do not believe that many of them are constitutional historians.
One comment that I have already seen in the press—this matter has been covered fully—is that the wig which the Lord Chancellor customarily wears is rather like a dead sheep wrapped around a bollard and the bollard comes off worst, but I do not compare the noble and learned Lord to a bollard. More seriously, I understand the heightened sensitivity to these matters because of the currency of the debate relating to reform. We have heard the "right time" argument; the argument that we should await reform; the salami-slicing argument. I can see that when the right time comes—in other words, when we have a degree of reform—we may hear the opposite argument; that is, that we have already done away with enough traditions and should change no more.
I feel as strongly about the working arrangements as I feel about the question of dress. From these Benches we can clearly see the difficulties faced by the Lord Chancellor in dealing with material when he is speaking on a major piece of legislation and does not have the convenience of the Dispatch Box nor the ability easily to communicate with colleagues. We are a working Chamber and have every reason to accede to a reasonable request.
I am sorry to disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who said that the Lord Chancellor's place is on the Woolsack other than when the House is in Committee. Why is that so? He called the second amendment the "moving about" amendment. I suggest that it is the speaking and working amendment.
During the course of the debate reference was made to the custom of the Lord Chancellor to walk backwards down the steps of the Throne on the occasion of the State Opening. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, corrected that point, but I understand from the Lord Chancellor—I have had the benefit of sitting nearest to him during the course of the debate—that the suggestion for change came from Her Majesty herself and that the Lord Chancellor's response was to thank her for her consideration.
Yesterday I mentioned this debate to a relative who is the widow of a senior Army officer. She expressed some surprise at this being prime business for today. However, she also said that officers never wore dress
1008
uniform when they went into the trenches, nor indeed on normal peacetime duties, but only on ceremonial occasions. The analogy is a good one, though I appreciate that the Lord Chancellor may sometimes wonder whether this House constitutes the trenches or just peacetime duties.
I conclude by thanking the noble and learned Lord for his courtesy in bringing these matters to the House, in particular with regard to dress. I have been somewhat flippant—I recognise that—but there are serious points to be made. I understand that it was not necessary for him to bring the matter to the House. He has shown the House a great courtesy in doing so. I support the modest and reasonable changes proposed.
4.44 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, before I ask your Lordships to turn their attention during the course of my remarks to what is clearly the burning political question of the hour—the matter of the noble and learned Lord's dress—perhaps I can briefly refer to a couple of other matters set out in the report.
I want to underline what a number of noble Lords—notably the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for whose charming reference to myself I am grateful—referred to as the desirability of recommendation number 2 headed, "Questions for Written Answer". All those who have been members of governments know that the only mechanism open to anybody to hold governments continuously to account is Parliament. The fact that, according to the sheet headed "Questions for Written Answer" dated 13th November, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has had a Question outstanding since 12th March, underlines the extraordinary value of that recommendation. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that we may be able to agree with that as a recommendation without further debate.
I welcome the suggestion of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in relation to establishing a working group on procedure in the Chamber. The noble Baroness gave us every assurance that we were not going to talk about great matters affecting the powers of this House or how they are applied. My understanding from the noble Baroness—I am grateful to her for remaining so long; I know that she has a number of other important engagements later this evening—is that that working group would look at the minutiae of procedure in your Lordships' House. I greatly welcome it. It is already difficult to keep up with everyday practices in this House. I have been here for five or six years, admittedly not as long as many other noble Lords. With so many of our number being newly introduced, the little politesses which enable us to do without a conventional Speaker are more important than many of us realised when we first came here. A reminder of that would be helpful also when looking at whether any of the small matters need attention and change because, as we know, nothing is perfect.
That brings me to the matter of the noble and learned Lord's attire. During the course of what has proved to be an extremely lengthy afternoon, a number of noble Lords referred to the absurdity of spending so much of

1009
our time discussing what is, by any standards, a relatively unimportant matter. I associate myself with those who made those remarks. However, all of us knew—I hope that the noble and learned Lord will realise that I say this with the greatest respect and admiration and I hope we can agree in friendship on this matter—that as soon as a matter of this kind was raised in your Lordships' House, it would be bound to attract a great many people who wished to debate it. The fact that Members of the Government wanted to raise this matter, first in the Procedure Committee and then here, inevitably meant that we would risk making ourselves look a little foolish. The noble and learned Lord clearly felt it was worth that risk and the Procedure Committee took his request, as is only right, entirely seriously.
I hope that I will not be more than usually long in prolonging this debate but I wish to record that I am sorry that my memory was clearly defective in relation to the proceedings of our committee. I thought that we had agreed that the noble and learned Lord should move to the Dispatch Box as recommended in the report though, as the Chairman of Committees indicated, there were a number of dissenting voices, notably from my noble friend Lord Ferrers. However, I had remembered—and clearly I had misremembered it—that there was very far from overwhelming agreement in the committee as to the second matter of the dress of the noble and learned Lord. I had recalled that we thought that the sensible thing to do was to refer the matter to the House as a whole without a recommendation. Nevertheless, I stand to be corrected in that respect.
In that context, perhaps I should also emphasise that I speak here purely as an individual Member of your Lordships' House. There is no intention whatever for this Front Bench to influence any of its normal supporters. Indeed, even if I had wanted to, I am sure that I would have been unable to do so on this matter, above all others. Speaking personally, I have absolutely no quarrel with the idea of the noble and learned Lord "moving about", as my noble friend Lord Ferrers put it, in the way recommended here. I have no quarrel for exactly the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, during the course of his intervention. I shall not attempt to repeat them now because the noble Lord did so much more eloquently than I could have done.
However, we should think carefully about the second recommendation. I say that for one specific reason to which I shall now turn. There is a feeling among the more traditional and perhaps deeply entrenched Members of your Lordships' House that members of the Government dislike much of the ceremonial associated with this House. We have heard a number of passionate démentis given to that assertion this afternoon. Of course, I accept them without any argument. Nevertheless, it is a feeling which is very much abroad. I believe that it has been encouraged by the equally embarrassing debate in your Lordships' House in prime time over the change proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to the Introduction ceremony, and what has been described by a number of my noble friends as a process of salami slicing which also appears to be taking place in the matter.
1010
I have absolutely no quarrel with the desire to review our ceremonial in principle. After all, it seems to me that all ceremonial treads rather a tricky tightrope between what one might think of as undignified understatement and, on the other side, bathetic absurdity. That is particularly so in an age which no longer values so much, as once did this country, outward and visible signs of dignity. That is perhaps increasingly reflected in the lack of self-confidence on the part of people who form part of the Government to take some pride in the authority of government by the way they dress and process.
Therefore, it would seem to me to be sensible in the normal course of events to review our ceremonial practices from time to time in an attempt to remain on that tightrope. However, as a number of noble Lords on both sides of the House have asked, the question is, when? We all know—we are getting rather bored, at least I am, with the question; indeed, I seem to talk of little else these days—that we are facing a change in the composition of your Lordships' House.
After all, the basis upon which much of the ceremonial in this House is predicated—indeed, I venture to suggest pretty well all of it—is the dominating ethos of this Chamber; in other words, the ethos that surrounds the idea of a hereditary peerage as an order, even though I suspect that hereditary Peers day to day barely form 50 per cent., perhaps even a regular minority of the number of your Lordships who actually take part in our proceedings.
The fact that the prospect of reform or change in our composition is now so dominant a part—so dominant a leitmotif—of everything that happens in your Lordships' House, and will continue to be so until that change happens, is bound in some way to distort any debate on any matter affecting your Lordships' procedures and ceremonial, however trivial it may seem. That debate and that feeling are emphasised above all by the fear that a number of your Lordships unquestionably have of what might happen to them some time next year.
It seems to me that the new House will be very different in character after we hereditaries have gone. As my noble friend Lady Young said earlier, and in view of the remarks that I have just made, would that not be the time to look at our ceremonial as a whole? The noble Lord, Lord Annan, who, of course, is one of our most distinguished Cambridge academics, is more familiar than I am with that splendid little booklet, Microcosmographica Academica, in which I understand a most eloquent definition was posited of the theory of unripe time. If my memory serves me right, it is put forward in that small volume as the ultimate argument, along, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, with the theory of the thin end of the wedge of the reactionary.
I believe that I can counter the noble Lord's argument very simply by saying that the reactionary is implying that the time will never be ripe. That is not my argument to your Lordships this afternoon. The time, some of us may think rather sadly, will be ripe very shortly. I submit to your Lordships that that time will be when we hereditaries have come and gone and have been duly thanked most charmingly, if I may say so, by the noble

1011
Baroness the Leader of the House. But gone we will be. That perhaps clearly indicates a time when we should look at our ceremonial in view of the new ethos which will undoubtedly dominate your Lordships' House after I and my fellow hereditaries have left.
Therefore, it seems to me that it would be only sensible—
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I trust that the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting his speech and delaying the House. However, is the noble Earl giving an absolute guarantee at the Dispatch Box that he will co-operate with the Government in the legislation for the abolition of hereditary Peers?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, tell the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that I am deeply grateful to him for the promotion. Secondly, the noble Lord knows the answer to that question as well as I do. I shall advise my noble friends to treat such a Bill in exactly the same way as they treat every other Bill; namely, to exercise their judgment in trying to improve it as it passes through your Lordships' House.
I have spoken far longer than I should have done. I deeply apologise to the House. However, I was provoked by my former colleague in another place as, indeed, I remember he used to do regularly in Standing Committee. The answer is perfectly clear. We are bound to be living in a rather heightened atmosphere during the next 12 months. Therefore, would it not be sensible just to look at the question of reform first and then the new House could look at its ceremonial in the light of its new ethos and ethics? I believe that that would certainly be the right time to do so, rather than this evening.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hesitate to speak because I am well aware that the House would like to proceed with the matter and with other important business. However, having heard the whole debate and the contribution of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, I crave the indulgence of your Lordships to make two very brief points. I have no intention of seeking to contribute to what he rightly described as the possible perception of this being an absurd discussion. However, there are two practical points that I should like to draw to the attention of noble Lords.
First, the noble Viscount referred to the text of the committee's report. I, too, was at the meeting of the Procedure Committee at which all of these matters were discussed. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his support for my proposal that a working group should be set up to look at what I believe he rightly described as the everyday practices of your Lordships' House. However, I must tell the noble Viscount, and other noble Lords who have raised the matter, that I was satisfied that the report which emerged from the Procedure Committee was accurate. But I shall leave it to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees to deal with any points of detail on the matter when he concludes the debate.
1012
Secondly, the noble Viscount in his eloquent peroration, and other noble Lords, have questioned why the House should be asked to approve these changes when there are other more fundamental reforms in the air. It has never been my belief that you should avoid changing anything simply because you cannot change everything. I do not understand the description of this as "salami slicing". The House has shown itself able to evolve its own procedures. That is important. I believe that the reform of the Ceremony of Introduction has proved in practice to be successful and has in no way led to a reduction in the dignity or the appropriate ceremonial for the introduction of new Members of your Lordships' House. It is in that spirit that the Procedure Committee produced its report. I support the committee's report.
5 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, after a debate such as this I hope that your Lordships will feel that I should not attempt to give a prolonged summing up. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do not mention every speaker by name, much as they all deserve that. I shall not rehearse all of the arguments which have been mentioned about the two what I might call principal proposals, or those which at any rate have attracted greatest attention in the report of the Procedure Committee, as that has already been done thoroughly in the course of this debate. I hope that is acceptable. I shall discuss some of the factual and one or two of the substantive matters which have been raised.
First, I shall discuss the points which have just been made about the report by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. I thank the noble Viscount for the way in which he referred to the text of the report. If the noble Viscount wishes to adhere to his interpretation of what is in the report, he and I must differ. I say—I hope more persuasively and more substantially—that there is not really anything between us on this matter. As I indicated—I hope clearly—when moving the Motion, without taking a head count of the arguments adduced in the committee I thought there was a small majority in favour of the proposal for the procedural changes of moving to the Dispatch Box and a still smaller majority in favour of the proposals on dress. There was no request for a Division. I would have acceded to a Division instantly had one been requested. That is what I ventured to say to your Lordships in moving the Motion this afternoon. I am reassured and comforted by the smile on the noble Viscount's face. I hope he will agree that there is not much, if anything, between us on that point.
I shall now discuss some of the other matters which have been raised. If your Lordships adopt the proposal that the Lord Chancellor should move to the Government Front Bench for the purposes specified in the report, I shall bring forward at an early stage for your Lordships' consideration proposed amendments to the standing orders. Clearly that will occur in the new Session, not this one. Without addressing the arguments again, I have one point to make to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I thank him for saying that he thought I

1013
had presented a fair summary of the arguments. I thank him, I hope, on behalf of others for the way in which he presented his arguments this afternoon. The noble Earl said he felt it was wrong to set a precedent for future Lords Chancellor. I have one point to make about that—this is, of course, pure speculation—namely, it is of course open to any succeeding Lord Chancellor to submit other proposals and indeed to suggest reverting to the previous system, if the new proposals are adopted. However, I do not make too much of that.
The working group was mentioned by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. I cannot tell him precisely at the moment who will be the members of the working group, but I am assured that the usual channels, to whom this matter was left by the Procedure Committee, have these proposals well in hand. I shall ensure that the noble Lord and your Lordships are informed as soon as the names emerge. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, also mentioned the working group. The points which he suggested are not wide-ranging—therefore that overcomes the problem which the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition mentioned—and I see no reason to doubt that those matters which the noble and learned Lord has mentioned as possibly appropriate and within the terms of reference of the working group could be considered by the working group.
I and your Lordships' Procedure Committee were grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for their proposals for altering the system of Questions for Written Answer. We have received representations to the effect that the system of printing Questions for Written Answer only once is causing great inconvenience and worry to a number of your Lordships. It was for that reason that we decided to adopt these two proposals as a means of overcoming that. That would still result in a substantial saving of money.
The noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, mentioned the Deputy Speakers and Deputy Chairmen. He made a valid point. However, I can reassure your Lordships that those of us in your Lordships' House, including the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, who serve as Deputy Speakers and Deputy Chairmen—the others are voluntary, but I am in the fortunate position of not being voluntary and therefore I speak on behalf of the others—will accept any burden that your Lordships place upon us. It may be a little more difficult than it was in the past but we shall fulfil those duties to the best of our ability.
I believe those are the main points which your Lordships may feel I need to take into account in this brief summing-up. As regards the point that the noble Viscount made about the report, I accept full responsibility for the text and terms of the report before your Lordships. This debate has gone on long enough. On behalf of the Procedure Committee it is my duty to invite your Lordships to adopt its report without alteration.
5.8 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord the Lord Chairman says that the debate has gone on long enough. However, it has not gone on quite long enough. I hope I may be permitted to express a few brief thoughts. I am grateful to your Lordships for having taken part. I believe the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said she thought it was an absurd debate.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I must correct that false impression. I was simply picking up the words of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition who said he feared it might be perceived as absurd.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful for those comments which mean that I shall not have to apologise to your Lordships for having been absurd or for having introduced a debate which might be considered absurd.
Perhaps I may thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having the courtesy to sit through the debate, on the Woolsack, with his usual genial smile, bearing all the arrows that have flown backwards and forwards. I hope that he will not take this as a personal affront. I am all for the dignity of the Lord Chancellor; and I am all for enhancing and elevating his office so that he is even higher than he is already. I am on his side.
I hardly dare mention that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, did say that he thought it an absurd debate. He asked what he could say to people, when asked what we had been discussing all afternoon, other than "The Lord Chancellor's dress." Having thought that it was an absurd debate, he promptly joined in. That does not say a great deal for consistency.
We would not have had the debate in the first place had it not been for the Lord Chancellor wishing to make alterations. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said that what matters is the way in which the noble and learned Lord does his job. We all agree with that—and that he does his job very well—but that does not mean that he has to change his attire.
It was frightening to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, an eminent QC, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who is neither a Law Lord nor an eminent QC, but who is a very eminent Member of your Lordships' House, say that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would do his job better if he did not have to wear a wig. Do your Lordships think that the noble and learned Lord cannot do his job properly wearing a wig? Do your Lordships really think that all previous Lords Chancellor did not do their jobs properly because they were wearing a wig?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I merely quoted from the report in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself made the observation that if he were not burdened with the wig, he would be able to discharge his job more efficiently—an observation that I was delighted to hear.
Earl Ferrers: Dear, oh dear, my Lords. The noble and learned Lord will not remain a friend of the

1015
Lord Chancellor for very much longer. He has directed the arrows to the Lord Chancellor who, according to the noble and learned Lord, admits that he will do his work better without a wig. I would like to hope that his conduct has not been adversely affected by wearing a wig.
I was also concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in arguing for doing away with the wearing of the wig, asked what we are doing here and whether we are providing entertainment and mockery as per Gilbert and Sullivan. That argument was not worthy of the debate. In fact, we are concerned with the dignity and stature of the office of Lord Chancellor. That is not a question of mockery. If people want to mock it, they can. If people want to mock your Lordships, they can. The fact is that the office of Lord Chancellor is one of great dignity and great awe. When the noble and learned Lord carries out his ceremonial duties, including every day in the Lord Chancellor's Procession, that is important.
If I may say so with a degree of humility, I make no apology for having tabled the two amendments. It is important that the office of Lord Chancellor should retain its stature. The Lord Chancellor should not dress down; he should not dispose of his breeches, buckles and tights. I do not believe that he should leave his position as Speaker on the Woolsack, move over to join his ministerial colleagues and, as I said earlier, metamorphose into a Front-Bench Minister as opposed to standing at the Woolsack with the dignity and aura of the Lord Chancellor. I commend my first amendment to the House.
5.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents,145.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Cranborne, V.

Ailsa, M.

Cross, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Davidson, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Denham, L.

Beloff, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Blatch, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Boardman, L.

Downshire, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Drogheda, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Elles, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Erne, E.

Burnham, L.

Falkland, V.

Butterworth, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Cadman, L.

Fookes, B.

Calverley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gormanston, V.

Carnock, L.

Grey, E.

Chalfont, L.

Halsbury, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Chesham, L.

Headfort, M.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Higgins, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Courtown, E.

Home, E.

1016

Hooper, B.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Jopling, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Pender, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Leigh, L.

Rees, L.

Liverpool, E.

Renton, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Renwick, L.

Long, V.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Lucas, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Luke, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Savile, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Seccombe, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sharples, B.

Marlesford, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Slim, V.

Mersey, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Middleton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Sudeley, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Swansea, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monson, L.

Teviot, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Teynham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mountevans, L.

Vivian, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Waddington, L.

Moynihan, L.

Warnock, B.

Munster, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Naseby, L.

Wilcox, B.

Northesk, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Acton, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ahmed, L.

Ezra, L.

Alli, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Annan, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Fitt, L.

Bach, L.

Freyberg, L.

Barnett, L.

Gilbert, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Biffen, L.

Goudie, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brightman, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gregson, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Grenfell, L.

Burlison, L.

Hacking, L.

Burns, L.

Hamwee, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carter, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Chorley, L.

Haskel, L.

Christopher, L.

Hayman, B.

Clancarty, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Holderness, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Crawley, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hoyle, L.

David, B.

Hughes, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Islwyn, L.

Desai, L.

Jacobs, L.

Dholakia, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Erroll, E.

Jeger, B.

1017

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Redesdale, L.

Judd, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Kennet, L.

Richard, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Sawyer, L.

Leathers, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Longford, E.

Simon, V.

Ludford, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

McNair, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

McNally, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Maddock, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Marsh, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Monkswell, L.

Thornton, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Tope, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tordoff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Turner of Camden,B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Northbourne, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Paul, L.

Weatherill, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Wharton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Puttnam, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rea, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Reay, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers had given notice of his intention to move, as a second amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, at end to insert ("except the recommendation that the Lord Chancellor should be able to speak from the Government Front Bench when the House is sitting as a House").
[Amendment not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we move to the Statements on Iraq and agriculture, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that The Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length will do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Iraq
5.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Iraq which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, as the House will know, on Saturday I had authorised substantial military action as part of a joint US-UK strike against targets in Iraq.
1018
British Tornado fighter bombers were about to take to the air, and I had already spoken to the detachment commander to thank them for their bravery and professionalism, when we received word that the Iraqis were telling the UN Secretary-General that they had backed down.
"I want to explain to the House why we were ready to take such action, why we decided to stay our hand, and why we remain ready to strike if the Iraqis do not fully comply with their obligations.
"Let me first put these events into context. Security Council Resolution 687 of April 1991, containing the ceasefire terms for the Gulf War, obliged Iraq to accept the destruction of all its weapons of mass destruction and not to develop such weapons in the future. The UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) was established to oversee these processes, with the International Atomic Energy Agency. A further resolution required immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any places and records in Iraq inspectors wished to inspect.
"The seven years since then have been a constant struggle between Iraq and the weapons inspectors, backed by the full authority of the UN. The inspectors themselves have been harassed and threatened. Iraq has deceived and concealed and lied at every turn. A deliberate mechanism to hide existing weapons, and develop new ones, has been in place, involving organisations close to Saddam Hussein, in particular his special republican guard.
"Despite all this obstruction, UNSCOM and the IAEA have been remarkably successful in uncovering and destroying massive amounts of weaponry, particularly following the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, in 1995. He was murdered on his return to Iraq the following year. For example, UNSCOM has destroyed more than 38,000 chemical weapon munitions, 690 tonnes of chemical weapon agents, and 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals. Forty-eight Scud missiles have also been destroyed, as has a biological weapons factory designed to produce up to 50,000 litres of anthrax, botulism toxin and other agents. Without the weapons inspectors, this deadly arsenal would have been available to Saddam Hussein to use against his neighbours. Who can say with confidence that he would not already have used it?
"Huge question marks remain, for example, over 610 tonnes of unaccounted for precursor chemicals for the nerve gas VX, over imports of growth media capable of producing huge amounts of anthrax, and over missile warheads, particularly those designed for chemical and biological weapons. Iraq has denied weaponising VX, but analysis of missile warhead fragments in a US laboratory showed traces of VX. Further tests were carried out in French and Swiss laboratories. A multinational group of experts concluded in late October that the original US tests were accurate, that the French laboratory had found evidence consistent with the trace of a nerve gas on one fragment, and that all three laboratories had found evidence of Iraqi attempts to decontaminate the warheads.
"The simple truth, therefore, is that before the Gulf War Iraq had built up a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. It has been trying to hide them, and to acquire more, ever since. Despite UNSCOM, Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction capability. We do not know precisely how much. They still have the skills, the engineers and the equipment to make more. Saddam Hussein has used these weapons before, including on his own people. I am in no doubt he would use them again, given half a chance.
"Let us not forget also that Saddam' s conventional military capabilities remain at a very high level: more than 1 million men under arms, including 75,000 in the republican guard and 15,000 members of the special republican guard; 2,700 main battle tanks; and nearly 400 combat aircraft. That is what he continues to spend his money on, rather than the welfare of his own people.
"In October 1997, Iraq sought to exclude US personnel from UNSCOM teams. In the face of international pressure, the Iraqis then backed down but continued to try to impose controls on so-called presidential sites. In January 1998, Iraq again objected to US and UK personnel, made explicit a ban on access to eight presidential sites, and threatened to end co-operation with UNSCOM if it had not completed its work by May 1998. We, the Americans and others made clear that we would use force if Saddam did not change his mind.
"On that occasion, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN, negotiated a memorandum of understanding under which Iraq confirmed its acceptance of all relevant Security Council resolutions and its readiness to co-operate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA. This averted military action at the eleventh hour. The Security Council's endorsement of this MOU stressed that any violation of it would have the severest consequences for Iraq.
"Iraq subsequently resumed superficial co-operation, but on 5th August suspended everything but the most routine monitoring when its demand for a declaration saying it had fulfilled all its disarmament obligations was rejected. A further Security Council resolution in September suspended reviews of sanctions in consequence but endorsed the idea of a comprehensive review of Iraq's compliance with its obligations. On 30th October, the Security Council unanimously agreed terms of reference for this review, holding out the prospect of a clear statement of the steps Iraq still had to take, and of the likely timeframe for their completion, assuming full co-operation by Iraq. Astonishingly, this offer was rejected by Iraq on 31st October, and then the Iraqis announced that they were ceasing all co-operation with UNSCOM. The Security Council unanimously condemned this on 5th November as a flagrant violation of Iraq's obligations.
"I have set this out in detail because it is important that we understand what is at stake. We are not talking about technical breaches of UN resolutions,
1020
but a pattern of behaviour which continues to pose huge actual risks for Iraq's neighbours, the Middle East and the entire international community.
"Let me now return to the events of the past few days. Following the Iraqi decision to break off co-operation with UNSCOM on 31st October, despite the offer of a comprehensive review, we and the Americans decided that if Saddam Hussein did not return to full compliance very quickly we were ready to mount an air attack to reduce substantially Iraq's threat to his neighbours, in particular by degrading his weapons of mass destruction capability, and his ability to develop, control and deliver such weapons.
"We did not want a lengthy military build-up of the kind there had been in February or endless rhetorical warnings. But we did make clear that if they did not return to full compliance very quickly indeed, they would face a substantial military strike. A private warning was delivered directly to the Iraqi permanent representative at the UN on Thursday, 12th November, giving no details about timing, but leaving no doubt about the scale of what was intended.
"Saturday afternoon London time was set for the start of the attack. I gave final authorisation for the use of force that morning. I did so with regret, and with a deep sense of responsibility. I saw no credible alternative. The UK's weight in the planned strike would have been substantial, including nearly 20 per cent. of the tactical bomber effort.
"Just over two hours before the attack was due to start, we received word that the Iraqis had told the UN Secretary-General that they were responding positively to a final letter of appeal he had sent them the previous night. We decided then that the attack should be put on hold for 24 hours to give us a chance to study the details of the Iraqi response.
"The first Iraqi letter appeared to agree to resume co-operation with UNSCOM and the IAEA. It was described as unconditional by Iraqi spokesmen. But the full text of the letter, and in particular nine assurances they were seeking about the comprehensive review, listed in an annex, left this unclear. We and the Americans therefore spelled out that this was unacceptable and there could be no question of any conditions. During the course of Saturday night and Sunday morning, the Iraqis offered a stream of further written and oral clarifications, making clear that their compliance was unconditional, that the nine points were merely a wish-list—not conditions—that their decisions of August and October to withdraw co-operation had been formally rescinded, and that the weapons inspectors would be allowed to resume the full range of their activities in accordance with UN resolutions, without let or hindrance. I have placed the text of the Iraqi letters in the Library of the House.
"These clarifications, taken together, mean that Saddam Hussein has completely withdrawn his positions of August and October. No concessions of any kind were offered to him in exchange. There was no negotiation of any kind. Nor could there have been. Nor will there be in future.
"We do not, however, take Iraqi words at face value. Long experience has taught us the opposite. But we had asked for unconditional resumption of co-operation. In the face of the credible threat of force—in this case very imminent force—Iraq offered this. In these circumstances, we and the Americans have suspended military action further while we bolt down every detail of what the Iraqis have said, and while we test the words in practice. The Security Council decided last night that UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors should resume their work in Iraq immediately. They will be in Iraq tomorrow. They must be afforded full co-operation in every respect. As ever, we do not rely on the good faith of Saddam Hussein. He has none. But we do know that, under threat of force, we can make him move.
"We will be watching with extreme care and a high degree of scepticism. Our forces remain in place and on high alert. We and the Americans remain ready, willing and able to go back to the use of force at any time. There will be no further warnings. The inspectors will now carry out their work.
"There are, in my view, two substantial and fundamental differences between the Iraqi climb down this time and in February. First, there is now a very clear diplomatic basis for action without further need for long discussion in the Security Council or elsewhere. In February we allowed a long time for negotiations. This time we allowed only a short period. If there is a next time, there will not even be that. If there is a next time, everyone knows what to expect, and President Chirac and others have made this clear. Secondly, the world can now see more clearly than ever before that Saddam Hussein is intimidated by the threat of force. Many so-called experts told us that Saddam wanted military action—even needed it—to shore up his position internally and in the region. His complete collapse on Saturday gives the lie to this bogus analysis. When he finally saw, correctly, that we were ready to use force, and on a substantial scale, he crumbled. I hope other countries, more dubious of the use of force, can now see that Saddam is moved by a credible threat of force. He has now exposed the fact that his fear is greater than his courage. Let us learn the lessons from that.
"If there is a next time, I will have no hesitation in ordering the use of force. President Clinton's position is the same. The US and the UK, with far greater international support than ever before, now have Saddam Hussein trapped. If he again obstructs the work of the inspectors, then we strike. No warnings. No wrangling. No negotiations. No last-minute letters. The next withdrawal of co-operation and he will be hit.
"We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq. On the contrary, we support the desire of the overwhelming majority of them for freedom from Saddam Hussein. They find themselves in a desperate position. I have no doubt of the genuine suffering of many, though not the élite and those who keep them in power. We do what we can through our aid programme. Under the oil for food arrangements, the
1022
Iraqis can import as much food and medicines as they want. I hope we will hear no more echoes here of cynical and hypocritical Iraqi propaganda about this. If Saddam Hussein wants to import more, he can do so freely. If he wants the sanctions position to change, the solution is in his hands, through fulfilment of his obligations.
"This is far from over. It is merely in a different phase. Our course is set. Complete compliance and nothing less, and we shall not be moved from that course."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. From these Benches we support and endorse the Government's willingness to use force to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies unconditionally with United Nations resolutions. While such a threat remains necessary, we shall continue to pledge our backing for the use of force. We also supported the decision of the Prime Minister on Saturday to authorise the use of RAF Tornados. We commend the bravery of those RAF personnel involved in the proposed mission. We also pay tribute to the Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, for the part that he played in seeking to defuse this latest Iraqi-engineered crisis.
We join the Minister in welcoming the statement by Saddam Hussein that he will allow UNSCOM inspectors complete and unconditional access to suspected illegal weapons sites. We support the Prime Minister in his statement that if there is any future breach of the undertakings which Iraq has once again given to the international community, air strikes will be launched without further warning. I am sure that the Minister will agree that in these days of ultimatum-led foreign policy in Kosovo and Iraq we must prove as good as our word, or else we risk devaluing the diplomatic expedient that is the credible threat of the use of force.
The Minister no doubt shares our concern that, although the crisis was defused at the eleventh hour, it may be only a temporary respite before Saddam Hussein tests the patience and resolve of the international community and reneges on his commitments yet again. Solemn undertakings were given to the UN Secretary-General in February, only to be broken in November. How long will it be before these new promises, so freshly given, are broken?
I am glad that the Minister agrees that we cannot allow international policy towards Iraq to become a passive and indefinite policy of crisis-response. We are only too well aware of Saddam Hussein's audacious game of brinkmanship; we are only too well aware of the consequent divisions in the international community. Each Iraqi-engineered crisis has, sadly, brought disunity to the Security Council and to the Gulf allies. Does the Minister agree that perceptions of weakness, particularly in the Security Council, serve only to embolden Saddam Hussein and to encourage him in seeking to exploit differences of opinion within the international community? Does the Minister agree that it

1023
is deeply detrimental to the authority of the international community and that Saddam Hussein must at all costs be denied the opportunity to cause such damage?
Saddam Hussein is a past master at playing for time and breaking his promises. What assurances do the Government have that, this time, he will not try his hand at brinkmanship once again, at a time of his choosing, when he believes he can secure his objectives of getting sanctions lifted without surrendering his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons?
Will the Minister accept the continued strong support on this side of the House for maintaining a consistent and tough line against Iraq until the destruction of that country's biological and chemical weapons capability is completed? Furthermore, will the Minister give the House an assurance that, should air strikes prove necessary, they will be undertaken within the context of a coherent and unambiguous policy towards Iraq, so that any use of force will achieve more than a straightforward demonstration of military might? Will the Minister give a further assurance that the use of military force will have clearly-defined objectives, particularly given the plans, presently on hold, to reinforce the military build-up in the Gulf with ground troops?
I welcomed the Minister's comments about humanitarian aid. Given the fact that Iraq can now sell over 10 billion dollars of oil annually to pay for food, medicine and other humanitarian goods, should not the blame for the privations being suffered by the Iraqi people be laid firmly at the door of Saddam Hussein, who chooses to build new palaces instead of new hospitals and who wants to buy missiles instead of medicines?
Given that it has proved impossible to negotiate in good faith with Saddam Hussein, to what extent do the Government associate themselves with President Clinton's statement that:
"what we want and what we will work for is a government in Iraq that represents and respects its people … and one committed to live in peace with its neighbours"?
Do the Government support the negotiations which the United States is conducting with Iraqi opposition groups with a view to forming a viable opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime? What plans do the Government have to join the United States in pursuing such a proactive political strategy? What assessment have the Government made of concerns that the Iraqi opposition is too weak and fragmented to mount a credible challenge? Will the Minister therefore assure the House that the Government will be clear in their direction and targeting of support to such groups?
Finally, we on these Benches shall be interested to learn whether the Minister believes that Saddam Hussein's record of broken promises, his breaches of faith and the continuing threat to peace that he presents not only to the region but to the world, mean that the open and acknowledged objective of western policy, even given the formidable difficulties involved, should be his removal from power.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, first, I commend the Government and the Government of the United States on the resolution and strength that they have shown. I believe that we should all commend the Armed Forces on the excellent state of preparation in which they found themselves.
But that is not the end of the story. It may, indeed, be the beginning. We know that the coalition behind previous actions in regard to Iraq is not a strong one; that the absurd actions of Saddam Hussein on 31st October reunited the Security Council behind the willingness to take military action, after a long period during which members of the Security Council were profoundly at odds.
We must now examine the strategy that lies beyond the success that the United Kingdom and United States Governments have undoubtedly had in compelling Saddam Hussein once again to accept the UNSCOM inspectors. For we cannot see this scenario repeated time and again.
Therefore, will the Minister look beyond the present situation and ask whether the satisfaction of UNSCOM inspectors' right to enter any areas they choose to investigate any weapons that might be used for mass destruction—as they had so successfully done until the breach in relations occurred—could be linked to a willingness to see food for oil as a gradually expanding programme and to address the desperate humanitarian plight not of the government of Iraq but of the people of Iraq?
Will the Minister and her department give further consideration to a matter which I raised many weeks ago; namely, the necessity to focus and shape sanctions in such a way that some at least are directed at the political ruling class of Iraq and not so much at the ordinary people who have carried the great burden of suffering over the past eight years? In that context, might further sanctions on the travel of Iraqi political groups and on their financial holdings, and sanctions which would specifically involve their interests, be considered by members of the Security Council with a view to focusing the effects of what has happened on those who are responsible for what has happened and not on those who are not?
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their support. In particular, I thank them for their tributes to the British servicemen who were so ready to go into action over the weekend, the courage and professionalism of whom is second to none. It is important that there is this cross-party support in your Lordships' House over such a crucial matter of foreign policy. My right honourable friend this afternoon expressed his thanks in another place to both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for their support. It is essential that at this time we in the United Kingdom should stand shoulder to shoulder. Nothing could please Saddam Hussein more

1025
than to see a fragmentation in the response of parliamentarians in the United Kingdom to what happened over the weekend.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we have been as good as our word over this issue. When dealing with a Statement in your Lordships' House about 10 days ago, I was able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that our fire power in the region, though not exactly the same, had been maintained.
Of course, we are aware that Saddam Hussein has blatantly broken his word on a number of occasions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, indicated, the way in which he broke his word to the United Nations' Secretary General Kofi Annan brought a degree of unity of purpose to the Security Council, which was most welcome. The Security Council has been remarkably united in this respect, particularly in contrast to the attitude on previous occasions, as the noble Baroness pointed out. Security Council Resolution 1154 spoke of the severest consequences which would follow a breaking of the Kofi Annan memorandum of understanding and Security Council Resolution 1205 described Iraq's most recent attitude as a flagrant violation of that understanding.
Experience has taught us that there can be no assurances in relation to what Saddam Hussein has said. That is why we must continue to be vigilant. If air strikes are necessary, we must be clear that they will be used to bring Iraq back into compliance, to strike at the weapons of mass destruction, which are, after all, the issue between Iraq and ourselves, and to degrade Iraq's ability to strike at its neighbours. It is very important to get to the weapons of mass destruction and to ensure that Iraq's capability to use military force against its neighbours is as low as we can make it.
With regard to humanitarian aid, it is important to stress that the blame for the privations in Iraq must be laid fairly and squarely at the door of Saddam Hussein. The élite in Iraq are not suffering from want of food or medicines. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, Saddam Hussein is building palaces, not hospitals. At one point he even tried to use some of the oil-for-food money to purchase liposuction medical aid. That is the kind of thing that has been going on in Iraq.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked some important questions about our support for the Iraqi opposition. Of course we want the Iraqi people to be governed by a regime other than that of Saddam Hussein. Of course we agree with President Clinton and are looking at ways of supporting the Iraqi opposition. But it is up to the Iraqis to decide who their leaders are. Since the end of the Gulf War we have consistently supported the Iraqi opposition. It is important that people hear alternative Iraqi voices, not just the propaganda put out by Saddam Hussein's regime. Opposition helps to expose the truth about life under Saddam Hussein in Iraq and it is very important that those voices are heard.
The noble Baroness asked about the possibility of targeting sanctions at the elite in Iraq rather more than at the moment. We shall look carefully at that issue over the next few days. She asks me to look beyond the present situation. It is the present situation which we
1026
must bolt down. Let us not think that the crisis period of the past few days is safely behind us. We hope that it is safely behind us, but, as my right honourable friend's Statement in other place made clear, we must "bolt down every detail". It is important over the next couple of days to achieve absolute clarity with regard to what was said in the letters that we saw over the weekend from Iraq and also with our neighbours and allies in the United Nations.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me what the real objective was. The real objective is to ensure that Saddam Hussein's Iraq comes into compliance with United Nations' resolutions, to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and to reduce Saddam Hussein's capability to threaten his neighbours in the way that he has done in the past.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, my noble friend deserves congratulations, as do the Prime Minister and the President, on their firm and resolute handling of this latest crisis. I particularly like the threat that we have made, with the Americans, that if Saddam Hussein plays cat and mouse again and tries to interrupt the work of UNSCOM there will be no further warning; there will be action. That is a threat which we have never used before and I believe it will be one of great importance in the future.
Perhaps I may put a point to my noble friend and raise a question. We need to win the battle for hearts and minds in the Middle East generally, in the Gulf area and in Iraq. Yes, we support the Iraqi opposition, but can we not find some way of reaching more directly the people of Iraq, through radio or other means of communication, so that they are made aware not only of the monstrous behaviour of their ruler but also of the humiliation that he has brought upon himself? It would be an enormous asset if we could bring that about.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind words. I agree with him that the position which Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States have now adopted does not leave any room for doubt. If there is not compliance, there will be no further warnings. It is crucial that the UNSCOM inspectors have access where and when they wish. Those are two very important points.
My noble friend asks about reaching the hearts and minds of our friends in the Middle East and perhaps most particularly in the Gulf and Iraq itself. I remind my noble friend that the declaration of the eight Arab states in Damascus on 12th November was that Ministers held Iraq responsible for any consequences that might spring from Iraq's refusal to rescind its decision to halt co-operation with UNSCOM. That statement was made by the following states: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt and Syria. We have not seen such a statement before. I believe that that should give noble Lords considerable food for thought.

1027
In many ways we have already started to secure greater support in the hearts and minds of people. My noble friend asks whether it is possible to do this within Iraq. I believe that that would be extremely difficult. Over the past weekend the people of Baghdad have been out in the streets celebrating Saddam Hussein's victory. The people of Iraq may not necessarily have the freedom of action that we enjoy in this country. If they are urged to go out by the great numbers of guards—the Statement points out that there are 1 million men under arms in Iraq—I do not believe that many people will say that they prefer to stay at home rather than demonstrate support for Saddam Hussein. To hope that the people of Iraq will respond in that way is a pretty tall order. Let us remember what is taking place in the prisons in Iraq, the forced amputations that have been introduced this year and the hideous and repressive regime under which most Iraqis live. I believe that we may be up against it (to use that colloquialism) in trying to get to the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people in a visible way.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, it is generally agreed that our mistake at the end of the Gulf War was not to require Saddam Hussein himself to give the surrender. Given Mr. Primakov's extremely close relations over many years with Saddam Hussein, is there any hope that we can bring pressure to bear on the Russians to insist that this latest acceptance by the Iraqis of the requirements of the United Nations should be stated publicly by Saddam Hussein? The Russians have great influence in that country. I believe that we are wasting that asset. Obviously, there are ways that we cannot discuss publicly to bring pressure to bear on the Russians, but it seems to me that this is a perfectly open question. If they want to have peace in the Middle East and a better outcome in Iraq, Saddam Hussein himself must be made to say publicly that he has capitulated.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be excellent if we could obtain an unequivocal statement from Saddam Hussein. I do not believe that it escaped the attention of anyone that the agreement reached with Kofi Annan earlier this year was fronted by Tariq Aziz. At the time one or two noble Lords remarked to me privately that they felt that it would have been far more satisfactory had Saddam Hussein taken the full brunt of those negotiations. But I do not believe that that was an accident, any more than I believe it is an accident that the signatories to the letters received over the weekend are not those of Saddam Hussein.
The fact is that Saddam Hussein is guarded by the Republican Guard and his position in Iraq at the moment probably does not allow pressure to be brought to bear upon him. I note what the noble Baroness said about the position of the Russians. I am sure that those matters will be discussed this week in the UN and elsewhere. Whatever the differences over the use of force have been, on one matter the United Nations Security Council has been absolutely united; namely, that
1028
Saddam Hussein is in flagrant breach of the agreement that he made. I am sure that discussions will continue about ways to try to ensure that such a breach does not arise again.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, while we are waiting to see how Saddam responds and our Armed Forces and those of the Americans remain on high alert, can the Minister advise the House as to whether any other nations are prepared to support militarily the present actions that we and the United States have taken? Bearing in mind that there is no intention to give any further warning, what advice is the Foreign Office giving to British nationals about returning to Baghdad?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that the question of support by other nations is likely to be under active consideration at the moment, although I am sure that discussions will continue with our allies in a number of friendly countries. We have received a number of messages of support from the eight Arab states, New Zealand, Australia and the EU. A number of states have been supportive of the general position of Her Majesty's Government. I am sure that discussions about the most effective way to mobilise that support will continue.
The noble and gallant Lord asked about travel advice. We advised against non-essential travel to Kuwait, Israel and the occupied territories on 11th November. We have been reconsidering that advice. Our advice against travel to Iraq stands. We now no longer necessarily advise nationals against travel to Kuwait, Israel and the occupied territories, but we suggest that all Britons should register with the nearest British embassy and keep in touch with regional developments. Therefore, the travel advice to Kuwait, Israel and the occupied territories has been stepped down, although we advise vigilance and continued contact with the embassies, but advice against travel to Iraq stands. I hope that that is clear to noble Lords.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, my noble friend has spoken of the need now to bolt down this matter. That is a very vivid and valid image. I think that all can agree that that is the need. Will the noble Baroness and the Government bear in mind that the best bolts are those of the United Nations because people do not like to try to break them, at least not visibly? Further, is there anything to be said yet about the ways in which the United States, and presumably the United Kingdom, will seek to get rid of Saddam? In a case of this kind it is obvious that anything that is ill-considered, heavy-handed, secretive, violent or illegal would have a counter-productive effect.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that there are good bolts in the United Nations, but I must point out to my noble friend that one of the best bolts that we have had is the credible use of military power. I do not believe that that can be gainsaid in any way. It was when Saddam Hussein believed rightly that the United States and the United Kingdom were prepared to make good their threat of military action that

1029
he withdrew. I ask noble Lords to remember that while it is always important to be able to secure agreement by talking at the United Nations, in the end it was not that which forced Saddam Hussein to agree that UNSCOM could resume its vital work in Iraq, but the threat of force.
The noble Lord asked about overthrowing Saddam Hussein. I ask your Lordships to believe me when I say that that is not our objective. I am not suggesting for a moment that tears would be shed if he were toppled from power, but it is a question of whom the Iraqis themselves want to be their leader. So our priority is to ensure that as long as Saddam Hussein stays in power he cannot keep his capacity for weapons of mass destruction with which he has been threatening regional peace and security. I told the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we shall stay in touch with the United States as it develops the ideas put forward by President Clinton in his statement of 15th November concerning the opposition. I stress to your Lordships that ultimately the leadership of Iraq is a matter for the Iraqis themselves.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister three short points. Was The Times of last Friday correct in saying that the Government had distributed briefing material to Members of the House of Commons on the then situation and, if so, why was it not distributed to Members of this House? Secondly, are the Government confident that the other three members of the Security Council, France, Russia and China, are in agreement that, if necessary, there should be military action without further warning? Thirdly, can the Minister really believe that the leadership of Iraq is for the Iraqi people when they clearly have no means whatsoever of getting rid of Saddam Hussein?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Briefing material was circulated in the House of Commons on Friday. My noble friend Lord Gilbert was in touch with my office. We hope to circulate some briefing material very shortly to your Lordships. I hope that that will meet the need that the noble Lord has pointed out. As regards the position of France, Russia and China, they all agreed with the UNSCR 1205 concerning the flagrant breach committed by Saddam Hussein. In relation to the legal basis of any action that might have taken place, I was able to tell your Lordships when we last discussed this matter that Her Majesty's Government would not act unlawfully. We were absolutely confident that we would have been acting lawfully had the air strike planned for the weekend gone ahead.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, under the best case scenario, if Saddam Hussein were to allow the inspectors to visit all sites and were to act in a co-operative manner, which he has never done before, can the Minister give a timetable under which sanctions could be relaxed and how accelerated that process could be?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is not the best case scenario, it is an only case scenario.
1030
It is important that we are absolutely clear on that. The UNSCOM inspectors must be able to go where they want and when they want. That is the only way in which Saddam Hussein will secure compliance. It will take as long as it takes. It will take as long as UNSCOM needs in order to be able to send reports to the United Nations that they are satisfied that they have rooted out all weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, perhaps I may join in the congratulations which have been offered to my noble friend and also concur with her assessment that the critical situation continues. But while it does, will it be necessary for a state of high alert to be maintained, for that of itself can be very demanding of Her Majesty's Forces? If that is to be ended at an early stage, can my noble friend say whether the inspectorate will begin its work with dispatch and determination so that the state of alert can be ended or restricted at an early stage? Would my noble friend care to comment, if possible, on reports that Iraq has already transferred technology and military production capacity to Sudan? Does such a link exist and are there plans to ensure that it is severed at the earliest possible date?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the critical state of high alert will continue. We hope that the inspectorate will be able to begin its work as quickly as possible. Decisions on inspections are for UNSCOM and the IAEA alone. We have always fully supported their decisions. We wish to see the inspections begin again this week. My noble friend also raised the possibility that some of the technology for weapons of mass destruction may have been exported, notably to the Sudan. I believe that that matter has been raised in your Lordships' House before. It has been drawn to the attention of the relevant authorities. It is probably unwise for me to pursue that point any further other than to say that Her Majesty's Government have already taken it on board.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as regards the Minister's reply to my noble friend Lord Marlesford concerning the briefing handed out in the House of Commons, why was it not given to this House at the same time? Is not the plain truth of the matter that the House of Lords was overlooked?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as noble Lords will see, I am taking advice on this point from my noble friend Lord Gilbert. I understand that there were some technical reasons concerning timing. I hope that your Lordships are assured that my noble friend and I put our heads together on Friday, realising that the point that the noble Baroness has raised would occur to your Lordships very quickly and that your Lordships might indeed feel overlooked. Your Lordships have not been overlooked by my noble friend and myself. We shall do what we can to ensure that the briefing reaches your Lordships. If anyone feels a little

1031
miffed by not having the briefing, I apologise and say that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and I will do what we can to put the matter right.
Lord Judd: My Lords, we are dealing with what must clearly be one of the most ruthlessly cynical regimes in history. Therefore, I join with all those who applaud the resolute, firm and courageous way in which the Prime Minister and others, and the Armed Services themselves, have been prepared to do what is necessary. My noble friend has said that the Government are convinced that any action we would have taken would have been legal. We know of the cynicism of the regime. If we have to maintain a state of readiness in order to do what is necessary without further warning, over a period of time the regime will certainly set out to destabilise the situation within the United Nations and the Security Council. Therefore, can my noble friend assure us that everything possible will be done to maintain the explicit support of the Security Council for the line that we have taken?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I know that the legal basis for the projected action has been a matter of concern in your Lordships' House, and understandably so. We have discussed it on a number of occasions. It is important to remember that we are considering a highly complex network of United Nations Security Council resolutions. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that there is Resolution 678 demanding that Iraq left Kuwait. There is Resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire arrangements, the position of UNSCOM and the necessity for Iraq to comply with it on an unconditional basis. There is also Resolution 1154, which concerns the memorandum of understanding with the United Nations Secretary General and which speaks of the severest consequences if that memorandum was broken. There is Resolution 1205, which speaks of the flagrant violation which the United Nations Security Council believes has been committed by Iraq.
I believe I have been very clear that Her Majesty's Government were not in any doubt that there was a clear legal basis for the planned military action at the weekend. Similarly, I give your Lordships an undertaking that any action taken by Her Majesty's Government in the future will be lawful. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government recognise the very important point made by my noble friend Lord Judd that it is enormously important that we do everything we can to keep the members of the United Nations Security Council as close to each other as we can in what I believe are bound to be some difficult days, and possibly weeks, ahead regarding this crucial matter of international stability.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords—
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am sorry, but we have spent about 20 minutes on this matter.

Agriculture
6.20 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on additional aid to United Kingdom agriculture which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"Since I took up office as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in July, my colleagues and I have had wide-ranging discussions with farmers' leaders and with working farmers around the country about the problems being faced this year and how we might reasonably address them. It has become clear that all sectors, but particularly the livestock sector, have been adversely affected by a marked deterioration in market conditions. The weather has made it difficult to grow adequate supplies of feed for the coming winter and to finish stock. In consequence, animals have had to be kept for longer than usual and are now coming forward onto an over-supplied market. The collapse of export markets in Asia and in Russia has exacerbated this situation, leading to further pressures on the United Kingdom market from supplies from countries which would otherwise export to those markets.
"Within the constraints imposed by the common agricultural policy, the Government have already taken many steps to offer extra support to farmers. We paid £85 million in agrimonetary compensation to suckler cow and sheep producers at the beginning of this year. We supported the introduction of a European Union private storage aid scheme for pigmeat in the face of a fall of about 50 per cent. in the producer price of pigs. Additional action was taken in Northern Ireland.
"We have relaxed the rules on the moisture content of cereals eligible for purchase into intervention, in recognition of the difficulties caused to cereals producers by the wet summer.
"We successfully lobbied the European Commission to grant two blocks of private storage aid for sheepmeat to help move lamb on the market. With effect from 8th October we removed the obstacles to the export of whole sheep carcasses to France and, on beef, we have successfully negotiated the introduction of the export certified herds scheme in Northern Ireland and expect soon to see a partial lifting of the ban for Great Britain.
"In addition, we have persuaded the Commission and other member states to increase beef premium advances from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. for this year, thereby considerably easing farmers' cash flow problems. We have met the costs for one year of Meat Hygiene Service enforcement of controls on specified risk material from cattle and sheep; and we have met the start up and first year running costs of the new cattle tracing system.
"I have had useful talks with the retailing sector, resulting in positive undertakings on origin labelling of meat, and on the welfare and feeding standards to

1033
apply to purchases of meat, which will be particularly helpful to pig producers. I have also made representations to public sector purchasers of meat.
"Not all these initiatives cost money, but those that have have in total been worth more than £150 million to the industry in addition to the ongoing support it receives from the CAP. But our discussions with industry representatives at both Ministerial and official level have persuaded us that more should be done to support United Kingdom agriculture in what are proving to be exceptionally difficult times. In recognition of these extremely difficult circumstances the Chancellor and Chief Secretary have, exceptionally, allowed me access to the Reserve for this financial year and I am grateful to them.
"In the spring of this year, the Government drew down £85 million of agrimonetary compensation for the beef and sheep sectors. There remains the possibility of drawing on a further £48.3 million for the beef sector in the current year. I have asked officials to notify the European Commission today of the Government's intention to draw this sum and to make it available to producers on the same basis as the beef element of the spring package—that is, to suckler cow producers in proportion to their 1996 premium claims. I do not anticipate any difficulty in persuading the Commission to approve this arrangement. We expect the eventual rate of payment to be about £29.50 per head.
"While these additional payments to the suckler cow sector will be of some help to hill farmers, the Government recognise that more needs to be done to help this fragile sector. We have therefore decided that, subject to approval from the European Commission, we should increase hill livestock compensatory allowances for the 1999 scheme year by £60 million. Though precise headage rates have still to be worked out, we estimate that, broadly speaking, this will allow us to put up rates across the board by about 55 per cent. As is normally the case, the vast majority of producers will receive the increased rates of allowances during February and March 1999.
"In the longer term, the European Commission has proposed replacement of the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme as part of a range of measures in the Agenda 2000 package to assist the rural economy. I intend to undertake full consultation with farmers' leaders and environmental groups on the shape of the successor arrangements.
"On 29th July I announced the Governments intention to close the calf processing aid scheme when the obligation to run it lapsed on 30th November. We considered that the scheme was drawing too many calves from the market and squeezing beef producers' margins. However, the Government were asked to reconsider this by farmers who argued that, in the absence of an export market for British beef, closing the scheme now could have adverse consequences for the market.
"We therefore encouraged the Commission to review the rate of aid payable under the scheme to fix it at a level which would attract the poorer quality
1034
calves from the dairy herd while leaving the better quality calves from that herd and those calves from the beef herd to find their own price level on the market.
"I am pleased to say that the Commission broadly accepted our arguments in this regard and will shortly publish a regulation fixing a special rate of aid for the UK under this scheme of 80 ecu—around 70 per cent. of the current rate. The new rate will come into force on the first Monday following publication of the regulation, either 30th November or 7th December. In view of this, we have decided to continue to operate the scheme for the remainder of the present financial year at the new rate. We will wish to keep the scheme under review with the industry. I know that maintenance of the scheme will be welcomed by dairy farmers.
"This aid package for the livestock sector is worth some £120 million in 1999. In assembling it, the Government have concentrated on those areas to which farmers and their leaders attached the greatest priority.
"We also need to think of the longer term future in announcing these measures. Government and all those associated with food production in the UK need to work co-operatively together to develop a blueprint for a successful, viable agricultural sector. This means in particular securing reform of the common agricultural policy. That reform must create the conditions to allow sustainable and competitive EU agriculture to operate effectively on world markets; it must reduce the burden currently imposed by the CAP on consumers and on taxpayers; and it must free up resources to offer scope for better targeted measures to support the rural economy and enhance the environment. That will mean significant changes in the way we support agriculture and require imagination, flexibility and enterprise from all those concerned.
"My colleagues and I intend to undertake a thorough review, in close consultation with all interested parties, of the Government's long-term strategy for the rural economy. This will develop policies which offer a secure future for the rural areas. We shall over coming months consult widely on a range of issues. Trading conditions will remain tough in the months ahead, but I hope that this package and the commitment to generating a vision for agriculture will give the sector the boost it needs to face the future with confidence".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, first, I welcome the Minister back on his feet. I hope that the cow which had the temerity to step on his foot has been well and truly de-boned!
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend. We on these Benches welcome unreservedly the fact that at last the Government recognise that there is a crisis in the agriculture industry in the United Kingdom. During

1035
the past year there has been a very large drop in the income of virtually all farmers. We say that by far the most important reason for that lies in Downing Street and the overwhelming strength of the pound. The grain trade is recovering a little, but from a very low base. The incomes of some farmers are now lower than the minimum wage.
The first words in the Statement refer to the weather. Farmers know about the weather; no one is more expert on it. They must always discount the impact of the weather on their activities. It is other factors which sometimes they cannot cope with, notably the level of the pound. Why is there no mention of that?
The Government welcome, and so do we, a partial lifting of the ban on beef exports next week. What about beef on the bone? With regard to the positive undertaking on origin labelling of meat, that is emphatically not what the BRC said had been stated. Can the Minister clarify the exact situation, which is so vital to pig producers in particular? How much longer will the public unknowingly be able to purchase imported meat produced using methods which are illegal in Britain?
I welcome the Government's intention to draw down the £48 million outstanding in the EC account for the beef and sheep sectors, but why did they not do that earlier? While welcoming the Government's plans to increase the HLCA allowances for 1999, we are very worried about the future and hope that the Government will press our case with great vigour when discussing successor arrangements with the Commission. Dairy farmers will welcome the calf processing aid scheme extension, at least for the next few months, but, again, what happens next?
The package is stated to be worth some £120 million in 1999. That barely matches the underspend on the agricultural budget in the past two years. However, it is most welcome.
There are some glaring omissions in the Statement. Horticulture is always left out. Growth promoters are being used for soft fruit production—for example, pears—which are then imported into Britain under EC rules and sold in direct competition with British pears. Those growth promoters are illegal in Britain. What do the Government propose to do about that? Furthermore, there is no mention of poultry. What about honesty in labelling?
Like the curate's egg, the Statement is good in parts. However, much more needs to be done before the Government even begin to recover the confidence of Britain's farmers.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. If a cow trod on his white-booted foot, I trust that suitable compensatory allowances will be made.
The Statement has been long delayed. The crisis in the industry has been apparent to anyone with any knowledge of farming for well over a year. It has become steadily worse and has reached the stage of a
1036
true depression. In particular, I welcome the suggestion that after due consultation the aid given to agriculture will be better targeted. I have lived in an agricultural community for most of my life. I believe that the smaller farmers have suffered the most. They do not depend so much on the subsidies as on the prices in the market. The main source of income for a farmer who has 4,000 sheep is the headage payment and not the final product. The aid needs to be better targeted.
Can the Minister deal with the problem that is troubling me? The Statement declared that the aid package for the livestock sector will be worth some £120 million in 1999. Is that the value of the additional aid package or the whole? Does it include, for example, the £48.3 million for the beef sector in the current year which is drawn down from the agrimonetary compensation? That is available only for this year, and not for 1999 so it cannot be added to the 1999 sum.
The Government can claim credit for increasing the beef premium advances from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. for the year. That has helped farmers' cash flow problems. However, it is rich for them then to claim that they have met the cost for one year of the Meat Hygiene Service enforcement of controls and the start-up and first year running costs of the new cattle tracing system when they themselves imposed those costs on the agriculture industry. Therefore, in claiming that the aid package is worth some £120 million for 1999, the Minister must make clear how that sum is made up. Does it include what was drawn down in 1998? The Government must be completely frank about that.
It seems to me that the crisis is continuing. I am quite certain that the banks are holding back from foreclosing because if they foreclosed on many farmers it would have a domino effect and would be devastating for the country. I welcome the aid package, but it is long overdue. As the Minister and the House know, many Members of this House, including myself, have initiated debates here on the state of agriculture and it has taken a long time for the Government to begin to grasp the problem.
However, greater explanations are needed. We need further explanations of the headage proposals for the coming year. I do not begin to understand—and perhaps this can be explained to me—the proposed additional £60 million to put up the HLCA allowances by about 55 per cent. across the board. For example, there are 7 million ewes in Wales. I do not know how many there are in Scotland, but it must be many more. In England, there are more still in the hill areas. At the moment, I cannot see how that increase will put up rates across the board by about 55 per cent. Perhaps the Minister will explain that for me and, I am sure, for many other people.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Luke, welcomed the package. That is only fair, and I am sure that the whole farming industry will welcome it. Some of the issues which he raised went rather wider than the subject of the package but they are of relevance to the industry. I suspect that

1037
we may have a better opportunity to deal with those matters in Wednesday evening's debate on the state of agriculture.
I thank the noble Lord for his consolation on my sore foot. I must admit that I am still not quite as quick on my feet as I should like to be.
The noble Lord said that the Statement did not mention the level of the pound. Two-thirds of the rise in the level of the pound took place under the previous administration so I might have expected the noble Lord not to mention it either, but it is now easing a little.
The noble Lord asked me about pig meat and labelling. We have taken measures to ensure that the content and the country of origin are clear on the labelling. We had recent meetings with the supermarkets which were extremely helpful. They agreed that next year they would import only fresh meat which met our standards or processed meat under their own labels which had not been produced in countries with welfare standards worse than ours or where the animals had been consumers of meat and bonemeal.
The Opposition seem to have a continuing misunderstanding of the position as regards the underspend, but after this time I cannot believe that it is an accidental misunderstanding. There is no underspend in the department. The sums referred to are European Union funded payments for which there was no budgetary provision. They are demand led and cannot, with total accuracy, be predicted in advance. Therefore, there was a shortfall in the estimates. That is not the same as an underspend and it does not release any surplus of money which can be spent elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked for more targeting. We sympathise with that. Much of our effort this year in our two aid packages has been to try to target more. However, within the constraints of the CAP, it is not easy to do that. But if the noble Lord looks carefully at the package, he will see that it has been devised and targeted towards the sectors which we believe have suffered the most—the livestock sector and especially the hill sector.
The noble Lord asked how much is new money. The package is mainly new money. Roughly £100 million of it is from the Treasury and from the reserve. I calculate—although I ask your Lordships not to pin me down absolutely—that £20 million will be recovered from the European Union.
The noble Lord may be interested to know that we estimate that roughly £21 million of that will go to Wales. He asked also about the £48.3 million which is part of the agrimonetary package.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, do I understand that that is part of what is attributed to 1999 but is a draw-down on the 1998 funds?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is the part which is the second phase of the three-year package in relation to the agrimonetary arrangement.
The noble Lord mentioned charges. I resist what was behind his remarks on that subject. Those charges are necessary to bring our industry up to the standards
1038
which are necessary to sustain consumer confidence. Consumer confidence is an asset to the industry; it is a benefit to the industry; and in most other industries such charges are paid for by the industries themselves. I do not see them as a burden on the industry but as a necessary cost in order to maintain confidence in the industry, which has been damaged deeply by the experience of recent years and especially BSE.
The noble Lord said that this problem has existed for a long time. I should point out to him that this is the second package in a matter of some 10 months. I believe that the Government have acted with reasonable speed. But it takes some time to construct packages which are both targeted in the way that he would like and acceptable to the European Commission. I shall write to the noble Lord on the question of headage.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I declare an interest. I know that farmers will welcome the £120 million but will be disappointed about the total because they are going through a real crisis in the countryside at present and this package has come almost too late for many.
Will the Minister tell me what sort of new money will be available for an average hill farmer with, for example, 400 ewes and 30 sucklers, and when it will be paid? It would seem that the money will not be available until the spring. That will mean that there is a long hard winter ahead for most hill farmers until anything at all is paid.
Secondly, in his peroration, the Minister spoke at length about the reform of the CAP. Most farmers accept that if there is a reform of the CAP in the near future, there will be less income for the farmers and a less substantial increase in prices in the shops. That seems an unlikely way for agriculture to make profitable progress. Therefore, will the Minister tell the House how and when he believes the reform of the CAP will take place, because there is a great deal of apprehension in the countryside as to whether it will be advantageous? The majority of farmers feel that, at the end of the day, they will see a lowering of the current subsidies, particularly for livestock, which mean so much to them at the present time.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that the industry will be disappointed. It may be that it is never possible to do enough. However, we have done a great deal. I should like to give the House an indication of how much will go to the average hill farmer, but the average hill farmer is not easy to define. It will certainly run into four figures. The noble Lord asked when. The agrimonetary money is paid in January. The hill livestock compensatory allowance will be paid in March. Those items therefore are paid quite soon.
No one can forecast when reform of the CAP will happen. We know from previous experience that the European agricultural community is reluctant and slow to face reform. But it was committed at the Cardiff Council to follow an agenda, and reform should be

1039
firmly agreed by the year 2000. Of course, it must be in place for the World Trade Organisation talks that will start that year. None of us can foresee what the final shape will be, although this Government argued our position at the Council. I was there at the Council to argue it in the presidency. We support the Agenda 2000 reforms put up by the Commission although we consider them to be too modest.
To the farmers I would say that all change is threatening. No doubt some will feel that. But we believe that ultimately it will be advantageous to British farming to be reformed in the more liberal way being proposed which will make our farming more viable and sustainable. I cannot believe, after the two crises we have been through this year alone, that anyone could argue that the present situation in farming, the present structure and nature of its financing, is the ideal.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I welcome the package and particularly the Minister's statement that he intends to develop a strategy. I should like to think it will be a strategy for food production in this country well into the 21st century. Are the Minister and his colleagues taking into account in developing that strategy the projections for growth in world population? I understand that the projection is that the world population will double in the next 30 years. How will we feed people in this country in the year 2030?
Does the Minister agree that, on the whole, British agriculture is both efficient and flexible? It is also not unwilling to restructure; but restructuring agriculture, particularly agricultural holdings, takes time. More than anything else farmers need a certainty in the direction in which we are going and time to adapt. They need help to level the violent fluctuations in prices which are so damaging to agriculture. A clear policy and help with violent fluctuations in prices are more important to farmers even than subsidies.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am pleased the noble Lord welcomed our approach to the longer-term strategy. That is exactly what we propose to construct and it is a strategy for our whole food production chain, not just the production end. We will of course take into account what the noble Lord said in relation to growth in world population. That is a central point in regard to the necessary reforms as in Agenda 2000.
The key question is whether our farming will have proper access to the growth in world markets. If we are excessively protected within the existing European regime, under the world trade rules we will not have adequate access. That is why reform to a more liberal regime which will give our farmers more access to those growing world markets is particularly important. I take very much on board what the noble Lord said about restructuring taking time and the need to adapt. Our proposals today are short-term measures. We wish them to buy time to introduce longer-term reforms. But they
1040
are not a statement that we will always underwrite the present structure in cement. That is not the case. Restructuring must take place.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I welcome in particular the £21 million for the livestock sector in Wales to which the Minister referred in the Statement. Can he confirm that when his colleagues are looking at the long-term strategy for the rural economy, food production, afforestation and added value from countryside products in terms of food-related manufacture will form a central part of that strategy? If there is to be a shift of resources from the end-price support for agricultural products, that must be relocated within added value in the rural economy if it is to be of benefit to those areas.
In looking at the Agenda 2000 renegotiations, will the Minister examine the difficult issues which may arise as between the European Union funding arrangements, the UK Treasury, the Scottish parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales? Clearly those bodies will have a direct involvement in the whole question of the rural economy, particularly if added resources are to be made available from the European Union in terms of objective one. They will need to be targeted with UK Treasury support to replace any reduction in agricultural support. That will ensure that there is not a further undermining and bringing about of a crisis in the rural economy as a result of the transition into the Agenda 2000 arrangements.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I welcome again what was said about the longer term. In my view it is more important than what we have announced today, although that is critical to individual farmers. I agree totally with the noble Lord in relation to a broader rural economy. We are committed to what we call a "living countryside" and a "prosperous rural economy". But that depends upon a whole number of rural industries. The noble Lord mentioned forestry, but there are many others and not just farming.
I believe that we cannot have a prosperous countryside without a prosperous farming industry. But the prosperous countryside goes much wider and we are looking into that. As a small point, the abolition of the agricultural panels when we first took over was in order to replace them with representatives of the much wider rural economy. Now when we meet there are up to 16 different trades and professions present. That is important. I agree also with the noble Lord's point that we must not undermine within the less favoured areas what we do with Agenda 2000.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his Statement. Can he confirm that a critical situation in agriculture existed before May last year? Since then he has not only given one tranche of relief but secured rather more success in negotiations in Europe than several of his more recent predecessors managed to achieve.
Will my noble friend accept that if an adequate active population is to continue in the rural areas of England, as well as in Wales and Scotland, some consideration

1041
will have to be given to longer-term changes in agriculture, especially in regard to the replacement of the basis of headage by acreage or hectorage? Will my noble friend accept that that is in the longer term, but in the shorter term smaller farmers—some of whom may have entered in recent years because livestock production is the way in which the smaller farms establish themselves in the industry—need to be retained? In that regard will he continue to give sympathetic consideration to their plight and perhaps look again at the regulations and policies in regard to intensification.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks and for his positive approach to our Statement. It is indeed the case that the brewing agricultural crisis existed before May 1997. The turn-down in incomes began in 1996 and, of course, two-thirds of the rise in sterling occurred under the previous administration. We have given over £200 million in extra money to the industry this year alone.
My noble friend referred to the European Union. My view is that the change in approach to the EU, which began on 1st May, is probably the most significant change. I am absolutely convinced that we would not have got the beef ban lifted in Northern Ireland, and for the rest of Great Britain shortly, had the previous approach to Brussels—namely, as containing a gang of enemies—been continued.
My noble friend made a critical point as regards small farmers and the future of a living countryside. It is certainly not my vision of the future of the countryside that, in the pursuit of efficiency, we end up with a prairie. One of the regions that I am responsible for is the south west. It is absolutely clear to me that we have to find ways to sustain the family farm, which is often a smaller farm, in such areas. So we have a delicate balance within Agenda 2000. I am not sure that it has been fully thought through, but we have time to consider our approach. We want a more liberal and more efficient agriculture. We want an agriculture that can thrive on world markets and exploit the great population growth in the world. Without being committed to preserving all our existing structure, which I would not wish to do, we also want to ensure in that future that there are family farmers and small farmers who are providing a living rural society and community as well as a rural economy.
Earl Peel: My Lords, just how serious this matter is was brought home to me today. I have just returned from Edinburgh where I was talking to someone associated with hill farms. He told me that some hill farmers are now having to take advice from vets on how to put down their stock humanely because they simply cannot sell them for a profit. So I welcome the package. However, as my noble friend Lord Luke said, it has come too late. Indeed, there is no questioning the fact that enormous damage has been done. Nevertheless, we welcome the package for what it is.
I should like to explore one aspect of what the Minister said about the development away from the headage payments in the future. I find this quite
1042
interesting. There is no doubt in my mind that the way that headage payments have been administered has caused enormous environmental damage. I would very much welcome a move towards area payments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, made reference, instead of the headage payments which are now in place. I should be interested to hear whether that policy is one which the Minister and the Government are pursuing.
However, what concerns me most of all is the fact that we have all heard rumours and, indeed, read reports in newspapers that the percentage of the CAP within Agenda 2000, which is likely to be continued towards the less favoured areas, is likely to fall. That would be a disaster. Therefore, can the Minister give a firm assurance to the House that the Government will fight for every penny for the LFAs as a percentage of the CAP in the future? I say that because, without that, all the Minister said about small farms and the local socio-economic package would fall by the wayside.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are aware of the hill farming crisis to which the noble Earl refers. That is why this package, like the previous one, is very much targeted to hill farming. The agrimonetary compensations will greatly help hill farmers. Of course, the hill livestock compensatory allowance—that is, £30 million to beef and £30 million to sheep—will also specifically help them.
However, I must reject the idea that the package is too late. It had to be considered in a measured way. I should point out to the noble Earl, and to other Members of the House, that it involves £100 million of new money from the reserve to which other sections of our community and our economy might feel that they have equal or greater claims. Allocating this money to farming rather than to health or education was not an easy choice. Indeed, such matters have to be most carefully considered.
I note what the noble Earl said about area payments. I can assure him that we are pursuing the whole question in the context of the intensive/extensive farming issue. As regards assistance to the LFAs under Agenda 2000, I can tell the noble Earl that we are acutely aware of the position. When we had the presidency and the informal Council in the north east—a less favoured area—we arranged that the special paper was actually on what was called, "farming in fragile areas", which is very much the same. It is certainly our intention to fight to defend that sector of our agricultural community.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I welcome the Statement repeated by the Minister. However, before we get carried away with the proposals I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the incomes of farmers have gone down since his Government took office by anything up to 100 per cent. I honestly believe that the farmers of Wales, England and Scotland will be bitterly disappointed with the proposals. Indeed, there is hardly anything in them: if they have lost 100 per cent. over the past 18 months, they will receive about 10 per cent. extra. So where will that leave us? Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction.

1043
I ask the Minister once again to consider what I suggested earlier this year. I have in mind the view of the majority of the farmers and leaders in this country; namely, that a Royal Commission should be set up to look into the plight of people living in the countryside.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are very aware of the rapid decline in farming incomes, although it varies. I should point out to the noble Lord that, on average it is not 100 per cent. Indeed, it is just over 70 per cent. and it took place following a quite remarkable rise of over 70 per cent. in the previous four years. It was a fall from an exceptional high, but that does not make it less painful.
As regards the areas with which the noble Lord is particularly concerned, I can tell him that many did not enjoy the bonanza of the 70 per cent. rise in real incomes in four years which occurred in agriculture as a whole. So, for them, it is especially painful. However, we are aware of the situation and will consider the noble Lord's idea of a Royal Commission.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, when the Minister reviews the various matters, especially as regards LFAs, will he give particular consideration to extending considerably the area covered by the environmentally sensitive areas scheme? While the scheme suffers perhaps from the fact that I claim some paternity for it, it has four outstanding merits. First, it is already approved by the European authorities. Secondly, it is extremely environmentally sensitive. Thirdly, it does not encourage further production of surpluses. Fourthly, and most importantly, it is aimed particularly at farmers in "difficult" areas, mostly small farmers. That means that one would give the help where it is needed most.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I acknowledge his great experience in this area. We are looking at precisely that proposal. I have asked officials to consider how we can make greater use of the ESAs. Some areas appear to be less interested in the scheme than others. Some areas are oversubscribed and some are undersubscribed. We are considering the matter.

Resistance to Antibiotics: Select Committee Report
7.10 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Resistance to Antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents (7th Report, HL Paper 81).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I express my appreciation for the honour it has been to chair this committee on a topic of wide public health and also professional interest. It is a global problem as we shall hear as we proceed with this debate. The international nature of this problem can be adduced from the fairly extensive evidence we have received from this country and from overseas.
At this point I pay tribute to people in the United States Government, the research institutes in Washington, the Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta and the School of Medicine, Tuft's University, Boston, which received a deputation from the sub-committee and were extraordinarily helpful to us. I thank them formally for their hospitality and their great assistance in our deliberations. To our specialist advisers, Professor Harold Lambert and Professor Richard Wise, I convey the grateful thanks of the sub-committee for their input, deliberations, guidance and their role in producing the draft report. Finally, I cannot praise too highly the committee Clerk, Andrew Makower, whose ability with words and concepts can be appreciated fully only when one serves as a chairman of a committee such as this.
At the press conference when we launched this report in March of this year we stated a conclusion reached in the report; namely, that,
"our enquiry has been an alarming experience. Misuse and overuse of antibiotics are now threatening to undo all their early promises and success in curing disease. But the greatest threat is complacency, from Ministers, the medical profession, the veterinary service, the farming community, and the public at large. Our Report is a blueprint for action. It must start now, if we are not to return to the bad old days of incurable diseases before antibiotics were available".
Noble Lords will see that we identified an urgency for action. To some extent members of the committee are concerned that we have not yet received a response from Her Majesty's Government since the publication of the report in March. I hope that the complacency we identified in the report that has led to problems is not complacency on the part of the Government.
Those are strong words, but we meant them to be strong words to draw the attention of the House and the Government to the situation that faces us. Antibiotics have been used for 50 years or more. They are, of course, the wonder drugs. We hear about them every day. They have changed the practice of human and animal medicine across the world. The ravages of bacterial infection, which continued into the late 1950s, no longer occur. However, we are aware that there is an increasing worldwide alarming growth in the number of cases where humans do not respond as anticipated to the use of antibiotics to treat certain diseases. This may lead to severe ill health and indeed to the death of patients.
The situation in the animal field is not as serious as that in human medicine, but there is concern there too. In particular there is concern that antibiotic use in animals may in one way or another—I shall mention that in due course—lead to problems with treating humans because of the transfer of resistance to human pathogens.
The concept of eventual resistance to an antibiotic is, of course, not new. Even after the development of penicillin many years ago, penicillinase, an enzyme which destroys penicillin, was identified and it was predicted that resistance to antibiotics would be a problem. That has proved eventually to be the case with almost every antibiotic, although that has varied as regards the duration of use and the concentration of the antibiotic concerned. Now we have a global pool of bacteria, many commensal and not pathogenic in nature, with resistant genes in the pool that can transfer

1045
resistance to pathogens. The introduction of an antibiotic into that pool imposes selection pressure and encourages resistance to spread.
One may ask how serious is this resistance? The major concern, whatever the source of resistance, is the threat to human health. I believe that one should always keep that before one. In the absence of action to reduce the prevalence of resistance, there is the prospect of returning to the pre-antibiotic era. The reasons for resistance are several, but in the medical field unjustified prescriptions of antibiotics, especially the inappropriate use of antibiotics for mild to moderate viral infections such as a sore throat, the common cold or an earache, play a part in that resistance. It has been represented to us that depending on the part of the country one is in, between five to 50 per cent. of antibiotic prescriptions are unjustified.
We recognise in the report the dilemma faced by doctor and patient where the doctor must advise on the prudent use of antibiotics when faced with the consistent demands of the patient, especially if that patient also has a child. Indeed, in certain parts of the country, and certainly overseas, defensive prescribing of antibiotics is the rule as it is seen as a way of avoiding litigation should an apparently mild infirmity not treated with antibiotics eventually turn out to be something serious. If that were to occur, major litigation may arise. However, that problem is not only encountered by the general practitioner treating patients in his surgery; major problems also arise in hospitals with hospital facilities and procedures under severe pressure because of financial constraints, inadequate infection control teams, patient overcrowding, inadequate training, and so on.
Examples of the importance of antibiotic resistance include multi-drug-resistant salmonella. Some salmonella species are resistant to eight to 10 antibiotics. Staphylococcus aureus is a common commensal on the skin, but it can become resistant to methicillin and it is the "killer bug" about which we have heard so much in newspapers. In some hospitals, staphylococcus aureus will respond only to certain antibiotics such as vancomycin, and even then we have evidence that there are certain strains, in certain parts of the country, which have become vancomycin-resistant, and there is no fall-back position left.
Globally, we have other problems. Infections such as drug-resistant gonorrhoea and multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis, are extremely common overseas. One problem overseas, which we do not have in this country, relates to over-the-counter sales of antibiotics and the self-administration of antibiotics without prescription from a doctor.
One area where control is essential is the surveillance of antibiotic resistance. Surveillance is the intelligence system where policies are formulated, providing guidance for prescriptions and prescribing individuals, and assessing the success of control programmes. We found the support for surveillance—in, for example, the Public Health Laboratory Service—of concern as the Public Health Laboratory Service is suffering decreased
1046
subvention in this area. We believe that that must be revised urgently if we are to have adequate control of antibiotic resistance in this country.
Similarly, a major control programme of surveillance occurs in the World Health Organisation which takes on a global programme. It, too, is under-funded. The United Kingdom has been supportive of that particular initiative and we hope that Her Majesty's Government will convince other governments in the European Union to lend the same sort of support as the United Kingdom gives.
I turn now to antibiotic use in animals in relation to resistance in man. That is an area of great controversy and has been so for some considerable time. Some 30 years ago, the Swann Committee, chaired by the then Lord Swann, looked at the issue of antibiotic use in animals, especially as growth promoters. It recommended that there should be an over-arching committee to look into antibiotic use in all areas—medical, veterinary, livestock and horticultural—to provide guidance to people in those areas. Unfortunately, that was not acted upon, but one of our recommendations is that such an over-arching committee be set up.
In 1997, the World Health Organisation convened a meeting in Berlin and concluded that the low level use of certain antibiotics did, in fact, pose a threat to the human use of antibiotics in therapy and suspected that there may be cross-resistance. Most recently, the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture recommended the banning of antibiotics as growth promoters.
Your Lordships' Select Committee did not go that far. It recognised that antibiotics were of value in the animal field and did not wish to recommend their withdrawal when they were used prudently and for clinical use, but it identified certain antibiotics where low-level use for growth promotion, for example, rendered their use inappropriate and imprudent. With regard to animal feed and growth promotion, there have been comments that to discontinue the use of antibiotics in growth promotion may well lead to severe animal health and welfare problems. Supporters of animal use for growth promotion point out that there is no documented case where use of antibiotics has been proven to cause treatment failure. However, there is increasing epidemiological and circumstantial evidence that that is, indeed, the case. Where human lives are at stake and at risk it is imprudent to dismiss that evidence. Absolute proof would require, to my mind, the fulfilment of Koch's postulates; namely, the isolation of the suspected organisms, the deliberate infection of a person with those organisms and the recovery of those organisms thereafter. That is not an undertaking that anyone would recommend.
I conclude by asking about the effect of the report on antibiotic use in different areas. I am happy to report that the Department of Health produced a document entitled The Path of Least Resistance, which is applicable to doctors and patients alike and gives very good guidance. The British Veterinary Association produced a working document on antibiotics in animals

1047
and inter alia recommended that antimicrobial agents used as human therapeutics or known to select for cross-resistance to antimicrobials should be discontinued. Recently, a group known as the Responsible Use of Medicines in Animals has been set up, including the veterinary profession, the National Farmers Union and other groups from the pharmaceutical industry. That group has taken on a responsible attitude to the use of antibiotics in animals and livestock. Only last week the European Union proposed a ban on certain antibiotics lest they lead to resistance in humans for the treatment of certain infections.
Attention is being paid to the report. There is not the time to go over our 54 recommendations, but they include items for research. I feel that this report has stimulated action and that if action is continued it is less likely that antibiotic resistance will lead to serious human health problems and death; it is more likely that the complacency that we have identified will not continue and that adequate advice will be given to those who use and direct the use of antibiotics, both for humans and for animals.
Finally, we look forward to a positive response from Her Majesty's Government. I commend the report to the House.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Resistance to Antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents (7th Report, HL Paper 81).—(Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior.)
7.28 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, the hour is late and I shall be as brief as I can. This is a large and comprehensive report and it is not possible, or desirable, to go over every point in it. First, I thank our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, for conducting our inquiry in such an excellent way. He made it a most stimulating committee on which to serve. It was, indeed, a privilege. At a time when the House of Lords is being discussed, dissected and held under a microscope, our Select Committees in general show this House in an excellent light.
It is also relevant that many of your Lordships who sat on this committee are not molecular biologists and yet your impressive speed of grasp of the scientific aspects of what is a very technical subject was remarkable. That also shows the House in a very good light indeed.
Two weeks ago my son, who is just 17, went to the funeral of a girl of his own age. She had had a two or three-hour rash and a slight headache. By the time she was admitted to the Royal Free Hospital, she was dead. She had meningitis, of course. Members of the school in which my son is educated and this young girl had been treated with some prophylactic antibiotics, with penicillin. But imagine if that penicillin were not available to us or if those bacteria were resistant to that drug.
When I approached this committee, because of my medical ignorance as a medical practitioner I had not fully appreciated the seriousness of the subject with
1048
which we were faced. There is a very real need for serious alarm and concern at the spread of antibiotic resistance.
In the time available, I do not intend to deal with bacterial and microbial infections overseas, but they are a particular point and one could go on at great length about them. I will simply say, out of self-interest, that there are some things happening overseas which are relevant to British practice in terms of the common infections in this country.
One has to understand the nature of the bacterium. In ideal conditions it reproduces itself in about 20 minutes, so in one hour it has gone through three generations. In human evolution we have about 30 generations in a thousand years; we have 300 generations in 10,000 years; and of course new genes mutate slightly and change all the time. The bacterium can do that in seven days or faster. The problem is an organism which is capable of adapting to the things which are threatening it. That is the major and very urgent problem.
It is true, of course, that if we withdraw antibiotics some of the resistance will fall. As one witness pointed out to us, this is an arms race, but disarmament—that is, the removal of the antibiotics—is not an option. We would then be going back to the commonest cause of death worldwide generally; that is to say, infection.
It is true that we as a medical profession have not been particularly distinguished in many aspects. I note, for example, my own Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which has a notable post-graduate function that deals with infection in common practice in obstetrics. There is remarkably little teaching about, or emphasis given to, the important common organisms which infect, for example, the vagina, such as streptococcus, and how they can become resistant. If it is true of my own college, believe me, it is also true of the other Royal Colleges that are responsible for post-graduate education in this country. It is something that we must, and can, do something about.
Medical education in general is poor. It is not particularly good even at undergraduate level. Too often microbiology is seen as a rather boring subject. Sadly, we heard evidence that there is a need to fill more places in microbiology at consultant level in hospitals.
We should not blame general practitioners. It is very easy to say that general practitioners over-prescribe. The general practitioner is in a difficult position. I have given your Lordships one anecdote; let me give another. When I was in training as a hospital registrar, like many people to earn a little extra money I became a locum as a general practitioner in Southend. On my second day in the practice a young woman came in with a child of about a year old. I think the child was in a buggy. She said, "He's not very well; he's a bit off-colour". I had been taught not to give antibiotics and I said, "Well, it's probably a viral infection", and I refused to give her antibiotics. But she wanted a prescription. Three hours later I was phoned for an emergency at that woman's house. I was told that the child was seriously ill. In fact the child was dead. I rushed over there and I remember

1049
seeing this child laid out on the bed; I remember the noise and distress and the general shock that that occasioned. That still lives with me.
The point is that the general practitioner is in a difficult position with the pressure to give antibiotics. It is true that an antibiotic almost certainly would not have helped—in fact, the post-mortem did not show any evidence of bacteriological infection—but that, for a young doctor, does not make any difference. You wonder whether you should have given that antibiotic. The GP is very much in the front-line.
There is great pressure from parents. In the United States, for example, increasing numbers of working mothers are putting their children into day-care centres. They are under increasing pressure to give their not-very-well children an antibiotic. It has been calculated that about 25 per cent. of antibiotics in the USA are prescribed to children. This may be rising, because there are more working mothers and more children in day-centres, which in turn is an ideal way of exchanging infection. It is not a simple problem. There is no doubt that there is a need to recognise when it might be a bacteriological infection which could be treated by antibiotics and when it is a viral infection, where they would make no difference.
The committee found that there was an astonishing gap in regard to information. This Government have said that they are going to invest in information technology. I hope they do. It is desperately needed in the health service. We need much better scope for NHS surveillance. There is remarkably little information collected across the country about specific organisms which infect people and very little information about the practice of prescribing particular antibiotics. It is a serious lack in our medical practice and something that we need to understand. We do not have full information on the patterns of antibiotic prescription.
There is also a definite link to the pattern of over-bedding and overcrowding in hospitals—pressures that we have heard about from King's College Hospital. King's College calculates that about 6 to 7 per cent. of patients have a hospital-based infection. It told us that most hospitals do not have or publish that information because they do not have the IT or are not carrying out the surveillance which is needed. That is partly because they are embarrassed and partly because we have not invested in what is essential in modern healthcare.
It is shocking to me that the Public Health Laboratory Service has been chronically under-funded in the way that it has. I hope that we can have some recognition from the Government, one hopes this evening, that this will stop. The PHLS is an important way of gathering information. It has in the past been important in research; it is an important resource. It has been under-funded because of inflation and this needs to be adjusted.
While the Science and Technology Committee shows the House of Lords in a good light, I am shocked that we have just had a debate on agriculture and virtually every farmer in the House left the Chamber as we were about to discuss the critical issue that animals are being given antibiotics, very often in an uncontrolled way,
1050
without proper information. It is a scandal that they are not listening to this debate. I urge them at least to read it in Hansard and understand that this is a crucial issue.
We have no evidence of how these growth promoters work. Why should we use an antibiotic? Let us look at other things. I believe it would be safer to use genetic engineering or to dose the animals with a cytokine. It is wrong to give animals these drugs unless they are really essential for their health and welfare. Of course, very often they are, but there must be much more careful regulation of this issue.
Finally, there is a need for more research. For example, we learnt that there is even need for research into rapid diagnosis. At present, in general the fastest we can get a diagnosis is within 48 hours—to find the bacterium and to find its specific resistance. There should be molecular ways, particularly through automation in the laboratory, to make this a much speedier process. Most pathological diagnosis has been automated, but automation has not yet happened much in microbiology. This could certainly be attained with modern molecular techniques. The R&D arm of the NHS can help a little, too, with carrying out more research in bacteriology, but there is need for basic research. Perhaps it would be a good idea for the research councils and the Wellcome Trust to consider some specific tranche of funding for this very important area of research.
This is a worldwide problem which needs to be addressed on a global scale. It is good to see the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in the Chamber because it was her report on embryology which was so influential in making this country and also other countries take action to start to regulate embryology. We could be a model for many examples of healthcare. Certainly, we should consider being that model in the case of bacteriology and the control of antibiotic resistance.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Winston, I found it a privilege to be a member of the sub-committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. He was a splendid chairman and the committee ran like clockwork.
I found the report particularly alarming because I was a doctor during the pre-antibiotic era. I graduated in medicine in 1943 and my first job was as a casualty officer at the Dundee Royal Infirmary. Every morning, one of my duties was to assist in the surgical outpatients department and there I would see and examine 10, 15 or 20 patients with infected fingers—not a very serious problem, noble Lords might say, but in those days it was.
When the staphylococcus got through the skin and infected the finger it was usually treated with hot fomentations at home until it swelled up, became very red and throbbed with pain. Then the patient came to the outpatients department, where it was necessary to incise the finger to let out the pus. That was only the beginning because the patient would come every day to have the finger dressed until it had healed. It might take days or a week or more to heal. That was not the end

1051
because the pain, the swelling and the bandages led to such loss of movement that the patient had then to attend the physiotherapy department for many weeks, and sometimes months, in order to regain movement. That was not always successful. One can imagine what could happen with those patients whose jobs required fine finger movements—for example, a pianist. It was a tragedy.
That was only one of the infections caused by the staphylococcus. I shall stick with the staphylococcus out of all the matters in the report because I should like to go through its history. Penicillin came into general use in the hospitals in about 1945 and transformed the situation. Someone with an infected finger was given the drug and in a day or two the infection was gone. It was magic. The antibiotic era had started but there were already, as noble Lords have heard, significant signs that antibiotics might not last for ever.
In the distant past mould and bacteria co-existed and the mould produced penicillin. Some of the bacteria, although not many, became resistant, probably by learning how to produce penicillinase. When the drug was given to patients the presence of the antibiotic selected out the resistant organisms because the susceptible ones were all killed off. That did not bother the patient, who got better anyway, but it did lead to passing the infection with the resistant organisms to other patients. That led to the spread of resistance. Now, more than 90 per cent. of staphylococci in the population have resistance to penicillin. That led the pharmaceutical chemists into making a host of different penicillins and trying to find one that would not show this resistance. In 1960, they finally managed with methicillin to find a penicillin variant which was not destroyed by penicillinase.
However, the bugs are very clever. They have more ways than one of developing resistance. This time it took rather longer. It was 1989 before a way was found to overcome the action of methicillin. By 1989 five per cent. of the isolates in this country were positive for what came to be known as methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. The figure is now 32 per cent. of all infections in this country and in Japan it is 70 per cent.
Parallel to the search for variants of penicillin there was a continued search for new classes of antibiotics. There are about 160 antibiotics known today but only about 15 or 16 different classes. The others are variants of one class. It was as early as 1956 that the glycopeptides, of which the most important is vancomycin, were discovered. Vancomycin was expensive compared with penicillin—it was not used very much—and it was believed that it was impossible for organisms to become resistant to vancomycin. Now, VRSA—vancomycin-resistant staphylococcus aureus—has been discovered in the USA and Japan. Those countries can afford vancomycin and they use it widely and they have developed resistance to it.
This brings up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about the need in this day and age of very rapid travel for some kind of international action if we are to prevent the resistant strains in other countries
1052
moving into this country. What about looking for a new antibiotic to replace vancomycin? There has not been a new class of antibiotic for the past 15 years. The pharmaceutical industry is presently developing two new classes and there may be valuable results. There is also a tremendous interest in genomics in the pharmaceutical industry; that is, examining the DNA structure of the bacteria. That may present a whole new set of targets against which new chemicals could be aimed. Even if one of those succeeds in producing a new antibiotic it will be at least 10 years before it becomes available for patient use. That means that we face at least a decade during which some patients will have no drug that will work on a staphylococcal infection. That is already the case in the USA and Japan. The age of post-antibiotics has arrived.
In The Path of Least Resistance, to which the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, drew attention, the Department of Health stated:
"The loss of activity of vancomycin against MRSA would have disastrous effects in public health".
It is no wonder that I and other members of the committee were alarmed.
What can we do? We can be prudent in the use of antibiotics. One thing we can do is not use vancomycin except for MRSA infections. We were upset when we discovered that it is widely used by practitioners in the United States to treat otitis media, a middle ear infection which is not usually caused by bacteria but by a virus. It will not respond to antibiotics; therefore using it in that way is just asking for resistant strains to develop.
What else can be done? More could be done in relation to infection control, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. We could follow the practice of Scandinavia and the Netherlands, where there are strict infection control policies, especially in hospitals. Those countries presently have no MRSA in their hospitals, whereas in this country the figure is 32 per cent. So the policy does work if it is strictly observed. It does not reverse the situation, but it slows down the development of more resistant organisms. It is no longer possible in many acute hospitals to isolate patients, which would be one way of preventing cross-infection. The infection control teams that should exist in all acute hospitals could keep a careful watch on standards of hygiene. Simple practices such as washing the hands after attending to each patient are often neglected. The cleaning of hospitals is now contracted out and is often not done carefully and well. There should be a limit on "bed-hopping"—patients moving from one bed to another in a hospital, sometimes for good medical reasons. This poses another risk of cross-infection. There ought also to be some training of staff.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that the matter is urgent. Not only do we face losing the advantages of antibiotics; we also face losing the practice of much modern surgery. Transplantation and joint replacement could not be carried out if there were not antibiotic cover. It would be too risky.
As the Government's report indicates, they are cognisant of the problem. I hope that they will take as much action as possible along the lines recommended in the report.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating the sub-committee on its excellent work. The opening of the Conclusions and Recommendations in Chapter 11 is eye-catching. It was intended to be so. It bears repeating:
"This enquiry has been an alarming experience, which leaves us convinced that resistance to antibiotics and anti-infective agents constitutes a major threat to public health, and ought to be recognised as such more widely than it is at present".
Unlike many of the members of the sub-committee, I am, neither by training nor by strong inclination, readily able to assimilate and grasp totally many of the chemical and biological intricacies of this extremely complicated topic. But in spite of my lack of clinical and related expertise, I have little difficulty in grasping the import of many of the conclusions, particularly as they apply to hospitals.
Like many noble Lords, I have been, and no doubt may one day be again, a patient in hospital. I should declare an interest as the recently elected chairman of the council of Sister Agnes', the Edward VII Hospital.
In some detail the report draws attention to the special problems faced by hospitals and other care institutions. As the noble Lord, Lord Perry mentioned, infection control in hospitals is identified as particularly important in the fight against resistance to antibiotics. We find in this country as well as overseas numerous shortcomings in this field. The public learn of them from time to time from the media. I do not doubt that for every one story that reaches the national press, a dozen more do not. That is the nature of the media's approach.
But it is not reassuring to find so many witnesses who gave evidence of such problems. Is enough really being done to deal with the serious, indeed alarming, occurrence of MRSA, Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus? The sub-committee's visit to the US disclosed that the proportion of MRSA among strains of Staph. aureus in large US teaching hospitals rose from 8 per cent. in 1986 to 40 per cent. in 1992, only six years later. And as MRSA increases, so does the use of vancomycin, the drug of last resort, bringing vancomycin resistance in its train.
In paragraph 4.35 of the report we learn that
"MRSA poses one of the biggest challenges to infection control … it moves easily between hospital[s] … and in many United Kingdom hospitals it is now regarded as endemic".
Yet in evidence the Minister for Public Health spoke confidently about MRSA, as rates of resistance were relatively low at 8 per cent. over the period from 1990 to 1995. If the Americans find that the rate can jump from 8 per cent. to 40 per cent. in only six years, I wonder whether we should be feeling so confident.
The overall impression that this excellent report gives is that of a juggler trying to keep many balls in the air. Each ball represents a specialism or an element of research within this vastly complex topic. Almost weekly, if not daily, new issues arise, new balls are added to the juggler's array, and he has to work faster and faster to keep them all in the air. Who is the ringmaster? Who takes a look at what the juggler is
1054
trying to do, and then tries to help him? It should be the Government, and in particular, the Department of Health. How do they respond?
This far-sighted and thorough report was published last March. Now, some eight months later, we have a chance to debate it. But where is the Government's response to help us in our deliberations? It is not for me to chide or berate anyone, but I believe that the serious and considered work of Select Committees should be responded to in a reasonable time, and well before we have a chance to debate the topic. I had thought that it was accepted convention, if not a more rigorous requirement, for a government response to Select Committees to be made within 60 days. I, for one, would be prepared to set a slightly lengthier time-scale, provided the Government gave a thorough and considered response to the report.
I am, I expect, not alone in finding it extraordinary that, when faced with the Select Committee's report on medicinal usage of cannabis, which we published last week, the Government chose to issue within a matter of hours a strong rejection of the key recommendation of those who undertook the inquiry. Their press release came out well before they could even have had time to read, let alone consider interdepartmentally, the excellent findings that the report contained. However, that is for another day. Meanwhile, it would be helpful if the Government could confirm that it is their intention to respect the value and thoroughness of this Select Committee's work by responding in a thorough and constructive way to the inquiry and other reports within a reasonable time-scale.
Let me finish where I began. The Select Committee concluded that this inquiry was an alarming experience. The Government have yet to reply. Do they share the committee's sense of alarm, or should we take it that their lack of urgency in responding reflects a lack of concern about the whole topic? If it does, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us with good reasons. I and many others need reassurance—for example, against the day that we may become in-patients in a major hospital.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, other noble Lords began their speeches with personal anecdotes, and I should like to do the same. Some four years ago, when I was chairman of an NHS trust with a large district general hospital, the problems we faced with bed usage were being exacerbated by what our medical director called the problems of MRSA. I asked her what "MRSA" meant. She thought for a bit and said, "It is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus". I asked her what was so remarkable about that. She proceeded to describe to me the problems of spreading infection: that it comes in on the skin of patients from the community; that it spreads easily in the hospital; and that it is extremely hard to treat. She said that it was becoming a serious problem. I said that we all knew that hospitals were dangerous places and that one did not go there unless one had to, but what she told me was extremely worrying.

1055
I was comforted by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said that he had found the learning experience on this Select Committee of enormous value to him. He is one of the country's greatest doctors in his field. As a layman, at that time when I was told about MRSA and thought that it was a serious problem, I did not know the half of it. Like everyone else, I have found this not only a fascinating study but also a very frightening one.
Under the admirable guidance of my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, we all learned a great deal, and some of it has been rehearsed in the debate this evening. This is an international problem, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, which affects the whole world. We face a major threat to public health. Those are serious words.
My noble friend Lord Soulsby referred to the report of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, The Path of Least Resistance. That committee headed an early chapter of its study, "Looking into the Abyss". The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, describing what happened in the pre-antibiotic age and what we are therefore likely to go back to, should have put the "frighteners" on everybody. We are facing a return to the pre-antibiotic era, with untreatable infections, incurable diseases and major epidemics.
In our discussion of how to get the impact of the report across to the public, I suggested that we might call it, "How can we stop the bugs winning?" I was told that that was a rather undignified title for your Lordships' House. However, I was delighted to see, when the committee issued the press release, that it was entitled, "Lords lead fight against killer bugs". That is the right kind of approach. Every speech that we have heard so far this evening has underlined the gravity of the threat that we face.
In the light of this, I am sure that noble Lords will share the concern of the committee that the Department of Health's evidence was in some respects complacent. In the light of what we heard from witnesses, we were worried by that complacency.
Reference has been made to the fact that it is now seven or eight months since we issued the report and we have yet to hear the Government's full response. I am sure that tonight we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has had a long experience of health matters, of various pieces of work in hand to address the problems. What we need is a clear overall strategy that recognises the gravity of the problem we face and sets out a programme of action on the many fronts that we have indicated in the report.
What I learned about the use of antibiotics in husbandry was completely new to me. One knew in a general way, but I knew nothing about growth promoters and all the other things we heard about. To my mind, our recommendation as to what should be done about that is one of the most serious and controversial recommendations. My noble friend Lord Soulsby, who is perhaps the country's leading expert in this field, guided us through that with great skill.
1056
I wish to talk about three matters. The first is the prospect that antibiotics might become available over the counter, with no need for a doctor's prescription. Against the background of the threat which our report describes, the call for more prudent prescribing, and so on, it would be bizarre if, as a result of pressure from well-meaning people, consumerists, and so on, or, still worse, from European Union directives, we found ourselves dragooned into making antibiotics freely available as category "P" (pharmacy) as opposed to "POM" (prescription-only medicines).
I was not alone in being startled by the written evidence we received from the Royal College of Practitioners in paragraph 4.3:
"In principle, where the [Medicines Control Agency] considers it safe to do so, we would not object to the direct sale of certain antibiotics".
I was startled by that. When the witnesses came before us I asked them to explain what they meant. They said that it was not really for GPs to weigh up the pros and cons of over-the-counter medicines. I pressed them further. Dr. Ross Taylor of the Royal College of General Practitioners took a rather firmer line. At Question 306 on Page 173 he finally said that if the MCA asked for advice on this matter the college would advise that it was not a good idea. That was not very strong but at least it pointed in the right direction. Noble Lords will observe that that is the phrase quoted in the report.
But if the Royal College of General Practitioners takes the view that in certain circumstances it may be safe to allow antibiotics to be freely dispensed by pharmacists over the counter we face a very serious problem. The Government must stand firm on this matter. I hope that we shall receive a categorical assurance from the Minister that the Government will resist all blandishments and pressures to allow antibiotics to become OTCs. I detected more than a whiff of political correctness in some of the evidence we heard in favour of OTC, and that must be firmly resisted.
Secondly, I underline what the report says about the need for much more effective control of infection. Other speakers have touched upon this. I wish that I had had this report before me when I was the chairman of an NHS trust. I have no doubt that we could have done a lot more in our hospital to tighten things up. The evidence from the front line given to the sub-committee by the Infection Control Nurses' Association was disturbing. The evidence of nurses who had to deal with infection in both the hospital and the community and their description of the lax procedures that had become widely accepted in the system, their difficulty in getting sufficient staff and the problems of training people properly were alarming. Behind it all was the unspoken assumption that perhaps it did not matter very much because if somebody got an infection from another patient an antibiotic would cure it. As we have heard this evening, antibiotics will not cure it.
The simplest procedures that have been mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, such as washing hands between patients, sterilising mops and other cleaning equipment every day and making sure that all the normal rules of hygiene are strictly observed

1057
should be absolutely standard practice in every hospital. In the old days one would have asked where matron was. I see the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, sitting opposite. Noble Lords look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness later. In the past it was the matron who kept up standards. That has been lost. I left the Department of Health at a time when I was arguing with the chief nursing officer that matrons should be brought back. She said that I could do it if I wished, but they were mostly men. I asked what was wrong with that and suggested that they be called chief nurses. Dame Phyllis Friend drew herself up to her full five feet and said, "I am the chief nurse". That was the end of the argument.
We must ensure that standards of hygiene are properly enforced. It is a question of giving the people concerned with this the clout to make sure that it happens. In my trust I was privileged to sit through an argument between the clinical microbiologist and pathologists, on the one hand, and the surgeons, on the other, because the trust wished to create a control of infection ward. That meant depriving one of the surgical specialties of some of their beds. On that occasion, happily, a very eloquent clinical microbiologist won the day and carried his medical colleagues with him. It could have gone the other way; we might have had a recalcitrant consultant force if the board had had to enforce that decision, but in the end the doctors agreed. I observe in parenthesis that another spin-off was that the particular surgical specialty increased its day-case rate by 50 per cent. in two months—something that we had been pressing it to do. Therefore, we won at both ends.
Noble Lords need to know this evening—I hope that I shall have the attention of the Minister—whether the Government accept in full the important recommendations of the Select Committee on infection control. The simple truth is that it is much better to avoid infection in the first place than rely on defeating increasingly resistant bacteria with antibiotics.
My third point concerns the need to modify public expectations. Jane Doe expects a prescription for her child's ear-ache; John Doe demands a prescription for his sore throat; and Joan Doe does not know that her cold is caused by a virus and that an antibiotic is entirely useless. Those three patients will almost certainly recover in a day or two but all expect prescriptions for antibiotics. Few members of the public appear to be aware of the risk of building up resistance. I do not know whether other lay members of the sub-committee have had the experience of trying to explain to other laymen the matter with which the report is concerned. There is a belief that it is all to do with patients' resistance to antibiotics; it is not. We are concerned with the bugs. It is quite difficult to get that point across.
I have sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about the difficulty of GPs who face these demands. To anyone who wants to get a flavour of that I commend the evidence of the Osborne practice in Southsea which appears at page 440 of the evidence. That provides a graphic description of what it means for doctors who try to prescribe prudently and resist demands for inappropriate antibiotics.
1058
The Standing Medical Advisory Committee in its report calls for NAP (national advice to the public) in addition to a campaign on antibiotic treatment. The committee uses the following words that I believe to be extremely wise and entirely in line with the report:
"We see these as two sides of the same coin; modifying patients' expectations, through a process of public education. will make it easier for GPs to adhere to the recommendations".
That must be right. General practitioners are given some valuable guidance by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and patients need to understand it.
I shall end as I began, with another personal memory. I do not suppose that I was more than eight years old when, living in California where my father was working, I was given a marvellous picture book about germs. It showed little creatures in the form of cartoon characters rushing about. At that age I learnt what happened if germs got into a cut, how they were spread, for example by sneezing, and how if nasty germs got into food a person could become very ill. I have grown up with that pretty realistic understanding. They were called germs then because in America "bugs" was a rather improper word. I gained an understanding of some of the indications about bacteria. I remember to this day a cartoon picture of germs making their mischief in the human body. I was reminded of this when the other day I read a fascinating article in the British Medical Journal by an American author. Under the heading "Antimicrobial resistance: bacteria on the defence" the author considered the matter from the point of view of the bug. I end by quoting two passages from the article:
"To understand resistance, imagine being a bacterium in a world bombarded with antimicrobials. Living in a human, you would face antibiotics being taken for routine infections and for non-threatening conditions like acne. As a susceptible strain you have to acquire a survival mechanism. This is not too difficult, as your resistant counterparts, though less common, are very willing to share their antibiotic fighting strategies with you. Armed with their donated plasmids and transposons, you survive the continuous onslaught of antimicrobials. You may sustain a mutation, rendering the antibiotic target within you resistant. Your progeny bearing the mutation survive along with you, while your sensitive counterparts succumb and diminish or vanish. With any one or more of these new defence mechanisms, you are equipped to survive when introduced to new human [bodies]".
It goes on in the same strain and concludes by saying,
"As such, you have helped create some of today's most resistant and feared pathogens".
Just like my childhood book, I can conceive that the imagination of authors, television producers and cartoon artists could get this message across in that kind of way and get a large number of people, perhaps including children at school, to understand and become aware of the problem of resistance. I challenge them to use their imagination to do that. It is not a moment too soon to start.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I, too, should like to say what a privilege I felt it was to be co-opted onto this sub-committee and particularly to be one of the lucky ones who formed the subgroup of the committee that went to the United States. I share the acknowledgement of all the help that we had from our two advisers and from our excellent Clerk. I should like to add my thanks

1059
to the two assistant Clerks who helped our Clerk with the mass of paper work that was generated through collecting evidence and marshalling it into the report.
This inquiry is very timely. A number of other bodies from this country and throughout the world have recognised the importance of the subject. They have, or are, producing reports. The report which has been referred to already—namely, that of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee (SMAC) entitled The Path of Least Resistance, particularly in its synopsis form—is an excellent practical guide to the subject for all health workers and health administrators. I commend it.
Although I am not a micro-biologist, I thought originally that it might be useful to supplement the words of our excellent chairman and of the two other medical members of our team. But now I find that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has covered very graphically the biological process that goes on to create resistance. I shall try to summarise it. The chance of one new mutation being advantageous occurs much more frequently, as my noble friend Lord Winston said, with micro-organisms than they do with multi-cellular organisms. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, alluded, they sometimes have the added capacity to transfer genetic material through the cell walls by means of DNA-bearing particles called plasmids without the need for cell division. These can carry resistance genes from one species to another. (I hate to think what problems we would have if, as humans, we had developed that capacity). When micro-organisms encounter an antibiotic a few may already have the capacity to resist it. That was much more graphically described by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. In addition, if they undergo a mutation they will multiply and become the dominant variety, which is a form of "evolution in miniature". That was how it was described by Dr. Bruce Levin who was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Winston. We met him in Atlanta at Emory University. He believes that it is a "one-way street" and that even if the use of antibiotics is sharply cut back the proportion of resistant strains wanes slowly, if at all. Even moderate use of the antibiotic concerned still imposes heavy selective pressure. If use is resumed after being cut off, resistance rises again much more rapidly than before.
Even in Iceland and Finland where strict control of prescribing succeeded in reducing the resistance of pneumococci and other micro-organisms to penicillin and erythromycin, they were not eliminated completely. (These, incidentally are the only two known examples of success in actually reducing the frequency of resistance).
All methods of slowing down the march of resistance to antibiotics have to work within this framework of adaptive evolution. As soon as a new antimicrobial agent is used, micro-organisms are under selective pressure to develop resistance to it and usually do. It is in fact the exception to the rule that the spirochaete that causes syphilis and the B haemolytic streptococcus that causes sore throat and scarlet fever are still sensitive to penicillin after more than 50 years of use. Most other organisms which were originally sceptical to penicillin
1060
have developed resistance. I believe that penicillin could be referred to as the "First of the Mohicans"; but, sadly, it is now restricted in its frequency of use although it was a wonderful antibiotic to begin with.
The word "prudence" has been uttered by several noble Lords already. Prudence seems to have come back into fashion in a number of fields. We are told that our Government run their economics in a prudent fashion. I do not like the term myself. It reminds me of aunt Prudence or, possibly, even prudishness. Nevertheless, it implies being sensible about the use of antibiotics and restricting their unnecessary use. That is the upshot of all that has been said on how resistance develops.
Noble Lords may not have pointed out that in Britain doctors prescribe antibiotics considerably more frugally than in most other countries, the Scandinavian countries excepted. As a result, we have lower levels of resistance on the whole although the MRSA figures are not good. But there is plenty of room for improvement in our prescribing habits. Our report describes a number of initiatives which are under way, particularly in general practice, and as a GP I shall speak mainly about the measures which apply to primary care. Both the Royal College of General Practitioners and the BMA, despite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, are fully aware of the need to rationalise and reduce prescribing antibiotics to the minimum necessary. Some patients, mainly the most highly educated, are aware that antibiotics are not a panacea and that they have dangers as well as benefits. However, there is a minority of GPs who over-prescribe antibiotics or prescribe them inappropriately; for example, expensive, new antibiotics. Most infections can and should still be treated with the older, cheaper antibiotics. The new antibiotics should be reserved for use where resistance has developed to the older equivalents. It is inappropriate to prescribe as a first line what are often known as second line antibiotics. They are also expensive to the NHS and encourage resistance so they should be held in reserve as a second-line treatment.
The pharmaceutical industry is far from blameless, since it naturally wishes to develop a market for its new products. Its representatives and advertising material have a habit too often of extolling the new drug for first line use but do not mention the drawbacks of so doing. There are, however, as we describe in the report, some very active moves afoot to involve general practitioners in improving their prescribing. It is interesting that economical prescribing is nearly always clinically better prescribing. That does not apply only to antibiotics but across the board. I should be grateful if my noble friend could spell out in outline the way in which the Government are supporting and encouraging the various initiatives that are under-way to assist general practitioners to improve their prescribing, although I realise that if one were to give a full account of those it would be a speech in itself.
Many practices have developed independently their own formulary and prescribing policy; and pharmaceutical advisers are employed in primary care in many health authorities. I went on a very useful course organised by Camden and Islington FHSA, when it existed. But often those courses and initiatives are

1061
preaching to the converted—to those GPs who are already interested and ready to improve their practice. Can my noble friend say how the Department of Health plans to reach those GPs who fall below the standards that are desirable? Incentives to good practice in which part of any savings are passed back to the practice have been on the agenda for some time. With the phasing out of fund-holding, which included an incentive element, can my noble friend say whether the new proposed primary care groups will be able to run or request incentive schemes to encourage good prescribing which, of course, would include rational antibiotic use?
We were rather disappointed that the Drug Utilisation Unit at Queen's University, Belfast, under the direction of Dr. Hugh McGavock has been closed under spending cuts decreed by the former government. I hope that my noble friend can reassure me that the promising COMPASS project started by that unit as well as its other work is being carried on. We have heard of other schemes, including the Grampian Formulary, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN), and PRODIGY, the electronic guideline system for use in GPs' desk top computers—now becoming the norm. If my noble friend does not have time to give a progress report on all those projects, perhaps he will write to me or to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby.
We heard about two promising schemes in the United States to improve the prescribing of doctors: one run by Dr. Jerry Avorn, of Harvard, which includes sending out pharmacists from the medical school to visit doctors in their offices. He found that for every dollar spent two dollars were saved on subsequent drug costs. Dr. Ben Schwartz of CDC Atlanta has produced a "non-prescription" form which doctors can give to patients, explaining why they are not getting a prescription.
My noble friend Lord Perry mentioned otitis media as one of the conditions in which penicillin is over prescribed. That has led in the United States to the development of penicillin resistant pneumococci. It has been shown that in some 90 per cent. of cases a virus is the cause. I was grateful to find that my own practice—which was to give a delayed action prescription to be made up in two days if there were no improvement—is the one recommended by the Royal College of GPs, and others, and is quoted in the report.
We were a little disappointed that more use is not being made of the very large bank of data that have been accumulated by the Prescription Pricing Authority and which are fed back to GPs in the form of PACT (prescription analysis and cost). That gives a complete breakdown of the prescriptions issued by every National Health Service GP. Although the prescriptions are not linked to individual patients, the pattern of prescribing could form a useful additional tool in the surveillance of community patterns of development of resistance. At Colindale we were told that this might well be usefully correlated with its surveillance plans. As well as having relevance to community infections, it might have relevance also to hospital infections.
There is no time to descend into the greater detail that many of these topics warrant, and it is getting late. However, before concluding, perhaps I may ask my
1062
noble friend two questions on rather separate issues. One concerns the international effort to reduce the development of resistance which the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, stressed is of vital importance since infections with resistant strains now move with lightning speed—or at least aircraft speed—around the world. The World Health Organisation has a unit in Geneva, the Division of Emerging Diseases, which has a sub-unit, the Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Programme. It is important that that unit has secure funding. The United Kingdom has been highly supportive, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, pointed out, through the Department for International Development. I hope that my noble friend can confirm that we shall continue to monitor that monitoring programme and ensure that it receives adequate funds from whatever quarter.
Finally, I refer to the question of vaccines, which if successful can prevent some diseases which are developing resistance to antibiotics. A worrying one is meningitis due to meningococcus B bacillus. I was recently on an Inter-parliamentary Union delegation to Cuba and was impressed by the development there of a vaccine for meningococcus B, which is apparently the only one in the world that shows any kind of success. It has been used in Cuba and Brazil, apparently with success. Of course it needs more trials, but I suggest that, if it is not already happening, it should be followed up because it might well be of use in preventing the sort of tragedy about which my noble friend Lord Winston spoke in his opening remarks.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has made a remarkable contribution in respect of the terrible scourge of MRSA and other agents which affect our population. I make no apology for repeating what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. At paragraph 12.1 the report states:
"This enquiry has been an alarming experience, which leaves us convinced that resistance to antibiotics and other anti-infective agents constitutes a major threat to public health, and ought to be recognised as such more widely than it is at present".
Yet we are all aware that tomorrow the press will dwell at great length on a debate which took place today as to what clothes should be worn by the Lord Chancellor.
My noble friend Lord Winston drew to the attention of the House—and it should be drawn to the attention of the country—the scourge brought about by resistance to antibiotics. When I saw the number of speakers on the list today, including those who were members of the committee, I was hesitant about taking part in the debate. However, I felt compelled to do so not because I have experience in the scientific field and of diseases but because of a personal reason for knowing what the debate is about.
Two years ago the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, introduced a debate on this killer bug in which I took part. I wonder how many people have since died from the effects of killer bugs in our hospitals. My personal experience and my justification for taking part in the debate is that two years ago my wife died from the results of MRSA.

1063
I had been married for 48 years. My wife suffered from asthma but had learnt to live with it and took the various treatments available. One of them was cortisone. On a particular Wednesday I accompanied her to her doctor. He said, "Ann, you have been taking cortisone for a number of years. I think we could change your medication to one which would have fewer side effects than cortisone." My wife looked over at me to see whether she could go into the hospital for a few days from the Wednesday to the Saturday. I shall feel guilty to my dying day for agreeing and saying "Yes". I bitterly regret having done so. I took her in a taxi to the Chelsea & Westminster Hospital. After some time she was admitted to a ward. She still had asthma but was not in the throes of an attack. She was going into hospital to be given a different regime of tablets.
On the Wednesday evening my wife was walking up and down the ward and was on the telephone talking to all our daughters. On Thursday it was the same. However, when I went to see her on Friday, she said, "There's something happening at the other end of the ward. They are very concerned. They have got the screens around that lady and I have heard them say something about a bug—something called MRSA". I had never heard of MRSA and did not know what it meant. I put my hands to my head when she told me that. I said, "Ann, if there's a bug in this hospital you're going to get it."
The next morning when I went to the hospital I was given rubber gloves and a rubber apron to wear. My wife had got MRSA. She had gone into hospital for a change of tablets and within 48 hours she had contracted MRSA. She was placed in a side ward in which there were two beds. My wife was the first to go in; another lady with MRSA joined her the next day. Does anyone realise the psychological effects on a patient who has contracted MRSA in hospital? It was necessary to wear aprons and gloves. The hospital staff who bought food into the ward—after such a devastating shock my wife did not feel like eating—pushed it on to the table and left the ward as quickly as possible. People who contract MRSA in hospital feel almost like lepers. When members of the family visit they are given aprons and gloves to wear in the ward. That had a devastating effect on my wife and on other patients.
My wife was treated with vancomycin. It was of no benefit at all; in fact it had side-effects which were very cruel. Not every patient suffering from MRSA can take vancomycin. After a few days she became so ill she had to be taken to the intensive care unit. She was on a life support machine for 19 days. Those 19 days were the longest of my life, the longest I will ever have. After she had partially recovered, I spoke to some of the doctors and tried to get them to tell me personally what they might not be able to tell me professionally. All the indications were that MRSA had entered into her respiratory system and there was no way of curing it. I decided to take her home from the hospital because there was nothing more that could be done.
My wife was transferred to the Royal Brompton Hospital, which is a chest hospital. As I have said previously in your Lordships' House, when I went there
1064
I was amazed. Many wards displayed a yellow notice, "Do not enter". There was almost a corridor full of people who had MRSA. Two of my daughters are nurses. I therefore have a good deal of sympathy for what nurses have to do. It was almost impossible for the nurses in that hospital to wash their hands every time they went in or out of a ward to see patients. You can wash your hands only so many times in a day. In fact, you can damage your hands with the red disinfectant they use. Those nurses were trying to do everything they could, but it was impossible to keep up with the ravages of MRSA.
My noble friend Lord Winston and other noble Lords speak with medical experience. I am very impressed. I wish only that the public could read Chapter 4 of the report which relates to what should be done to try to combat this awful scourge. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, says that it will probably be 10 years before we can perfect another drug which might begin to contain the ravages of MRSA. What do we do in the meantime? I believe that we should concentrate all our attacks on trying to bring about infection control in hospitals. That is only thing we can do.
I wish to quote from Chapter 4 of the report. Paragraph 4.12 states:
"Most of us…have lost isolation wards in the last five or six years…because they were no longer cost effective to run."
The report also states that,
"adequate and appropriate handwashing is well recognised as the single most important measure in infection control…poor provision of readily accessible hand basins [accounts for] failures in this area…Advances in basic hygiene, both in hospitals and in the community, were reducing mortality steadily long before the discovery of antibiotics; but it is commonly believed that standards in this area are slipping, perhaps partly through over-reliance on anti-infective drugs. Poor hygiene has been definitely implicated in some outbreaks of hospital infection".
The report shows that infection control can be gauged by its cost-effectiveness, but hospitals do not have the required finance. It is devoted to some other aspects. There are some hospitals—and I believe that this happened in the case of my wife—in this country and in this city where, when patients go in with a complaint, the staff look at their birth certificate. If they are over 70 years of age they are sent to the geriatric ward. Some people of 70 years of age are relatively mobile while others are more vulnerable. But all patients are put into the one ward because nurses can look after that particular ward. All the people in that ward are more vulnerable to a transfer of MRSA. Therefore, there must be some control over the way in which patients are admitted. They should be dealt with according to their complaint and not according to their age.
Again, I have a friend in Belfast at present, a man in his seventies, who went into hospital for a minor complaint two weeks ago. He contracted MRSA. He was released from the hospital. I saw him one day last week when his great granddaughter of a few months old was brought to see him. It broke his heart because he could not give that little great granddaughter a cuddle. All his friends and relatives must stand at the door because they are told, "Do not go near him". The disease has a devastating effect on the people who contract it.

1065
I have spoken to many nurses who are all of one opinion. Everyone knows that there is a shortage of nurses and that they are grossly underpaid. How are we to contain that dreadful MRSA, particularly in view of the fact that there is no known cure for it? We are unlikely to find a cure for 10 years. Therefore, I suggest that we must step up our attacks on infection control in our hospitals. That is the only way. I do not believe that a lack of finance should be a reason for preventing that.
I know that some hospitals will not be particularly happy when I say that my wife died from the effects of MRSA. However, that was not written on her death certificate. It is not put down as the main reason or a contributory factor which led to death. That is because if a patient goes into hospital with a minor complaint, contracts MRSA and then dies the relatives would be in a position to take up a claim against the hospital, the hospital having given the patient the disease from which the patient subsequently died. If MRSA is contracted because of the negligence or otherwise or because of non-infection control in hospitals, that should be on the death certificate if that is the reason for the death.
I believe that the members of the committee have performed a signal service not only to your Lordships' House but also to the country. I appeal to all those agencies, the media or otherwise, perhaps not to report this debate but to look at the report, as it has been printed, and the experience of the committee.
I conclude by saying that MRSA has had a devastating effect on my life. I was married for 48 years. My wife could still be with me had she not gone into hospital in order to change her tablets for asthma. I hope that that does not happen to anyone else. I urge that all necessary steps and all financial considerations are taken into account to make sure that infection control is available in all hospitals so that we can try to eradicate this terrible scourge.
8.55 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, as our first recommendation states clearly and forcefully,
"This enquiry has been an alarming experience".
Other noble Lords have underlined that. First, I should like to say that that was not in any way due to our chairman, who led us through our meetings and recommendations in the most peaceful manner. We were fortunate also in the excellent drafting skills of our Clerk, Andrew Makower, and our advisers. I join whole-heartedly in the tributes made by other noble Lords to that assistance.
I must apologise to the House. This debate started so late that I may have to leave before the end to catch a train; but I hope not.
Our alarm was occasioned by the extremely frightening consequences which have been described so movingly by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, which face the whole of humanity as those clever bacteria develop resistance quickly and skilfully to antibiotics, our principal weapon in preserving public health over 50 years.
1066
I remember, as a child, the quietness of the road where I lived when we all knew that a man was going through the crisis of pneumonia. In those days there was no antibiotic cure. It would be a global catastrophe to go back to those days. Our box 2 on page 13 illustrates the serious diseases like malaria, meningitis, and pneumonia which demand the use of effective antibiotics for their cure and to which we shall all be at serious risk if resistance continues to grow and accelerate.
The use of antimicrobials in medicine is well controlled in the UK, which is a comforting thought. However, with so much global human travel, resistant bugs can travel too. We cite an example of the explosive spread of penicillin-resistant pneumococci in Iceland in the early 1990s when rates rose from one per cent. in 1988 to 20-25 per cent. in 1993. The genetics of the strain showed that it almost certainly came from Spain, where it was common.
As in so many other fields, isolationism is no good. We must play a strong part, both in the European Union and the World Health Organisation, in encouraging the prudent use of antibiotics and also sharing with those organisations our own experience of successful practice.
As we show, countries with firmer controls have lower rates of resistant strains and:
"Holland and Denmark have amongst the lowest incidence of MRSA, due to their effective … control".
In that context, it is extremely important that we should, as a nation in the European Union, continue our stand against over-the-counter sales of antibiotics, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin said earlier. The European Union proposal for an orphan drug regime, which is already encouraged in the USA, must also be supported strongly by the UK as it could lead the pharmaceutical industry to work on novel treatments for problem diseases of the world's poor, such as malaria, where the market is not lucrative but the cost in human suffering is large.
I do not intend to cover the question of the use of antibiotics in animal health. Other noble Lords, particularly our chairman, are far better qualified to do so than I am. Instead, I wish to concentrate on policies which affect humans directly while accepting that imprudent treatment on animals can have a serious effect on human beings.
As is so often the case, the need for better education is crucial to success. In the first instance, we suggest that undergraduate curricula should contain better advice to young future doctors on infectious diseases and antimicrobial therapy; and that that should continue just as strongly in postgraduate education and vocational training and in the continuing professional development of doctors in their prescribing policies.
We were much struck, as other noble Lords have stated this afternoon, by the dilemma of busy, inner-city doctors with short appointment time allocations when confronted by the worried mother with the crying child with a sore throat or earache demanding antibiotic treatment. We appreciated in those circumstances how much more difficult and time consuming it is to say "no". Good communication talents are clearly part of

1067
a good GP's essential skills. No one wants to put off prescribing antibiotics promptly against meningitis. What we are considering is the vital persuasion of the patient that antibiotics do not help runny noses, and may not be necessary for earache, and that over-prescription may destroy benign and friendly bacteria in our systems as well as encouraging the growth of antibiotic resistance in really dangerous bugs, to everybody's harm worldwide. This is not an easy matter, but it is vital to the continued successful use of antibiotics.
That means that the public as a whole need to be aware of the subject. It is most often mothers who take children to surgeries, and often their scientific education in school has been insufficient. One cannot blame them, therefore, if they try to achieve what they believe to be the most effective cure for their child while not being fully informed as to its harmful side effects. I hope that womens' magazines will take up our suggestion of user-friendly articles by experts capable of writing about the subject in an interesting, clear and persuasive way so that it is more easily understood and appreciated by worried mothers. That would be tremendously worthwhile over a period of years.
The Public Health Laboratory Service was most generous of its time to us and in explaining its vital work. Its funding must not be reduced at a time when it is important to invest in information technology to speed up the exchange of data locally, nationally and internationally and the return of information quickly to enable quicker and more accurate prescription by GPs. That investment in IT equipment must also be compatible with existing systems both among GPs and hospitals.
Money is short in all the public services. There will never be enough, especially as the medical profession discovers new and better ways of combating injury and disease. We are all grateful that today we do not have to stay in hospital for weeks after surgery and that day surgery has become common. However, a side effect is so called "hot bedding", which can mean inadequate cleaning between serial occupation of beds by patients. Infection-control nursing is a vital necessity in all hospitals and under-staffing was reported to us. Also, the use of cheap soap may lead to cracked hands and less handwashing, which is crucial to ward hygiene—a very simple but vital need. Infection-control nurses also need good IT provision and clerical staff. They must be listened to carefully in laying down infection control policies for hospitals. That must also include training of cleaners, both in-house or by contract.
Clearly all those things cost money. But the costs must be set against the enormous cost of an outbreak of MRSA. The Cooke Report calculates that the Kettering outbreak cost over £400,000, which of course cannot include the cost in human suffering, so vividly described earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. An outbreak, of course, also leads to bad publicity and loss of morale among the staff, as well as to the possibility of subsequent time-consuming and expensive litigation.
Already the health department is responding favourably to our report, as highlighted in its joint report with the Standing Medical Advisory Committee referred
1068
to by other noble Lords. I hope our report will be studied in considerable detail so that all our recommendations will be acted on and there will be no complacency—certainly on the part of the Government—and the alarming consequences that we highlight are at least delayed in this country and, if possible, worldwide.
9.5 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I venture into these troubled waters as a non-medic and non-scientist who has a passionate interest in safer and more effective alternatives to modern drugs. I am not therefore in the least surprised that we are in the situation so graphically described in the report that we are discussing today. I should add that many products of the pharmaceutical companies have saved countless lives and will certainly continue to do so in the future.
During the debate on the Unstarred Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, of 4th November 1996 (cols. 576 to 578) I spoke about the role that I know the oxygen therapies could play in solving this and related problems. On that occasion I described some of the technical aspects of oxygen therapies and will not repeat myself more than necessary on this occasion.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for not mentioning to him that I would speak on this subject in this debate. In fact, I only decided to put my name down on Friday evening but would love to talk with him about it at some time in the future.
I will just say in summary that hydrogen peroxide is what the white blood cells produce to destroy viruses and bacteria. A body that is oxygenated is likely to be healthier than one that is not. In an earlier phase of the planet's evolution there was less oxygen in the atmosphere and that is when viruses and bacteria evolved.
Although it is licensed for 17 external applications, its increasing use orally and intravenously is outside the present stipulations of the Medicines Control Agency. I should add also that ozone gas is by far the best method of sterilising an enclosed space, such as a room, and also of sterilising stored water.
Section 11.2 of this excellent report makes clear that we were in a no-win situation. The hope is expressed that we may delay the rate at which bacteria become resistant to new drugs, but even that hope is dashed. It says:
"Improving control of the use of antimicrobials can be expected to slow down the spread of resistance; and in some situations the frequency of resistance may even decline. But this must not be expected to happen in every case; and, if control is once again relaxed, reversion to high rates of resistance may be swift".
I believe it is true that such controls simply do not exist in many countries—and other noble Lords have spoken about this—particularly in the developing world. This makes the hope expressed in that section of the report seem rather forlorn.
I think it is likely that the picture will get worse. There are difficulties in the research and development of new drugs which I will discuss a little later in my remarks. The situation could be characterised as a war between anti-bug drugs and the anti-drug bugs. I believe

1069
that I have got that right. The report seems to suggest that the anti-drug bugs may be about to win the war. It is clear that we need a complete change to our operating basis. We need to bypass our normal habits and routines in the matter.
In this debate this impending tragedy has been discussed with no reference to the companies that create and produce the antibiotics, as though they just simply appear. It is almost as though the companies themselves were passive victims in the matter. It makes no sense to discuss this problem without looking also at the way the pharmaceutical companies conduct their activities in relation to the complementary medicine sector, the National Health Service and the Government. The subject matter of this report is not just a technical question of more knowledge, more research and more money; it reflects commercial policy choices made by the pharmaceutical companies in this and other aspects of their operations. They are running into considerable difficulties in their research and development programmes. As reported in last Thursday's edition of The Times, Dr. Arlington, who is head of pharmaceutical R&D consulting at Price Waterhouse Cooper, said:
"Costs must be slashed. It's not possible to maintain total shareholder returns at this level unless costs are driven back substantially … Failure of late stage trials and at launch must be stopped … These have to become a thing of the past".
According to The Times report, it costs £420 million to bring each new drug to market and this includes the cost of the ones that do not make it.
The drug companies have been in the news quite a bit recently. The News of the World has stepped up its campaign to expose the sudden and dramatic price rises in advance of changes in legislation or regulations, which will mean a higher proportion of the NHS budget will go to drugs and less to operations and other vital services. This was clearly an exercise in protecting "total shareholder returns". The drug companies also featured in a powerful report in the Express, on the same day as The Times article, which ties in with information in a forthcoming book by Dr. Matthias Rath. Dr. Rath is a medical doctor and scientist who is the successor to Linus Pauling and was publicly endorsed by Dr. Pauling before the Nobel Prize winner's death. In fact, it was Linus Pauling's contention that vitamin C could have an antibiotic effect.
The report in the Express details the manoeuvres which the drug companies are engaging in to ensure that alternative solutions to health problems, such as vitamins and minerals, are reclassified as medicines, and also describes the efforts by parliamentarians to defeat them. The recent debate and victory against the drug companies by MPs and the people over Vitamin B6 was one round in this battle. Similar manoeuvres are used to keep the knowledge about oxygen therapies from practitioners and the public.
It is clear that the pharmaceutical companies have a very narrow understanding of social responsibility and their solely profit-driven philosophy has led us into the impasse that we are discussing today. The following
1070
quote from page 236 of Dr. Rath's book underlines this rather starkly. He had obviously been referring to the situation in the United States because he says:
"With the battle to make vitamins prescription items in the US lost, the pharmaceutical industry decided to regroup at the international level. In 1995 this industry founded an international Pharma-Cartel, under the auspices of the United Nation's World Trade Organisation and the German government. They camouflaged their efforts with the code name: "Codex Alimentarius". The goal of the "Codex" cartel is nothing else than to make up for the defeat suffered in the US and to make vitamins prescription items—this time for all member countries of the United Nations, that is world-wide".
Another article in the Independent of Thursday 12th November tells of the Americans who are flocking to alternative therapists. It states,
"One study showed visits to alternative practitioners were up by 50 per cent. since 1990 and 4 out of every 10 Americans used some form of alternative medicine, spending 27 billion dollars on the services last year".
It is no wonder that my discussions on this matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, went nowhere. If the Express article is anywhere near the mark, the influence which the drug companies have on the department is such that anything that threatens "total shareholder returns" will not appear in government policy.
I am throwing down a gauntlet to the Minister. I would like him to prove me—and the impeccably eminent medical opinion which understands the science and healthcare implications of this—right or wrong about hydrogen peroxide and in fact about the oxygen therapies in general. But I realise that he will not be able to pick up that gauntlet this evening. The only sure way out of this swamp is to adopt the suggestion I am making today. The drug companies have got themselves, Her Majesty's Government and us into this mess. I am offering HMG and the people of this country a way out.
One statement by a departmental official at our second meeting astounded me. She asked me at the end of the meeting, referring to hydrogen peroxide, "How come it is so good if there is no commercial benefit in it?" This official was clearly so steeped in the commercial philosophy of the pharmacologists who are entrenched as advisers to the department as to be unable to conceive of a substance that had, on the one hand, enormous potential benefit but, on the other, would never make any company the fortunes to be made from patentable drugs. The production of hydrogen peroxide is, after all, O-level chemistry.
The gauntlet I am throwing down for the Minister today is to risk no more than a quarter of a million pounds of his department's budget on a "free and fair", double blind clinical trial on any one of a number of groups of patients using conventional antibiotics for the control group and hydrogen peroxide for the experimental group. The trial would, of course, need a level playing field and that would mean joint monitoring by departmental doctors or officials and by doctors experienced with using hydrogen peroxide and ozone.
Then, and only then, is there some hope that we can overcome this seemingly intractable problem. I want to emphasise that hydrogen peroxide is not just another alternative health remedy but a fundamental

1071
physiological principle. In fact, it is so fundamental a part of our immune system that you could perhaps say that it is the only thing that stands between us and oblivion, that had there not been an increase in the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere, complex life forms could not have evolved.
In fact, my reading suggests that the anti-cancer drug, Interferon, penicillin—which has been much discussed this evening—and Vitamin C all work by increasing the body's own production of hydrogen peroxide. It is such a fundamental feature of how our bodies work that once the knowledge is widespread it offers great possibilities for lay people to take responsibility for their own healthcare.
If there is anything I can do to help Her Majesty's Government with progressing this I should be happy to do so. There is a considerable amount of information about hydrogen peroxide on the Internet which officials can peruse at their leisure, not of course that they would have leisure working at the department! It goes without saying that the cost savings would be enormous, almost astronomical in fact, and these savings would, of course, open the way to spending more on other parts of the health service. The department would do more to help improve the nation's health by adopting my suggestion and promoting the health benefits of the oxygen therapies than by any other single action.
The discoveries about the healing power of oxygen were made in the second half of the 19th century but were never going to make any fortunes because the technology is so simple. The knowledge of the importance of hydrogen peroxide to internal medicine would have been relegated to a footnote of medical history had a dedicated band of enthusiasts not handed on the information to successive generations. The suggestion that one would have heard of it if it were valid is easily countered if one understands that this is a world based on public relations. The messages we hear and read are, by and large, the messages that someone has paid for. It is simply not worth anyone's while to pay to promote hydrogen peroxide.
So how should I communicate these ideas? I had a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who I see has returned to his place. He made a helpful suggestion that I should contact the Wellcome Foundation. I did not in fact follow that up because I did not have much confidence in the separation between the Wellcome Foundation and Glaxo Wellcome.
My experience with the Department of Health has not been particularly productive. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, passed on to officials the small selection of papers I gave her. These were but a sample of the thousands of peer reviewed papers on oxygen therapies which have appeared in the medical press and other literature over the past 150 years, but they fell into the bottomless well for good ideas which must exist in all government departments.
I should like to see a much greater readiness in general by the department to consider new ideas that would, or could, lead to better healthcare and lower costs.
1072
If we are to continue the upward march of medical knowledge hand in hand with improvements in health we must reorientate ourselves in our view of what human and, indeed, animal health really is. I am attracted by the concept which I encountered recently of functional health. This approach to looking after our bodies mirrors best practice in driving and maintaining a car. It signals a new direction in our thinking.
Current thinking about exercise, food supplements and nutritional balance, in addition to the very basic science that underlies the use of oxygen to restore health, coupled with application of that knowledge in practice, combine to produce a state of health known as functional health. Regular servicing of the body will keep it in good condition. In fact, these new understandings should lead us to the point where we die when the body clock stops—and not of disease.
We will achieve, for the people of this country, this state of positive or functional health only if we are prepared to enlighten them about the simple facts of functional health, and, of course, about environmental threats to health which include toxins as well as antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.
Of course, we will not eliminate disability and disease. There will always be something for doctors and medical specialists to do, and there will always be a role for the pharmaceutical companies, albeit a reduced role. But, if we are prepared to base our medical technology and our philosophy of healthcare on the foundations I have outlined, and if we are prepared to arm people with the simple and basic knowledge of what functional health is so that they can take responsibility for ensuring they achieve it for themselves and their children, I can foresee a bright new dawn for the health of the nation in the 21st century.
9.23 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I too found it a great privilege to serve as a co-opted member of the sub-committee, the report of which is now before the House. The publication of our report received considerable publicity. I believe that it has already promoted a widescale discussion by both the public and professionals. Perhaps this debate is timely in that it serves to maintain the high profile of the subject with the general public. I believe that the well presented report of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, The Path of Least Resistance, complements and underlines our report.
Before serving on the committee, I had been made aware of the problems of resistance in the administration of antibiotics to humans. I suppose that my further education started two years ago in the debate to which reference has been made, which was instigated by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I had been retired for 10 years then, so I referred to a former student of mine, an expert clinical nurse specialist. She turned the tables on me and supplied me with a reading list. She was even kinder than that and supplied me with photocopies on the subject which were several inches deep.
Since then, along with many other Members of your Lordships' House, I have felt alarm at the state we are in. At that point, like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin,

1073
I was unaware of the extent of the applications in animal husbandry of growth promoters or the use of antimicrobial agents in fisheries, agriculture or plant culture. I suppose that it is only within the past few days that I have heard of apples being sprayed with streptomycin. I have deep concerns about our food chain. I shall certainly look forward to the Queen's Speech, to which reference was made at Question Time today, and to what may be said about the food standards agency. There is a real need to consider that.
Although I have great concerns about medical practice and the prescription of antibiotics, I think that it would be more fitting, in view of my professional experience in nursing, if I concentrated my remarks on the role of nurses in the health education of the public and in infection control, both in hospitals and in the community. I am, however, acutely aware that we all have to operate very much as a team, with the general public, patients and health professionals, including doctors and nurses, each having a vital role to play. In that team the infection control nurse, as well as the microbiologist, plays a pivotal role. As a result of Project 2000 and the revised system of nursing education, registered nurses are now very much better prepared in the principles of microbiology and their applications in their work.
Infection control nurses are a highly qualified group of nurse specialists: registered nurses who have taken a post-basic certificate or a diploma course in infection control. They have had a minimum of four years of post-registration experience and most have had some years of experience at ward sister or charge nurse level. So they are nurses with sound experience of clinical management in the nursing service. A significant number are now taking either first level or higher degree level subjects relevant to infection control. They have an understanding of the microbiology and public health issues that are entailed in their work and of the principles involved in health education.
My experience of working with infection control nurses in the past and of watching their professional expertise has given me a high respect for them and an appreciation of their value within the health service. I have seen them at work in hospitals where an outbreak of infection has posed a great threat. I am left with great respect for the contribution they make.
I believe that they are pre-eminently clinical nurse specialists of the calibre that the Secretary of State for Health has marked out as being deserving of recognition and reward. We as a sub-committee were certainly impressed by the calibre of written evidence presented by the Infection Control Nurses Association and the authoritative way in which witnesses presented their oral evidence and answered our questions.
Infection control nurses, by virtue of their knowledge and expertise, are well placed to contribute to the education of the public and professionals in respect of the appropriate use of antibiotics. The Infection Control Nurses Association has developed a number of educational packages for use with the education of healthcare staff—for example, residential and nursing home staff—and the development of national standards for the ambulance service.
1074
Infection control nurses contribute by working collaboratively with other agencies, including the Public Health Laboratory Service. One of their basic functions is monitoring clinical activity, which is an integral part of the role of the infection control nurse. They also have a function in the investigation of outbreaks of infection.
I want to dwell on some of the aspects of infection control to which infection control nurses make such a contribution—and to which noble Lords have already referred. In our report we say that in some respects hospitals achieve the level of infection control for which they are willing or able to pay. This shows that we need a will to devote resources and that resources need to be made available. It must be wearying for a government to hear about resourcing, resourcing, resourcing different services, but it is part of our role to draw attention to needs and to see that priorities are established against other demands in the health service.
I want to give just a few examples of where I feel we are making false economies. First, staffing levels in infection control have a direct bearing on the incidence of hospital-acquired infection. We were told by the Association of Medical Microbiologists that each infection control nurse in the UK covers 400 acute beds. The Infection Control Nurses Association put the number nearer to one nurse to 700 beds and said that a recent survey by the Public Health Laboratory Service identified a range of from 125 to 1,600 beds per infection control nurse. I ask noble Lords to visualise the function of one lonely infection control nurse trying to service 1,600 beds with all her skills. That study gave a medium of 460 beds per infection control nurse based on 19 district general hospitals.
Research in the United States has shown that hospital-acquired infection can be reduced by 30 per cent. if there is a ratio of one infection control nurse to 250 patients. Therefore, there is a strong recommendation that the staffing levels in infection control need to be increased if staff are to give an adequate service both in hospitals and in the community.
A corollary to the shortage of staff is the employment of so many agency staff who may be poorly versed in the infection control techniques of a particular hospital. Because of the great mobility of agency staff, they can carry infection from one area to another. But given adequate staffing ratios—if we were ever given adequate staffing ratios—there is a need to equip nurses to work effectively. We have already had reference to the lack of adequate provision of information technology and secretarial assistance for those nurses. The report states that the majority of infection control teams do not have formal contracting arrangements with their purchasers and that therefore there is a clear tendency for their needs to be neglected.
In their evidence the infection control nurses were particularly concerned about the bearing of hygiene practices on infection control. We have already had a number of references to that point. Ward cleaning is no longer under the control of the ward sister, so that the cleanliness of wards and other hospital departments is not as adequate as before. Obviously, trusts tend to award contracts to the cheapest tenderers. That means

1075
that wards are less frequently cleaned and less thoroughly cleaned. We were told of the lack of basic hygiene in cleaning practices, such as the cleaning of mops, dishcloths and so on. The role of the environment in the prevention and control of infection is important and warrants more research.
We have already heard about the isolation facilities being taken away. There are no longer facilities for placing patients in isolation wards. We have heard that one of the most important aspects of infection control is hand washing. This needs teaching but also monitoring. It seems, regrettably, that doctors are conforming less to standards in this area than other health staff. We were distressed to hear that, in the interests of economy, inferior quality soaps are bought by some trusts, which can result in the excoriation of nurses' hands.
If there are problems in infection control in hospitals, the situation is, if anything, worse in healthcare facilities in the community. The proportion of infection control nurses is smaller; some community trusts do not have an infection control nurse and rely on the services of a hospital infection control nurse. The standards of education in some nursing homes and residential homes is very poor. Staff may be unaware of how to deal with MRSA and other infections. At one point some residential and nursing homes were refusing to take patients from hospitals with MRSA. I understand that the department has now issued advice, which is being followed, so there are fewer refusals.
There is one other aspect of the report of the Infection Control Nurses Association which I found meaningful. I was reminded of it by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I refer to the psychological trauma that it causes to patients and their relatives if they are diagnosed as having MRSA. We heard from some nurses who had been infected with MRSA and of the psychological trauma that that caused to them. They felt unclean and unable to sleep with their husbands; they isolated themselves from their family. I think that we can put ourselves in the position of nurses who have been so affected.
I trust that noble Lords will bear with my having rehearsed some of the items in the report that bear directly on the nursing service.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, by this stage of the debate it has all been said, and said rather well. I shall therefore attempt to be brief.
Tucked away among the interesting facts that we learnt in the evidence that we received was a statistic that has so far not been mentioned—that apparently we carry on and in us more bacteria than we have mammalian cells. That point inevitably stuck in my memory when it was thrust before us. Possibly there is a little bacterium in there that made sure I remembered.
It is a fact of life that bacteria are with us all the time—and not merely beneficial bacteria. We must live in some sort of symbiotic relationship. But we also carry with us most of the infective bacteria. We therefore have to assume that hygiene begins at home. Therefore what
1076
we are really talking about is those situations in which particular bacteria go on the rampage and out of control. In circumstances such as accidents, surgery and so on we become vulnerable, and the normal bodily resistance that keeps us in balance breaks down. It is necessary to bear that in mind in everything that we say and do. We are not going to be without bacteria at any stage. They are always with us. One of the strange results of the examination in which I was privileged to take part is that I have developed a very real respect for bacteria. We should keep that respect in mind.
I wish to touch on two matters: the first is information systems and the second is agriculture. It was surprising that, among all the information and the reams of evidence that we received, there was a great gap in factual information in terms of what was being prescribed, why it was being prescribed and what the outcome was. In general practice, where GPs have to a great extent adopted computers, this information is now instantly available, but there is no mechanism for collating it so that it can be used on a wider basis to find out what is happening and why resistance is a problem in the community, as we know it is.
More alarming than that is the fact that these systems are almost unheard of in hospitals. Hospitals prescribe antibiotics; they are recorded into their pharmacies and—to borrow and abuse a phrase that was used in the Falklands conflict—they are recorded out of the pharmacies; and that is where the information stops. Unless we know what antibiotic is used and why at the patient level, how can we hope to understand what is happening in the inevitable development of resistance? There will never be a situation in which we are bacteria-free or infection-free. These organisms are almost infinitely adaptable. As we put them under pressure as a result of one form of treatment, they will adapt and become immune; and so we develop another form of treatment.
This is a never-ending battle. But it would help enormously in treating this variable beast with which we are dealing if we knew what was being used and why and if that information could be collated. Infection patterns vary from place to place and treatment patterns vary from place to place. It is important to know what the local variations are so that one can know immediately what the possible variations in treatment are and not have to find out the hard way by experimentation, by giving a patient an antibiotic and four days later, when it has not worked, trying something else, with one's fingers crossed, which is not a satisfactory way of proceeding.
The information should all be pulled into the Public Health Laboratory Service and antibiotic-resistant bacteria treated as a notifiable matter so that we know exactly what has happened. PHLS could then transfer the information back to users in a readily understandable way and treatment could be more immediate.
The second aspect with which I deal is the use of antibiotics in agriculture, particularly prophylactic treatment in animal foods. This is a very emotive subject. If we accept, as we do, that generally in humans prophylactic medicines are not used, veterinary practice

1077
will also have to accept that as the norm. It is not just the vets who are responsible for this situation but commercial demand, for which there are very good reasons. But we must understand that use of antibiotics in that way is dramatically different from their use for medical purposes in man, not because they are growth promoters but because of what happens to the animals.
The two main uses of antibiotics are in pigs and poultry. The vast bulk of poultry meat that goes on to the shelves of supermarkets comes from chickens that are slaughtered at six weeks. It is very unusual for a chicken to go beyond 10 weeks. Even the versatility of bacteria has not overcome that particularly harsh fact. Pigs live a little longer, but not much. Mature animals do get on to the market, but the bulk of the food in the shops is grossly immature. These treatments have taken place and on the whole have not yet produced resistance, but they will. The difficulty is not so much what happens in the animal but it is most unlikely that the manufacturing process to which the carcass is subjected will remove all of the bacteria. That is the harsh reality.
Another aspect is that once a generation of stock leaves the farm the buildings can be thoroughly disinfected and the process started all over again. That is a harsh reality. That cannot happen in mankind. Hospitals are far too busy and pressured to close down wards, thoroughly disinfect absolutely everything, leave them empty for a week and then start all over again. That cannot become the general practice. The use of antibiotics in animals is very different from the use in man. Where one is dealing with growth promoters and the treatment of disease—no one has suggested for a whole host of very good reasons that antibiotics should not be used to treat diseases—one is dealing with wholly different circumstances. One is dealing usually with animals that have reached a level of maturity. There is a much greater chance in a dairy herd of a build-up of bacterial resistance because one has continual use over a long period in circumstances where disinfection is impossible.
This is an unending battle. We must hope that researchers come up with some further answers. But as they find answers to one problem so they create the next one. There is an unending task ahead. The report is a very good one and deserves the most serious attention. Dare I say (to echo the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley) that it deserves rather more immediate attention than it appears to have received. However, very many beneficial events have occurred since the publication of the report. I join the chairman in commending it to the House.
9.50 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the months that the committee spent looking into the resistance to antibiotics was without doubt a most interesting time in your Lordships' House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, for his good humoured chairmanship of the committee. I also thank our two medical advisers and the Clerk, Andrew Makower, for their hard work and for the help given to me personally when we visited places outside your Lordships' House.
1078
I hope that the report will help to educate many people to a worldwide problem which needs global co-operation. The report asks the all-important question: can resistance be controlled? Professor Percival, professor of clinical bacteriology at Liverpool University, put it starkly. He said,
"The concept that antibiotic resistance is related somehow to the amount of use is critical, because, if it is not true, then we have no chance of controlling it".
Although everybody believes that, the evidence to support and demonstrate it in a scientifically acceptable way is largely lacking. Countries with firmer controls on the supply and use of antibiotics and more rigorous infection control have lower rates of resistant strains. It is generally assumed that these things are connected. Holland and Denmark have among the lowest incidence of MRSA due to their effective antibiotic and infection control policies. Spain has the highest consumption of anti-infectives per capita in Europe and one of the worst records of antibiotic resistance. We heard how a drug-resistant infection had travelled from Spain to Iceland carried by one person but spreading the infection to many. Bugs have no boundaries.
We have heard many times that hygiene and proper isolation facilities in hospitals are of the utmost importance to avoid the spread of resistant strains of bacteria. I also read that many years ago in notes on nursing by Florence Nightingale. We heard many times during the evidence how important is the basic washing of hands for doctors and nurses before they touch a different patient. We heard at King's College Hospital that a doctor's tie touching different patients could spread infection. Perhaps they should wear bow ties if they need to wear ties at all. Stethoscopes and clothes can also spread infection from patient to patient.
We discussed the speeding up of testing for infections. Because testing takes so long sometimes patients are put on inappropriate antibiotics. Are the guidelines clear enough for junior doctors? It was felt that the process could be speeded up if results were reported electronically. The Royal College of General Practitioners told us that systems exist already. In the rural area where I live the system seems very slow and cumbersome. Perhaps the Minister can give a progress report.
As a paraplegic, I have had my life saved on several occasions by antibiotics. As president of the Spinal Injuries Association, I know the serious dangers to our members if new antibiotics do not materialise. The danger of the spread of methicillin-resistant staphylococci (MRSA) is a serious menace in spinal units where many patients have pressure sores when they are transferred from a general hospital where the nursing care is often inadequate for paralysed patients. Those using catheters or tracheostomies are also at risk. That demonstrates how patients, when they become paralysed, should go straight to the spinal unit.
The shortage of nurses, the large number of agency nurses and the pressure on beds make the controlling of MRSA more difficult, as does the shortage of side wards. MRSA has put many extra pressures and costs on hospitals, and patients have been made more ill. Recently I sat next to a couple at dinner while staying

1079
in an hotel. They told me that their daughter had had a baby by Caesarean section in a maternity unit of the hospital at Welwyn Garden City. She had been infected in her wound by MRSA and was ill. The couple had come for a break as they had had to look after her and the baby. They told me that half the patients in the ward had caught MRSA.
We found what the Department of Health had to say on the subject complacent. It is said that levels of MRSA in this country are low by international standards, but they are rising. They have risen, my Lords. The more MRSA circulates, the more Vancomycin must be used to treat it, bringing closer the prospects of VRSA which, in the words of the PHLS, would be "catastrophic".
We recommend that the NHS should set itself targets controlling MRSA in hospitals and publish its achievement. Dr. Edmonds, from King's College Hospital, showed horrific pictures of the effect of MRSA on leg ulcers in diabetic patients. I wonder whether the reporting systems are adequate. I should like to ask the Minister whether he thinks that MRSA should become a notifiable condition.
I have heard that MRSA does not like tea tree oil. I wonder how much research is being undertaken to combat resistance using alternatives to antibiotics. We agree that misuse and overuse of antibiotics are now threatening to undo all their early promises and success in curing disease. However, I agree with Tessa Jowell, the Minister for Public Health, when she says that parents should not be warned off antibiotics when their children may have meningitis. There have been too many tragedies of babies and young people dying from meningitis.
Our report states that the US has paid a heavy price in money and lives for letting down its guard against tuberculosis. The UK must not make the same mistake. As a member of the all-party HIV and AIDS Group, I was very concerned about the outbreak of MDR-TB among AIDS patients in some London hospitals. The serious problems in the US, which cost the city of New York 175 million dollars over four years, is a warning. The report stresses that TB services involve measures to ensure compliance along with port health controls, surveillance and facilities for isolation. We welcome the guidelines from the Department of Health that there will be more stringent infection control and more rapid diagnostic tests in cases of suspected MDR-TB.
Direct observed therapy (DOT) both in the hospital situation and within the community has improved cure rates and reduction in the rate of tuberculosis, drug resistance and relapses in a number of countries. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there are plans for such programmes here which depend on the skills of staff and resources. It was found to be a way forward in New York.
We were concerned, along with the Consumers in Europe Group, about the transfer of antibiotic resistance bacteria from animals to humans. Humans can acquire resistant bacteria from animals directly via food or through contact with the animal or animal foodstuffs or from living near the farm animals.
1080
At the Food Forum in the Houses of Parliament, we had a meeting some years ago when the then chief medical officer for health spoke. I remember asking the question.
"Is it not unethical to feed animal to animal?
The answer I received was:
"Lady Masham, economics rule over ethics".
The BSE problem appeared soon after that, and it has been an extremely expensive economic disaster.
I hope that all growth promoters will be banned. What is the point and why take the risk? Stock is not fetching much in the markets. Why make animals bigger?
Multiple resistance to antibiotics has been increasing for the most common salmonella infections in humans. Some years ago, there was an outbreak of salmonella typhimurium in your Lordships' House and both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and myself had specimens sent for testing. The results came back the same. Therefore, the public health people were brought in and the infection was traced to raw eggs in mayonnaise. I believe that there are many cases of salmonella, campylobacter, enterococci and E.coli which go undetected because nobody bothers to find out and trace the outbreaks.
I hope that the Government will not shelve the food safety issue. How much research is being done on possible direct animal contact in food sources of E.coli 0157? Public health is of immense importance.
When taking evidence for the report, it became clear that the microbiologists and many people working in infection control needed their status raised. I hope that the whole field of infectious diseases and resistance to antibiotics will be put at the top of the health agenda. Education and public awareness are of vital importance both for professionals and the public but that is not enough. The resources must be there also. They have to be increased. As an example, when we visited King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, there were infection control systems within the hospital but there is no infection control team in the community. We felt that to be a serious failing. The area around King's has the highest rate of gonorrhoea in the country. Education should go out into the communities within the community, which consists of many races and languages.
We have heard recently of the first new class of antibiotics for about 15 years called linezolid and the class of antibiotics is the oxazolidinones. The drug is active against multiple resistant Gram positive bacteria such as methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and penicillin-resistant streptococcus pneumoniae. That must be good news but how can linezolid be protected from also becoming resistant? Are the Government going to ensure that its use is carefully controlled? Is that a possibility?
Our visit to the US seemed to be well received. We met many enthusiastic and immensely interesting people. Looking at the list of research projects, it was good to see so many projects still trying to tackle the HIV/AIDS problem. The different laws concerning different states made for a complex network.

1081
One of the last people we met in Boston was Dr. Levy, a dedicated and enthusiastic campaigner. He expressed delight that the issue was receiving attention at Westminster. As our report says, he declared himself an optimist. We must not let the position get worse here. I hope that the Government's response tonight will be positive and hopeful and that we can look forward to better protection and higher morale in our infection control workforce.
10.5 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in the gap in order to draw your Lordships' attention to the evidence submitted to the committee by two bodies. The first is the Research Council for Complementary Medicine, on page 447; the second is the Soil Association, on page 499. That is a double whammy for my pet project, which I find hard to resist.
The RCCM demonstrated that herbal medicine has been shown positively to improve the immune system, while previous centuries have proved that there are no side effects, let alone induced resistance, to the effects of such treatments. Indeed, the findings of the committee and the speeches of all noble Lords reflect this as the reason for the public's interest in complementary medicine, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNair.
I also draw your Lordships' attention to the evidence of the Soil Association on page 499 and at paragraph 3.8 of the recommendations. Organic farming reduces the use of chemicals of all descriptions and contributes to more healthy animals and more healthy food. The Soil Association has been operating for 50 years. Farmers who belong to that body do not and have not used growth promoters.
Neither complementary medicine nor organic farming provide complete answers to the problems of achieving good health or healthy food, but both are important contributors to those considerations. I submit to your Lordships that they deserve a place in this debate.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in winding up on behalf of these Benches, I pay tribute to your Lordships' committee. The report is extremely well written. As a layman, I found it most intelligible and readable. Tonight's speeches have clarified a number of issues arising out of the report.
I apologise to the House for being unable to hear all the speeches tonight. That was due to an unbreakable commitment. However, the speeches I have heard, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, were excellent in carrying the debate further.
The report has led to major coverage in the newspapers. It has led to coverage in specialist medical journals, scientific journals and even television programmes. But the real acid test is whether it will prompt government action. We are looking forward to hearing from the Minister tonight.
1082
The report highlights with frightening starkness the problems of microbiological resistance. I am afraid to say that it also highlights a certain complacency in the NHS, which may well be changing as a result of the report. Certainly, it was an aspect which came through to me quite strongly. As we have heard from many noble Lords tonight, as regards hospital infections, MRSA is a major problem when we have only vancomycin to protect us and when resistant strains have been discovered, notably in Japan. But it is also a problem in the area of disease where, both here and internationally, we are facing the real prospect of resistant strains of TB, meningitis, typhoid and pneumonia. All the diseases that killed our parents and our grandparents are potentially coming back to haunt us.
In the committee's conclusions and in its treatment of the evidence I found it particularly interesting that it was not absolutely convinced by the medical evidence that changing prescribing behaviour would necessarily alter whether or not specific bacteria became resistant. In my view it formed a perfectly valid working hypothesis that that is the case, working on the balance of probabilities. That seems to me to be a way forward that could commend itself to us.
The kind of problems identified by the committee on the primary care front struck a chord in my case. Doctors talked of parental expectations and the pressures from parents. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, was particularly moving in describing that kind of pressure. As the parent of an eight-month old child I recognise that one is not prepared to take the risk. When I come to discuss public education, I want to highlight that specific feature.
That kind of perfectly valid unwillingness to take any risk will have a knock-on effect. We have a major government childcare strategy and an expansion of childcare facilities. What effect will that have on GP prescribing behaviour? Likewise, people are living longer and there are more older people, often in homes. What effect will that have on prescribing behaviour? Will it lead to continued over-prescribing?
The report also highlights the whole area of hospital infection and emphasises that infection control is extremely important. But what impact will the increasing use of agency nurses have on infection control? By and large they will be unfamiliar with the infection control protocols and procedures of their hospitals, and inevitably that causes risk. Likewise, the use of contract cleaning services—a number of noble Lords referred to this—not directly under the control of the ward manager may lead to a lowering of standards.
So is infection control one of the casualties of the internal market? When an infection strikes the hospital, the cost is clearly massive. Short-term cost savings can therefore lead to huge costs in the long run. It is also extremely worrying, as the report indicated, that there are so many chairs of microbiology which are reported as being vacant. Even though the report came out in April, many of those London chairs are still vacant. It is staggering that major teaching hospitals have such vacancies. In the subheading of the report it indicates that there is a crisis in microbiology.

1083
Animals form part of the most controversial and difficult area in the report. The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, referred to the evidence of the Soil Association. The second volume of evidence repays careful study. Some of the evidence received was excellent, particularly from organisations such as the Association of Medical Microbiologists. As someone whose family by preference eats organic food and looks for organic food in the supermarket, the evidence of the Soil Association had considerable attractions. But when we look at the situation, I am not wholly convinced. Let us face it, for 30 years farmers have used growth promoters for their animals. After all, that is why the Swann Committee was originally set up. It seems to me that there are conflicting views about the Swedish experience in terms of additional antibiotics that may be used for therapeutic use once we have banned growth promoters. I do not believe that the US evidence is conclusive; indeed, it appears that avoparcin was never licensed in the United States and yet it has major problems with vancomycin-resistant bacteria.
I believe that the prudent and proper course of action is to wait for the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food to report on the assessment of risks of drug resistance across the food chain, including the use of growth promoters. I think that that is a fair thing to do. Indeed, as we heard during the debate on the Statement about support for the farming industry, farmers are having a pretty hard time of it. We have to be sure of the scientific grounds for banning or extending bans on the contents of growth promoters.
Therefore, what conclusions should we be drawing, as policy makers and as politicians, from the Select Committee's report? First, the Government are clearly active in one respect. I welcome the recommendations issued in September by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee on the whole area of prescription of antibiotics and antimicrobials. However, I also believe that there are many further actions that the department needs to undertake to follow up the report. That is but a first step.
The strongest point in the report was the committee's conclusion that the major recommendation of the Swann Committee—namely, to have a single committee to regulate and oversee the use of antibiotics both in humans and in animals—was never followed. That seems to me to be a staggering fact. Here we are in 1998 talking about a committee which made what seemed to be an extremely sensible proposal in 1969, but we are still no further forward.
Moreover, we know that in the NHS a great deal of effort is currently being concentrated on information technology. We have seen the Information for Health information technology paper. That seems to be absolutely key in trying to regulate our use of antibiotics, our surveillance of how they are used and the way in which we test for infections. For example, we know that the development of Prodigy could have a great impact in terms of understanding what is being prescribed, where and how and, indeed, in what circumstances. Then we have the COMPASS system in
1084
Northern Ireland, which I hope will spread further in terms of audit. That will allow us to have a much greater and more detailed level of surveillance of resistant bacteria. We also hope that efforts will also concentrate on the whole question of speeding up testing for infections. However, if you actually look closely at Information for Health, I do not believe that the word "antibiotics" actually appears in the report. It should; indeed, it was published after the date of the Select Committee's report. I should very much like to hear from the Minister that the Government will be ensuring that that omission is rectified in the future.
We have heard about the whole issue of the crisis in academic microbiology, but we need basic medical education for the generality of doctors about the importance of microbiology. We need greater status for medical microbiologists. We need better staffed microbiology labs. We need not only more money for the PHLS—and this was something that came out strongly in the report—but we also need more money for basic microbiological research. Quite often the more glamorous things are funded by MRC, but there appears to be very little money available for this kind of absolutely essential research. Obviously we need to have more public education about antibiotics.
It seems to me that it is not purely antibiotics and antimicrobials that we are talking about. Noble Lords may have seen a recent television programme which dealt with the whole question of antibacterials as used in the kitchen. They seem to me to represent a very important area where bug resistance can build up because one is using these powerful agents in the home. Indeed, people are encouraged to use them when actually detergents and soap—which most microbiologists will tell you they use in hospitals—should be used, rather than using these antibacterials which will build up resistance in our own homes.
Aside from antibiotics and antimicrobial agents there are other potentially interesting areas of research. I confess to something of a hobby-horse in the area of what are called "bacteriophages". About 18 months ago there was a "Horizon" television programme on these, and yet there is a stunning silence from the academic community on this matter. These are viruses that attack individual bacteria and may be a fruitful area of research. What research is being done on them? All I have come across is a rather voluminous website which is interesting but does not give any indication that there is much happening among members of the research community in the UK.
The point that came across to me in the committee's report is that this is an international issue. We cannot isolate ourselves from the problem. I refer to the diseases I mentioned earlier and the way bacteria can spread and the way in which their resistant strains can cross boundaries. International co-operation is needed to research those matters. It is needed on the animal front and on the human front. A huge task lies ahead of us. When the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, introduced the debate he said that the report was a blueprint for action which must start now. He hit the nail absolutely on the head. I can think of no other agenda

1085
in medicine which will be of greater importance to our children and grandchildren than the one we are discussing.
10.21 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Soulsby, to his committee and to its clerk for this superb report. I have never come across a report that is so well written and is so readable on such an important subject. It is a report which I am sure will be referred to for many years because of the wealth of well presented evidence that it contains, and yet it is a clarion call for action now. A loud call indeed is needed to wake up this Government!
The complacency of this Government has been remarked on by many speakers. I think it is exemplified most of all in paragraph 4.37 of this report which states,
"The Minister for Public Health spoke confidently about MRSA. Whereas many countries now accepted MRSA as a fact of hospital life, this need not be so here; rates of resistance were relatively low".
Is the figure of 32 per cent. relatively low when zero per cent. is achieved in other countries? The report continues,
"the United Kingdom had 'excellent clinical guidelines' and surveillance which was the best in the world".
How can they say that? They must know some of the facts that are in this report. Surveillance is awful. There is an enormous lack of facts. It is one of the great holes in what we are doing in this country in collecting data so that we can understand what is happening by way of resistance.
This is a quite breathtaking complacency on the part of this Government. An enormous amount needs to be done. It seems astonishing to me that neither the Minister for Public Health nor any of her civil servants have had the kind of experience—with regard to someone close to them or someone they know—that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, described so graphically. I refer to the experience of sitting watching someone's pulse rate climb and his or her temperature climb while the doctors vainly try one antibiotic after another. In the end in most cases they find something, but it is a terrifying experience waiting to see if they will. That takes us right back to the days which the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, described so graphically from his own memory when infection was commonplace and when people died in their tens of thousands from these infectious diseases. We got used to it then but it is a new thing to us now and it is frightening. I hope that some of that fear and some of that concern will manage to communicate itself to this Government.
There is a great deal that this report suggests should be done and most of it can be done with a great deal of ease, given government will. We have heard some extraordinary ideas this evening. My noble friend has suggested that we turn to organic farming as a recipe for dealing with this. Indeed there is much sense in that. Organic farmers have recognised that they cannot beat nature and have to control it by working with it. There is much we can do from that angle in dealing with bugs. Many of us—I am glad to say I do—consume Yakult
1086
every day. That is a horrible substance which is meant to improve our gut flora. That is at least one metaphor for organic farming on an internal basis. Perhaps on an external basis, one may do something about staphylococcus aureus by taking a bath in something similar every now and again.
We have heard from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench two versions of their policies. I shall leave to the Minister which of those two versions from his coalition partners he chooses to take as the official version, but at least there is a breadth of view there.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. At the beginning of my speech, I should have said that I was sitting on the Front Bench only incidentally because my noble friend could not be present then. My remarks were not Liberal Democrat policy in any sense; they were merely ideas which I felt may be useful to the debate.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is my experience that almost every policy is a Liberal Democrat policy at one time or another.
As has been said by many speakers, there is a great deal that needs to be done on the practice of microbiology in hospitals, ranging from the simplest matter of personal hygiene through to organisation and the raising of the status of clinical microbiology so that it becomes a profession that people seek to follow. An important part of that is making sure that research funds are available. Quality people follow money for research because they want to achieve something. If one cannot get money for a decent research programme, one will choose to do something else. There is little money for research in this area, but there is so much to be done, not only in basic research and in making sure that we have a continuing armoury of chemicals to deal with infection but also in diagnosis (to make sure that we have a quicker and better ability to understand what is happening to patients) and in practice, so that we know the best ways of dealing with infection control and can make use of all the data that we should like to see coming from better surveillance practices.
I share with at least one of the Liberal Democrat spokesmen a perception of what is the most important aspect of the report. I refer to the suggestion that the recommendation of the Swann Committee be taken up and that there should be an overarching government committee on antibiotics and infection generally.
I should like to look at that rather more deeply than considering just antibiotics. These questions are immensely complex. They cross not only departments, but run deep into the depths of individual departments. One example which has been quoted several times is the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animals. The simple answer is to ban them, but we must consider also animal welfare. We must take decisions on which antibiotics we shall allow to be used on animals. We need curatives for animals. We need people who develop curatives for animals to know that they will not be taken away three years later because someone wants to use them for humans. Considering all the regulations these days, it still costs perhaps £100 million to produce

1087
a curative for animals. People involved in that need to know that they will have a continuing market and that there is some structure to ensure that if the curative has been "okayed" for animals, they will be able to keep it for animals. It is no good looking at virginiamycin and saying, "We have found something else; we have found a use for a similar chemical; we now want it for humans", because nobody will ever develop a substitute for virginiamycin because they always think that it will be used for human patients.
We must look at the costs to the industry of taking away such products. Under the World Trade Organisation regulations, we cannot prevent the import of a large quantity of, say, chicken from China or Thailand which has been produced using such substances. There is no way of detecting them by the time the chickens reach us. They will come in at a low cost. If we build a high-cost industry, as has Sweden, like Sweden we shall have to give it immense subsidies to survive. If we want to do something that allows us to make the change without incurring that cost, we have to plan for it long term. We have to consider tripling or quadrupling the amount of space allowed for chicken houses. That means that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will have to ensure that planning permission is granted. No one wants a chicken shed next to them. It is difficult to get planning permission for that.
Other questions relate to the alternatives. Sweden uses zinc compounds. That causes considerable problems with heavy metal wastes in the litter from chicken houses. Germany uses arsenic on pigs. I do not suppose that that is something that we want spread on our fields. All of the alternatives have consequences and require a great deal of thought and consistent and coherent planning.
One of the great lessons from the BSE disaster is that waiting until a problem hits you in the face is extremely expensive. We have spent something like £4 billion on taking out a disease which will kill seven people a year—a figure has been pretty consistent over the past four years—whereas we are here looking at a problem which could kill tens of thousands of times that number of people with the greatest of ease as soon as MRSA acquires a solid form of vancomycin resistance. All it takes is some daft scientist in a hospital to decide to see whether he can give MRSA vancomycin resistance because he wants to know if it can be done. Indeed, it has been done in a hospital not very far from here. The only good thing about it is that it was stopped before the scientist had time to drop the test tube. It will not be long before we have this animal with us. We must be prepared for it.
This Government have a considerable reputation for complacency. When faced with a difficult question they do not seem able to see further than a focus group can think. The astonishingly fatuous response of this Government to the report of this House on the medical uses of cannabis is but the most recent example. I expect nothing from the Minister but flannel and prevarication. Why else would the Government have taken seven months to reply to this report when it quite clearly
1088
demands urgent and multi-faceted action? I expect nothing, but the lesson of this report is that you should always prepare for the unexpected, and I shall be delighted if I am wrong.
10.31 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, today's debate has demonstrated once again the seriousness and complexity of the antimicrobial resistance problem. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions which have been both constructive and helpful and are, as already stated, a demonstration of the valuable work of your Lordships' House.
The Government are well aware of the healthcare problems presented by antibiotic resistant strains of micro-organisms. The Government therefore welcome and commend the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The report is comprehensive and far reaching and has found a wide and receptive audience. Indeed, the document has done much to stimulate the increased national and international attention this subject is now receiving. I pay particular tribute to members of the sub-committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, for the enormous amount of work they undertook.
The Government will be giving their formal response to the report shortly. The Government are not complacent. We did not reply earlier because we want to ensure that the response gives the full depth and breadth of consideration that this important issue rightfully merits. My right honourable friend Tessa Jowell wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Ellesmere, at the beginning of July making that point. He responded saying that he was content with the reasons for preferring to delay the response until the autumn. The Government will of course take particular note of the points raised by noble Lords in today's debate, although I doubt that I shall be able to respond to all of them tonight.
This is an important issue. Microbial resistance is a major public health threat that the Government take most seriously. I shall briefly summarise some of the major issues and outline the Government's strategy in tackling them.
The first antibiotic—penicillin—was discovered 70 years ago. Since that remarkable discovery, a variety of other antimicrobial agents have been added to our armoury against the effects of infectious disease. The efficacy of these agents has inevitably resulted in their widespread use, frequently reducing suffering and death. The noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, provided some graphic descriptions. It is of great concern therefore that the increasing resistance of micro-organisms to antibiotics jeopardises many of the medical advances made in the treatment of infectious disease. Although the problem is not so widespread in the UK as in many other countries where antibiotics are more freely available and infection control procedures may be less effective, it is nonetheless a very serious problem, and we are treating it as such. My noble friend Lord Winston had some very important points to make in that respect.
The message from the Science and Technology Committee, behind which the Government stand four square, is that there is no room for complacency. Our

1089
past heritage will not itself protect the future. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, bugs have no boundaries. The world is becoming smaller and international travel more commonplace. The organisms which cause infection do not respect international boundaries and are able to move quickly and unseen among our communities with the ability to jeopardise healthcare. We must all be ever-vigilant in our fight against them and not relax our guard. If hard-to-cure infections are not to become more widespread and if treatment is not to become more difficult and expensive, action must now be taken to slow down or delay the emergence of antimicrobial resistance and limit its spread. But there is no quick or easy solution.
It is clear that resistance is to some extent an inevitable consequence of antimicrobial use, a point identified by the noble Lords, Lord McNair and Lord Dixon-Smith. However, apparent over-use and misuse of antibiotics is fuelling the proliferation of resistant micro-organisms. Some antibiotics are being prescribed when they might not be needed. Some patients are adding to the problem by expecting antibiotics for every infection, needed or not. Each unnecessary use of an antibiotic for a viral infection, like a cold or influenza, increases the chance that resistant strains might proliferate and spread among the body's naturally occurring bacteria.
Even when antibiotics are prescribed appropriately, many patients fail to use them as directed. Stopping antibiotics too early kills the weak micro-organisms, leaving the strong to develop resistance, flourish, and perhaps spread through the community.
By their very nature hospitals are significant sites for the development of antibiotic resistance. Noble Lords have referred to that point frequently during the debate. Hospital patients typically receive several, and often intensive courses, of antibiotics, creating ideal conditions for resistant strains to emerge and thrive. Resistance moves easily between hospital and community settings.
We cannot just rely on hopes of successful development of new antibiotics with appropriate efficacy to solve the problem, even though there may be new antibiotics or novel therapies on the horizon. Resistance problems have always existed and probably always will, no matter how many classes of antimicrobial agent or new mechanisms are developed.
What can be done? Slowing down or delaying the emergence of resistant micro-organisms and limiting their spread will not be a simple matter. But much can be done. In the UK the Government have already commenced a strategic plan of attack. An interdepartmental multidisciplinary steering group has already been set up with responsibility for co-ordinating and driving forward work on antimicrobial resistance. There is a need for continued outside advice from experts and we are actively considering how best to put this in place.
Our strategy is based on three key elements: better surveillance; prudent antimicrobial use; and effective infection control. This strategy continues to evolve as
1090
expert advice becomes available and an action plan for taking forward specific projects of work is being developed.
Across these areas a number of initiatives have already been undertaken or are under way. These include enhanced surveillance—a point made by my noble friend Lord Winston—a review of the clinical use of antimicrobial agents; a review of antimicrobial agents in the food chain; measures to improve infection control management and practice; and the promotion of research in the field and into the development of new antimicrobial agents and vaccines.
Last year the Chief Medical Officer asked the Standing Medical Advisory Committee to examine the issue of antimicrobial resistance in relation to clinical prescribing practice and make recommendations. The committee set up an interdisciplinary sub-group with cross-representation from the standing committees for nursing, midwifery, pharmacy and dentistry and it included veterinary and consumer representation. The final report entitled The Path of Least Resistance was produced and published in September. As my noble friend Lord Rea said, the main report is a comprehensive scientific source document, with summary and synopsis versions, that has been widely distributed in the UK and made available on the Internet. As an immediate step copies of the synopsis version were sent to all doctors. Alongside the Select Committee's report, the Standing Medical Advisory Committee's recommendations are key to the Government's future strategy and work programme.
Refinement of the use of antibiotics must be the key feature of the strategy to tackle the antimicrobial resistance challenge. The Government have an important role to play but they need support from, and action on the part of, healthcare professionals, expert groups and many others who have an interest in this important public health issue.
Reducing the unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics is likely to prove a significant factor in combating the development of resistant strains of bacteria. Patients, too, have a significant role to play by not pressurising their clinicians to prescribe them in circumstances where they are not effective, such as for colds and influenza. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and my noble friend Lord Winston spoke clearly about the pressure on GPs.
Clearly, we have to get the balance right. When swiftly and appropriately prescribed, antibiotics can unquestionably be life-saving. We must scrupulously avoid discouraging people from visiting their GP when they feel unwell. Such a balance cannot be achieved overnight but is one which, in partnership with the profession, we can aim to achieve. The Department of Health is working on proposals for a public campaign. It is worth reporting that in 1997 GPs in England prescribed 6 per cent. fewer courses of antiobiotics than in 1995. Happily, that trend continued in the first half of 1998.
I turn to education, a point raised particularly by my noble friend Lord Winston. Educational initiatives for both health professionals and the general public are of major importance for improving the use of antimicrobial

1091
agents. The Government have brought the Select Committee's report to the attention of the professional bodies. These include the General Medical Council, the medical Royal Colleges, and the English national Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. It is clear that increased attention needs to be paid to antimicrobial therapy in their programmes of postgraduate education and vocational training.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, offered some valuable insight regarding the contribution of nurses, and specifically infection control nurses. Her comments will be studied with great interest.
A number of noble Lords raised the very serious issue of infection control in hospitals. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, spoke movingly of his own experience in that regard. Improvements in hospital infection control arrangements are an important part of the action being taken by the Government. The responsibility for ensuring that effective arrangements are in place for the control of infection in trusts rests with the chief executive of the trust. Hospital infection control is an important part of an effective risk management programme to improve the quality of patient care. I wish to stress the chief executive's personal responsibility for the quality of care as part of the new clinical governance framework for which the chief executive is responsible to the NHS trust board.
All hospitals should have an infection control team which has primary responsibility for, and reports to the chief executive on, all aspects of surveillance, prevention and control of infection.
In 1997 the NHS Executive asked regional epidemiologists to survey communicable disease control arrangements at health authority level throughout England. The survey identified a number of shortcomings which have now either been addressed or are being addressed.
The NHS White Paper, A First Class Service, set out the detailed responsibilities of chief executives of NHS trusts for the quality of care to which I referred. That will include infection control services and will pick up many of the issues raised by noble Lords. For instance, as I said, as part of the clinical governance framework, infection control teams will be expected to produce regular reports to trust boards, but these could include hospital hygiene reports to bring deficiencies in cleaning standards to the attention of the trust board.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked whether MRSA targets could be established for each hospital. The Government agree that much work needs to be done to develop performance indicators and/or targets on hospital infection control, including MRSA, and are actively considering this recommendation alongside their proposals on clinical governance, to which I have just referred.
The noble Baroness also said that issues to do with infection control are as important in the community as in hospitals. The Government agree that there is a need for national standards and guidelines for community infection control management. The Department of
1092
Health is taking the lead in ensuring their development, working in partnership with many others who will be involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and my noble friend Lord Winston asked about funding for the PHLS. I can assure your Lordships that we shall be discussing the long-term funding of the PHLS with that body when it has completed the strategic review which it is currently undertaking. I am unable at this stage to say what the outcome of that review will be, but, in order to give the PHLS time to undertake the review, present its conclusions to Ministers and agree their implementation, £2.3 million in additional resources will be made available to the PHLS in the 1999–2000 financial year.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the recommendation of the committee that a single multi-disciplinary government committee should be set up to oversee all aspects of antibiotic use. The Government have established an interdepartmental multi-disciplinary steering group to develop the recommendations of your Lordships' Select Committee and the Standing Medical Advisory Committee to turn that into a wider government strategy and to steer and co-ordinate activity in this area. Consideration is currently being given to the need to set up an expert group to provide advice on scientific aspects of antimicrobial use.
My noble friend Lord Rea asked about vaccine research. The Government are involved in establishing a national framework for co-ordinating vaccine research. We intend that the UK population should have available at the earliest possible opportunity safe and effective vaccines. I should like to reassure noble Lords of the high priority which the Government give to this area.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked about the Government's position in relation to over-the-counter antibiotics. I can reassure him that the Government will continue strongly to promote adherence to prescription-only status for all antimicrobials within the EC and elsewhere.
My noble friend Lord Rea asked about advice to general practitioners on prescribing. I can confirm that all health authorities continue to employ both pharmaceutical advisers and primary care medical advisers to provide advice on the use of medicines. As an important part of this role, they continue to visit GPs to discuss their prescribing. A number of studies have confirmed the effectiveness of their activities in this regard. My noble friend Lady Hayman announced last week that PRODIGY, a computerised prescribing-decision support system, is to be made available to all GPs without cost. Shared doctor-patient information screens and patient information leaflets can be printed to advise patients on management of their illnesses, which I think is a great advance.
My noble friend Lord Rea also raised the issue of the new primary care groups. With their establishment, subject to legislation, the Government will expect them to take an active role in professional development in this area. We also have examples of good prescribing practice in the use of antimicrobials in primary and secondary care. These will be identified and

1093
disseminated through health authorities, primary care groups, hospital trusts and post-graduate educational networks.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to deficiencies in information in the health service. In September this year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health launched the new information strategy for the NHS. This is part of a £1 billion investment to get the information systems right and to make information work for NHS patients and staff. Over a period of time it will ensure that we provide lifelong electronic health records for every person in the country, and instant access 24 hours a day in every hospital and GP surgery to patient records and best clinical practice. The whole emphasis is to bring together outcomes, activity and prescribing data. I believe that that will very much help the health service meet the very difficult problem that it faces.
There have been widespread concerns in the medical community and elsewhere that problems of resistance are being fuelled particularly in respect of foodborne pathogens such as species of salmonella by the use of antibiotics in animals. Much has been said about this by noble Lords today, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, in his introduction to the debate. I am not able to respond directly to that issue today. However, noble Lords will be aware that the Government have set up an investigation into microbial resistance in relation to the food chain which is being carried out by a working group of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the matter. As he suggested, the working group is expected to report to the committee before the end of the year. The committee will then offer advice to the Government on a range of issues concerning the responsible use of antimicrobial agents as veterinary medicines and growth promoters.
A number of noble Lords referred to the international dimension. The Government are determined to give constructive support to international initiatives and to take a leading role if required to ensure that effective systems for monitoring antimicrobial resistance can be set up without delay. We shall press for this to be given priority in the World Health Organisation's next global and regional biennial work programmes and in the future framework for European Union action in the field of public health.
With UK support the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution in May 1998 which urged member states to take measures broadly in line with the planned UK strategy and called on the director general to promote international co-operation. Within Europe, too, the European Commission in its communication of April 1998 on the development of pubic health policy in the European Community identified the growing problem of resistance to antibiotics as one of the new risks to health. The Commission's scientific steering committee has set up a working party to examine all aspects related to this question.
1094
I would be failing in my duty to your Lordships' House if I gave the impression that there was a quick solution in sight. Tackling antimicrobial resistance is a long-haul task that requires partnership between government and a wide range of organisations and individuals across many disciplines in both the UK and internationally. There is no doubt that antibiotic resistance presents one of the greatest challenges to us all. It is an unending battle, according to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The UK Government are rising to the challenge and taking action to help tackle the problem. They are playing a leading role both nationally and internationally but alone they cannot do all the things that need to be done. If they are to succeed they need a strong spirit of partnership, co-operation and determination among healthcare professionals, expert groups, communities and every individual citizen.
Today's debate and the reports of your Lordships' committee and the Standing Medical Advisory Committee present a very clear message to us all. The Government will be resolute in their response.
10.53 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the hour is late and I shall not detain the House much longer. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. They have supplemented one another's contributions to an extent and provided important information both from their experience and the report. They have expanded on areas that I have failed to deal with adequately.
I do not think that anyone who has heard the noble Lord, Fitt, describe the tragic end to his wife's life can now doubt that antibiotic resistance is a very important entity to which we must attend. We should thank him for so bravely bringing the information to us. It must put an indelible mark on our minds that he is a person who has experienced at first hand the tragedy of antibiotic resistance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, identified the problem of pressure sores to individuals like her who have to sit in a wheelchair. All these are very important matters which may well miss the attention of those of us who consider ourselves to be reasonably normal, although at times that is under challenge by various people.
Perhaps I may briefly identify some of what I believe to be the headlines of this debate. Surveillance has been identified by a number of noble Lords. To my mind that is particularly important. I was pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government are going to attend to some of deficiencies in the public health laboratory service, which have been identified with the input of several million pounds. I did not deal with research in my opening comments, but it is particularly important. If we had more research so that we could identify antibiotic resistant organisms in a clinical environment such as in a doctor's surgery it would be a major step forward.
The education of the doctor at the undergraduate and postgraduate level has been identified. The noble Baroness, Lady Platt, who, unfortunately, is not in her

1095
place, identified the education of young mothers and children as regards the use of antibiotics. In committee she was very keen to identify the fact that women's magazines would be an excellent medium for getting over that message. Indeed, that has happened.
The use of alternative medicine has been identified by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam. That area was touched on only briefly in the report. Some evidence was given to us about alternative medicine. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Lucas takes probiotics every morning in order to repopulate his intestines with beneficial bacteria instead of antibiotic resistant bacteria. I do the same occasionally, but not every morning. That is an area for future development. The noble Lord is a little ahead of the game in that respect.
He mentioned the Swedish system for the control of the use of antibiotics in animals. Initially, that was not viewed very favourably; but after 10 years, and due to the fact that the Swedes depended very much on the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry for the control of disease, that has now been improved and the benefit of the withdrawal of antibiotics in animal husbandry has been shown to take place. The amount of antibiotics used is now very much reduced, but, as mentioned by several noble Lords and the Minister, that cannot happen overnight. It takes quite a long time.
We had a very good input from the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, on antibiotic and infection control in hospitals. In committee her experience and knowledge of the matter was very valuable and put into perspective the problems that we have and which we identified.
I am delighted to hear the Minister say that there is no place for complacency. We were aware that the response was to be delayed but, with due respect to the Government, we did not expect it to be this delayed. The response may well be the better for that delay; I do not know. However, the publication, The Path of Least Resistance, is welcomed. It details effectively how to handle the situation.
Education is welcome too. I have mentioned the £2.3 million additional funding to the Public Health Laboratory Service—that is also welcome—and its strategic review. It is good news that there is to be, I hope, an overarching committee, and progress is being made on that. We find that important in dealing with the problem of antibiotic use and resistance.
Finally, we are delighted to hear—as I am sure is my noble friend Lord Jenkin—that the Government will abide firmly by the principle of no over-the-counter antibiotics.
We have had a good debate. It has been a prolonged debate, but much of importance has been said. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Respiratory Diseases of Mineworkers
11.1 p.m.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made to deal with claims for compensation by mineworkers who are suffering from respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and emphysema.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful that so many noble Lords have shown an interest in the debate which is important to disabled miners. Your Lordships will be aware that on 25th November 1992 the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council report recommended that chronic bronchitis and emphysema should be listed as a prescribed disease in coalminers. That recommendation was not implemented until 13th September 1993. There was great concern among disabled miners suffering from this disease that there was a deliberate policy by the then government to delay the implementation because the longer it was delayed more miners suffering from the disease would have died and this would of course have lessened the financial cost to the Government. This fear seemed to have foundation, when a leaked document came into my possession on 29th October 1992 from the Department of Social Security to the Department of Trade and Industry suggesting the delayed implementation of the recommendations of the report for as long as possible because the longer the delay the more miners would have died. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate how suspicious the miners are now. However, I want to assure miners that the present Government are not getting up to such tricks as did the previous government. I have satisfied myself through meetings with the Minister of State in another place, John Battle, that that is not the case.
However, since the awards by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council many miners have placed claims against the British Coal Corporation for compensation. Arising from those claims I corresponded with the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, on Thursday 9th March 1995, and Mr. Tim Eggar, Minister of State at the DTI, on Wednesday 22nd March 1995. I expressed my concern that if the claims were to be heard by a High Court hearing it would cause long delays and, considering that many of the miners suffering from bronchitis and emphysema are elderly, infirm and in some instances terminally ill, any long delayed High Court hearings could deny them the immediate substantial compensation to which they are entitled. I requested that instead of preparing for years of litigation, with trials of simple cases taking about eight weeks or more, I would consider it equitable and consensual for defendants to give earnest consideration to setting up a bronchitis/emphysema compensation scheme. This would avoid massive litigation costs and the subsequent enormous expenditure on legal aid costs over the years.
I regret that my suggestions were not accepted. Had the previous government taken on board my proposals, clearly the present Government would not have inherited a liability running into several billions of pounds. Arising out of this, the miners, as a last resort,

1097
pursued legislation with the utmost reluctance, supported only by the Legal Aid Board and the appropriate union. I was delighted that Mr. Justice Turner, sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice in London on 21st January 1998, ruled in the miners' favour. In his summary, his Lordship was extremely critical of the British Coal Corporation both in respect of health and safety and, indeed, its defence of the litigation.
The present position, as I understand it, is that it has been agreed by the two sides that in principle there should be a single medical assessment process rather than either side proceeding on the conventional basis of separately obtaining medical evidence and then exchanging reports. The reason for this is that it removes the need for two examinations. They feel that this in turn will speed up the assessment of individual cases and the assessment of damages. I personally do not believe that it would speed it up sufficiently.
The speed of delivery of medical assessments is a key issue because there are now 60,000 claims, with a potential of 120,000 claims, and many of those people are elderly. The DTI is concerned that every signal claimant who wishes to claim full damages under a handling scheme should, as part of the medical assessment, undergo a physical examination by an appropriately qualified physician. The medical advice I have received states that in a large number of cases this is not necessary and will delay assessments significantly.
Why will there be a delay? I am informed that there are approximately 500 appropriately qualified respiratory physicians available in the country. Your Lordships will readily identify that if all the 500 physicians were employed on this work alone, which is very unlikely, it would mean 1,200 cases for each physician. If there are to be 120,000 applications the number rises to 2,400 for each physician. One can imagine the delays that will occur.
Considering that I have received medical expert advice that it is both fair and reasonable to undertake paper assessments in a large number of cases, this would streamline the assessment process and ensure that compensation is paid as quickly as possible. I ask my noble friend the Minister to give consideration to that.
I also understand that there is a distance between the two sides as to how retrospectively to diagnose chronic bronchitis. I understand that the DTI is concerned that there must be some criteria. I can well understand that, but I feel that that is going to be difficult. Chronic bronchitis was so common in many mining communities that it was thought by the men not worthy of medical attention and some general practitioners who were faced with a patient with a condition often thought it not worthy of a note in their medical records.
I understand that the DTI is seeking a discount of 15 per cent. from damages to reflect the benefits of handling agreements. The benefits are illusionary if the process is not as quick as it could be and if the medical assessment is full and comprehensive. The DTI has indicated that 15 per cent. is not its final position. But if there is to be a full and fair medical assessment in all cases where full damages are claimed it is difficult to understand why any discount is justifiable.
It is fairly obvious that the present arrangements will cause considerable delay, which will mean that many miners suffering from the disease will have died while the negotiations are in progress. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that it is calculated that since the judgment 10 months ago, 1,000 people have died, at an average of 20 per week.
I believe that the procedures could be speeded up. Noble Lords may recall that during Questions on 29th January of this year I put a suggestion to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davies. It concerned the men who had already been certified in accordance with the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's recommendations and where it had been proved that they had been suffering from bronchitis and emphysema. They had been medically examined and assessed and given a percentage assessment of disability. Those men then received industrial injuries benefits. Surely it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that those men could be accepted as suitable for the payment of compensation. They have gone through the medical routine; they have been examined; and they have been certified and awarded a pension. Surely it would be a simple exercise to pay compensation to those men without dragging them through the further procedures, if and when the examinations can be carried out. It seems simple to me. I appreciate that not all the claimants will have been examined, but the majority have been.
In conclusion, I should tell the House that I have discussed the matter recently with the Minister of State in another place, Mr. John Battle. He is in a unique position. It is not often that one finds a Minister who has money available without having to go dashing to the Treasury. I understand that he has about £2 billion at his disposal and he is keen to spend it and pay it out to those miners. However, he has been held up by arguments between lawyers.
Some heads must be knocked together. There is no doubt that those lawyers will be earning vast sums of money from the exercise. I have formed an opinion of the people whom I have met in my area. They seem quite genuine and they want to help the miners. However, others will be in it simply to see how much they can obtain for themselves. There will be a colossal bill. The Minister of State has given me assurances and I know that he is keen to recompense the miners. Surely a formula can be produced which will enable as many of those men as possible to be paid before they die of that terrible disease, as have many of their predecessors.
11.9 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I shall be brief. First, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract. He made the first presentation of a Bill in another place which asked that emphysema should be recognised as an industrial disease qualifying for compensation. That was way back in October 1982. He has pursued that issue doggedly, with five Ten-Minute Rule Bills in another place, and, incidentally, his sponsors have been my noble friends Lord Hardy of Wath and Lord Ashley of Stoke and myself. My noble friend Lord Lofthouse also prepared learned papers on

1099
the subject and persuaded the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to undertake the studies. He is undoubtedly the miners' champion in this cause.
My noble friend is fully aware of this issue both from his experience of working underground and from observing some of his very ill and breathless constituents. And so am I, having worked for 14 years underground and now seeing so many of my former pit mates slowly dying from excess dust in their lungs. Emphysema is a slow and painful killer of coal-miners. Therefore, coming from the coalfields, I am pleased that it has been recognised as an industrial disease. But I must explain to the Minister that I am much concerned that many claimants, and unfortunately the widows of emphysema victims, are having to wait so long for payments.
I know that, since judgment was made, up to 100,000 claims have been submitted, and perhaps to date more than 10,000 recognised. Since then there have been three separate hearings and the involvement of plaintiffs' solicitors groups. Can the Minister say what is causing the frustrations and the delay? Are the plaintiffs' solicitors groups partly responsible? I gather that at the last hearing on 1st October some agreement may have been reached to streamline the procedures. If so, can the Minister give us an update?
Finally, apart from the plaintiffs' solicitors groups involved in the preparation and presentation of claims, can my noble friend's department publicly advise claimants to avoid lawyers who are allegedly charging inflated fees and also failing to get proper compensation payments? Indeed, some seem to be exploiting the system and cheating disabled miners and their widows. Some ministerial guidance would help, and it would be welcome.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I seek to make a short contribution to this debate against the background of having acted in the past, in Scotland, as a personal injuries lawyer for miners suffering from emphysema. I have been down a coalmine only once in my life, many years ago when I was a student at the University of Edinburgh. I remember the visit vividly. I remember feeling a certain apprehension for my own physical safety and I remember in particular, over the days that followed the visit, every time I blew my nose my handkerchief would fill with the coal dust, to which I was not accustomed.
It struck me then, as it has struck me ever since, that miners who work underground for many years must have inhaled a great deal. Those memories never escaped me in my years as a personal injuries lawyer when I acted for those who suffered from emphysema. When they came to see me their disability was obvious. Their shortness of breath was to be heard and observed. When they came into the room where I met them, it frequently took them some minutes to recover from the physical exertion of having walked from a waiting room, not even up a set of stairs, to meet with me. And on occasions when the emphysema had developed to a
1100
severe extent, it was necessary for myself and my instructing solicitors to go to their home to meet with them there. Indeed, on occasions it was necessary for the court itself to go to the home of a miner because it was physically impossible for the miner concerned to come to court and give evidence. Those were extremely awkward experiences. I always felt a sense of invasion of the privacy of a miner's home, particularly as a large number of people had to collect in a small room which was frequently heated to a high temperature to help the individual concerned deal with his disability.
In each and every one of those cases the miners concerned were worried about their future. They knew that they were suffering from a progressive illness; they knew that that illness affected their current enjoyment of life and would continue to do so to a greater extent in the years ahead. In some instances the miners concerned were worried that they might not survive until their court case had reached a conclusion. Those were concerns which were shared by myself and my solicitors as a very understandable desire to ensure that the cases were concluded if at all possible before the miner in question passed on.
Against that background, I find it a matter of grave concern that so many claims remain outstanding. Just who is responsible for that being the current position does not, to some extent, matter. However, the fact is that there are at least 60,000 and possibly up to 100,000 claims still to be resolved. As the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, has already observed, the hard and stark truth is that, unless this issue is dealt with as a matter of urgency and a greater speed of progress is achieved, a highly significant number of these claimants will die before their claims are resolved.
I was particularly shocked to be informed by a Scottish solicitor to whom I have spoken over the past few days that, at the current rate of progress, officials in the Department of Trade and Industry are suggesting that over the next 12 months they may dispose of only a maximum of 12,000 cases. At that rate, it will take at least five years for all outstanding claims to be settled. When one bears in mind that these claims are against the British Coal Corporation and date back many years, it is most disturbing.
I also find the unfortunate attitude on the part of DTI officials slightly disturbing. They appear to be criticising miners' solicitors for the vigour with which they are pursuing their claimants' cases. Such criticisms have to some extent been reflected in the speeches already made this evening by the noble Lords, Lord Lofthouse and Lord Mason. If there is any truth whatever in such criticisms, I hope that the Minister will confirm that such complaints will be directed to the respective Law Societies. I say that because it is quite intolerable that any claim should be delayed due to any mercenary motive on the part of the solicitors concerned. From my own personal experience of those who act for miners in Scotland, I have to say that I find such claims very difficult to believe. Indeed, they are as anxious as anyone that the claims should be settled. Like many personal injuries solicitors, they have more than enough business to be dealing with without unnecessarily protracting these cases.

1101
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to inform the House on a number of points in his reply. First, perhaps he can tell us when he expects DTI officials to be able to reach final agreement on the medical assessment process for the assessment of compensation payable. Secondly, can he confirm that the Government accept that claimants will receive full common law damages and that there will be no question of their damages being subject to a 15 per cent. discount, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse?
Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that the cases of widows will be given particularly urgent attention. I understand that there is a most unfortunate dispute in this respect, which depends upon the contents of death certificates. I believe that interim payments are being made if the death certificate includes the word "emphysema", but that there is some dispute as to whether such payments should be made if the entry on the death certificate reads "obstructive airways disease". Many doctors take the view that there is absolutely no difference between emphysema on the one hand and obstructive airways disease on the other. If that is their attitude in completing death certificates—whether or not they are right—it is singularly unfortunate that widows should suffer further, having already suffered the loss of their husbands.
In conclusion, perhaps I may make a few points about the Scottish claims which form part of the total outstanding. I understand that they may amount to 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. of the outstanding claims. Lawrence Lumsden, who is a very experienced solicitor in Edinburgh and has handled the miners' cases for many years, has expressed the concern that the group of officials in Sheffield which is negotiating these claims on behalf of the DTI does not include a senior official knowledgeable in the law of Scotland and knowledgeable in how cases are handled by the Scottish courts. This has led to difficulty in two respects. First of all, as the Minister may be aware, the procedure for awarding damages in fatal cases in Scotland is different from that which applies in England and Wales. Secondly, whilst there have been test cases in Scotland these have been sisted or stayed by the courts pending the outcome of the test cases in England. Whilst substantial payments have now been made to some claimants in England, I understand there has not been similar progress—
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will watch the time. Speeches are limited to seven minutes each.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I apologise for speaking a minute too long on this important matter. I conclude by urging the Minister to agree that this is a matter of grave social concern. I hope we will receive his assurance that every effort will be made to speed up an unfortunately slow progress.
11.25 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble and learned Lord who has clearly
1102
offered us a recognition of the severity of the problem. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give proper attention to the comments he made.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lofthouse on his initiative in securing this debate. Those who live in and represent coalfield communities have been well aware for a long time of the effect on people's health of long service underground. In the 1970s after the battle for recognition of pneumoconiosis was over it was clearly appropriate that effort should be made to secure recognition for those suffering from emphysema and bronchitis. For a long time my noble friend and others made representations on behalf of our constituents. Then, 16 years ago, my noble friend presented the first of five Bills to the House of Commons. The Industrial Injuries Board made a recommendation and we were relieved when the then government said they would introduce a scheme. Great hopes were raised. That was a long time ago. Despite that scheme and despite the promises of that government, we are still a long way from securing the solution which is obvious to all of us here this evening.
We have witnessed a miserable marathon. At every stage of that marathon many more men have died. It is time that this matter was resolved. I point out to your Lordships that when the previous administration wished to change mine safety regulations they acted with a dispatch that has certainly been lacking in the matter I am discussing.
One reason for my concern is that for a long time I was involved with the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers. I still have an interest in the proceedings of that association. By virtue of their occupation these men have given long service in underground employment. Because of the decline in the mining industry the working members of that responsible organisation have declined to a number not in four figures. However, there are far more former members who worked long years in the pit. It may well be that those ex-members of the association with emphysema and bronchitis or even pneumoconiosis far outnumber those still working who have the disease. The resources of the organisation have been taken up in large measure to fight this cause. It is a pity that it has had to devote funds on such a scale for such a long time as this marathon has proceeded.
I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is present. If he had time to do so, I am sure he could confirm the assessment I have made of the inevitable consequences of long service underground of NACODS' members. He will be aware of the devoted efforts of my friend Peter McNestry and of other full-time officials of our rapidly shrinking union which is still endeavouring to serve the cause of members who suffer from such ill health.
I am therefore delighted that my noble friend secured this debate. I endorse the arguments that he has advanced. I welcome the comments that the previous speaker made and I trust that the Minister will pay due regard to the observations of my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley. He and my noble friends, who have long experience of the coalfields and a great deal

1103
of contact with the mining industry, recognise that thousands have already passed on as a result of such diseases. We recognise that many with those diseases will die—at an age far below that hoped for by people who have followed more salubrious occupations. I trust that my noble friend will ensure that the message from the Chamber will inject an even greater note of urgency into the present Administration.
I have another point which I hope that my noble friend will address. No one begrudges a proper payment to those who have given legal advice and assistance. That is right and proper. However, there are some—perhaps they are qualified lawyers; perhaps they are not—who seek to ensure that they get an unfair share of whatever benefit former miners receive. There needs to be some advice about the cowboys on the fringe of this activity who are seeking to get their hands on money without having undergone the long experience underground or the debilitating effects of such diseases. Appropriate words could well be said. If my noble friend can tell the House the Department of Trade and Industry's estimate of the cost already incurred in meeting those fees, I am sure the House will be obliged and perhaps surprised.
I should like to think that the message will get through and that the anxiety, disease, distress, discomfort and the fact that life expectancy is low will bring about the early resolution of the problem. It certainly ought to be resolved.
11.31 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, for tabling this Unstarred Question. I feel humble to be speaking in a debate in which miners and former miners and those who have had close contact with the mining industry have spoken. However, this gives me another opportunity to raise the case of my friend, Mr. Dynfor Owen, to whom I referred in my supplementary question to a Starred Question on 11th May this year. I do so, not to have a response to that particular case, but as a peg on which to hang a more general question.
The point that I made then, rather hurriedly and probably not very well, was that in the coalfield of South Wales—uniquely, I believe, in the United Kingdom—the coal is contained within or behind silica rock. I confess that I have never been down a coal-mine. I regret that, and I regret that it may be too late to do so. Mr. Owen spent 25 years of his working life in the mines of South Wales. He did not seek or have any of the jobs that were considered soft options. He was literally at the coal-face. He was drilling and setting charges. He and his friends worked a lot of the time in a cloud of silica dust.
In the mid-1950s, the coal board introduced hollow drills, which had a jet of water through the centre. The idea of that innovation was that the jet of water would prevent the dust which was so unpleasant, but which was not known at that time to be such a health hazard. As sometimes happens with technology, the hoped-for
1104
improvement did not materialise. The new drill bits clogged and Mr. Owen and his colleagues carried on working in clouds of silica dust.
As time went on, he and his friends found that they were unable to continue working. I believe that he is now the only one left alive at approximately 60 years-old. He has alleged difficulties with the administration of the X-rays that he has had. There seems to be a problem with the definitions used for assessing disability. It appears that there is a very severe form of lung disease which does not show up on an X-ray. I am sure that other noble Lords who are participating in this debate will know more about that than I do. However, I wonder whether, despite having all that money available, the authorities are perhaps keen to wait and to pay a lesser sum to the widow following an autopsy rather than a larger sum to the person concerned before he passes on.
I have taken a little while to paint a picture of the service that Mr. Owen, his colleagues and all other coalminers have given to this country, reaching back to the dawn of our industrial greatness. Will the Minister reassure me, the House and the former miners of South Wales that miners who suffer from silicosis—damage from silica dust—will receive the same treatment in respect of compensation for injury sustained from their working conditions as miners who suffer from pneumoconiosis. There is no excuse for treating them less well. It has been difficult enough to secure the degree and scope of compensation that we have achieved so far.
The changes and reductions in the coal industry which have affected the miners of South Wales and other areas so powerfully give a poignancy to the plight of their number who still survive with varying degrees of disability. I am delighted to hear that there is money available. I am concerned about the administrative delays which will probably make these payments too late for a lot of the miners. Surely it would be honourable to treat more generously those who have given their working lives and their health in the service of their country and their fellow countrymen?
11.36 p.m.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, we are deeply in debt to the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, for initiating this short but very important debate. I am in my 33rd year as a parliamentarian and I have never previously spoken in a coal-mining debate. For 31 years I represented Newport, which was essentially a steel constituency, and I left coal-mining debates to people who represented mining communities. Nevertheless, this debate brought a bitter nostalgia to me.
I was born and spent my formative years in the Sirhowy Valley in South Wales. The area was littered with pits, which have now all closed. Both my grandfathers, my father and my mother's brothers all worked at Nine Mile Point colliery. As a young lad I also spent several years underground. My father was invalided out of the pits early on with nystagmus. His eyesight was very badly impaired right up to his dying day but, to the best of my knowledge and belief, he never received any compensation.

1105
Mining is an arduous and hazardous occupation. There is a perpetual risk factor in working underground. Perhaps the most prevalent hazard to miners is respiratory diseases. Tonight in this debate we are essentially concerned about chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Breathing and inhaling dust over the years takes its toll. We all know that a High Court judgment in January found that British Coal was liable for causing the illnesses to which I have referred.
The liability to manage and meet these claims transferred to British Coal on 1st January 1998. When the judgment was announced the Government, to be fair, immediately accepted their responsibility. A sum of £1.5 billion was set aside by the Treasury to enable the Department of Trade and Industry to pay the claims. Mr. Justice Turner, who made the judgment, urged an early settlement. Since then there has been a good deal of haggling and delay. The Government have been subjected to much criticism, a good deal of which is unjustified. However, the Government have insisted that each case be looked at individually. They say "How else can the level of lung injury be assessed?"
To try to ease the overall situation, the Government have paid out more than £1 million in compensation in the form of interim payments of £2,000 to hundreds of former miners suffering from debilitating illnesses as a result of working conditions underground. I note, too, that the Government are complaining about what they call the unhelpful attitude of the plaintiffs' solicitors groups which act as the negotiators for the vast majority of solicitors who are dealing with claims. Likewise, colleagues in another place and some noble Lords in this debate have criticised certain solicitors for allegedly targeting miners for profit. It is diabolical to make money out of disabled miners. It is obvious now that the sooner these cases are settled, the better. I believe that the Government are now doing all they can to expedite a quick settlement. Even the Prime Minister has promised to help.
Finally, I recall from earlier days that when there was a disaster or a serious accident in a pit people invariably referred to it as "the price of coal". The chest complaints that we are debating are silent slayers. But the victims are the men who laboured underground to make a living for their families. That is "the price of coal" and these men have paid a high price. It is now incumbent on Ministers to dispense with the bureaucracy and, as the noble Lord, Lofthouse, has already pointed out, there should be no problem in the case of the people on industrial injury benefit. For many of these men it will suffice just to walk into their homes or hospital wards to see at first hand how they have been laid low. The months and years are taking their toll. Their numbers are diminishing. They more than deserve a quick, just and fair settlement.
11.42 p.m.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract on initiating this debate and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said, on the way he carried out his duties in another place, not only as a Back-Bench MP and member of the Select Committee on Energy but also as Deputy Speaker. As a
1106
member of the usual channels myself I know that, although he could not raise these issues on the Floor of the House, he brought pressure to bear and had meetings with Ministers, and even with the Prime Minister at that time, the right honourable John Major.
Like many of my noble friends who are present for the debate and many of my honourable friends in the other place, I know only to well the suffering and the early deaths that this terrible disease has brought to many of my comrades in the coalmining industry. Time is not on their side. I accept that since the court hearing on 1st October there has been some progress. However, there are issues that remain unresolved and require urgent attention.
Since negotiations began in January this year, as my noble friend Lord Lofthouse said, more than 1,000 claimants have died. I believe that my honourable friend John Battle is a sincere and genuine person on this issue which I accept is complex and difficult. However, issues relating to the determination of the medical assessment remain unresolved. There still remains a difference over whether the plaintiffs' suggestion that a streamlined approach for most live claimants should be adopted. Like my noble friend Lord Lofthouse, I strongly disapprove of the DTI idea of a more rigorous, costlier and slower approach which would involve claimants undergoing an exercise test. Could not a scheme be agreed based on a percentage of disability on a sliding scale?
Before becoming a Member of Parliament I worked in the shipyards for over 30 years. I suffer from industrial deafness and am presently wearing a hearing aid. I am glad that this House has a loop so that I can hear the rest of the debate. At that time my union, the GMB, took six cases to the Newcastle Crown Court, which resulted in what became known as the Newcastle settlement. When I went to put in my claim I was merely given a similar hearing test and was paid compensation on a sliding scale. There was no hassle and no court case. Why could not something similar be done to help these people? Could not something be sorted out so that they could receive a decent settlement without having to go through lengthy tests and cases?
I draw the attention of the House to an article in yesterday's Sunday People by none other than David Mellor, who held high position in the previous government. The article is headed:
"Help Cyril before it's too late".
It reads:
"Cyril Richardson worked down the mines all his life.
Now 68, all Cyril has to show for it is an 80 per cent disability through emphysema caused by inhaling too much coal dust.
He breathes with difficulty and can hardly walk. His life expectancy is not good. He needs a car to get around but can't afford one …
So far Cyril has received an interim payment of £2,000, and that's it.
The D.T.I. say they hope that maybe they can sort everything else out by the end of next year.
But that may be too late for Cyril and many of his colleagues".
Everyone who comes from a mining community knows of cases similar to that of Cyril Richardson. There is someone with whom I was brought up and have

1107
known all my life. We used to play football together and go sparring together in the local boxing hall. He was built like a house end and was as strong as a horse. He now has emphysema. He goes out for his weekly pint at a local pub and does not have the strength to hold his dominoes when he plays fives and threes. That is what emphysema does. These are the people who are waiting for some sort of settlement while the arguments go on.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to the fact that widows whose husbands had worked underground for 20 years or more and whose death certificate showed that the cause of death was emphysema were given an interim payment of £2,000. In my view and that of many of my colleagues, a positive death certificate should override the 20-year criterion. There should be no question of a complicated and arbitrary apportionment.
I accept that some progress has been made in recent weeks and that there has also been an attempt at progress by the DTI. That is to be welcomed. I have little doubt that this progress has been prompted by the increased level of tireless effort on the part of the unions and my noble friends, especially my noble friend Lord Lofthouse, and by the efforts of my honourable friends in the House of Commons, the Labour miners group of MPs, led by Bill Etherington, Eric Clarke, Dennis Skinner, Mick Clapham, Ron Campbell and John Cummings, who only last week organised a deputation to John Battle on this issue.
I have been informed that the money is there. The people who are suffering cannot wait. They are not interested in the niceties of negotiation. They are entitled to spend their remaining time with some small comfort that the compensation will bring to them and their families. Let us deal with this case as early as possible. I appeal to the Minister to do that.
11.49 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lofthouse for initiating this debate. I hasten to declare a personal interest. My father-in-law, Ray Jones, is one of those on whose behalf compensation is being sought. I make no apology for telling the House his story, because many thousands of others are in the same circumstances.
Ray Jones is 86; early next year he will be 87. He spent 45 years in the pits of South Wales, a working lifetime, mostly as a collier, then as a fireman, then as an overman and finally as a health and safety officer. In 1966 he led a rescue team into Aberfan to try to rescue the children who were covered by the tip that slipped down the mountain and covered the school.
Ray Jones has a lung disability of 80 per cent., 60 per cent. pneumoconiosis, 20 per cent. bronchitis and emphysema, clearly stated, but not stated to the satisfaction of British Coal. Fourteen years ago he had a stroke and he is in a wheelchair. His chest is in such a condition that he cannot have an operation because he could not sustain the period of the anaesthetic.
1108
On 29th January this year I asked a Question when the judgment with regard to compensation was given. I received the following Answer from my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, the Minister at that time:
"I wish to express at the outset the Government's real sympathy to all those miners who have suffered lung damage in the sad circumstances which led to this legal action".—[Official Report, 29/1/98; col. 328.]
I regret that what has happened over the past 12 months does not support that statement. During that time I have been like a ping-pong ball representing Ray Jones between solicitors fighting his case in South Wales and the Department of Social Security in the north-west, in Stockport, near the nursing home where my father-in-law resides. There have been telephone calls and letters. He has not received interim payments. Both the solicitors and the Department of Social Security seem to think that British Coal is somewhat bureaucratic and officious and is weaving a web of red tape which is preventing miners from receiving what they are entitled to.
On 16th September 1998 my father-in-law received the following letter from solicitors in South Wales:
"Unfortunately, the award notice is still not sufficient to qualify you for an interim payment from British Coal".
That is despite 20 per cent. emphysema and bronchitis, according to his D1 assessment. That is where the problem lies.
"I note that Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema is listed as a condition taken into account in assessing you as 80% disabled due to pneumoconiosis. In order to be eligible for an interim payment the award must actually state that you have been awarded the benefit due to Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema".
That seems to me a rather pedantic point.
I then got in touch with the Department of Social Security and received the following letter dated 23rd October 1998:
"With reference to my telephone conversation with you on 16.10.98 I can confirm that a claimant who had a pneumoconiosis (Prescribed Disease D1) assessment of at least 50%"—
which my father-in-law has—
"and who was also suffering from bronchitis and emphysema will have had the effects of the bronchitis and emphysema added to the Prescribed Disease D1 assessment. Prescribed Disease D12—chronic bronchitis and emphysema—is not prescribed for such people".
I therefore asked how he could get that benefit. The solicitors were saying that he required a further assessment, whereas the Department of Social Security was telling me that if he has had a D1 assessment he was now ineligible for a D12 assessment. That is a classic Catch-22 position.
More fundamental is the lengthy letter dated 11th November this year from solicitors, three paragraphs of which I shall quote:
"We have been in negotiations with the Department of Trade and Industry for many months in order to agree a scheme for settling all the claims. After many months of difficult and frustrating negotiations we believe that we have at last made some real progress …
However, we still have to agree how 50,000 claimants are to be medically assessed. The DTI want every miner to be physically examined by a doctor. If this were to happen it would take many years to process all claims. (Our estimate is over eight years.) We

1109
have proposed that assessments can be made much more quickly without physical examinations based on simple lung function tests and GP records. So far the Government have refused to accept this…
We know that this is very frustrating for you".
The letter, which is addressed to my father-in-law, goes on to say:
"Many people are becoming justifiably angry. However, we ask you to direct your frustration to the Government. We are doing everything that can he done to get a just system in place as soon as possible.
Real progress has been made but more is needed. Your continued support is essential to us. To continue to help you may lobby your local MP at every opportunity".
This money is for people who are suffering. If a man has bronchitis and emphysema he has bronchitis and emphysema. One cannot say that it is categorised in one way or another. Such a man is undoubtedly entitled to compensation. The Department of Social Security appears to agree with that and the solicitors who represent NACODS, his trade union, also believe that to be the case. Only the Coal Board says that it must be displayed in two different forms to entitle the person to compensation. As we have heard this evening, many have died. I am afraid that many more will die unless the Government do something about it now.
11.56 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should declare an interest having served for many years in the mining industry. I am still actively involved in the energy sector. We are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, who has for long been a strong advocate for the mining industry and the miners. I do not believe that in all that he has done anything is as important as his work in connection with the whole dread issue of bronchitis and emphysema. I was interested to learn that he had made the suggestion that the previous government should set up a fund to deal with these diseases that everyone recognises as one of the high prices of mining.
In the Starred Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, on 11th May I asked by way of a supplementary whether the pneumoconiosis settlement of 1975 could be used in this case. It was explained to me that it was too late because judgment about liability had already been given and the whole matter would have to be resolved through the courts. How unfortunate it was that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lofthouse, had not been made at that time. If it had, it would have brought much quicker help to the sufferers of this dread disease. I have no doubt that it would also have saved the Government much money. However, we are where we are.
The nature of this disease has been movingly described by all who have participated in this debate. Many personal cases have been mentioned. There is no doubt that the Government are sympathetic. They have set aside money to provide compensation and have accepted liability; they have not fought against it. But if there is one thread that runs through the whole debate it is the concern expressed by all noble Lords about the delays that are now likely to ensue. Despite the progress made with the plaintiffs' solicitors group and the undoubted endeavours of the Government to get
1110
moving, the delays in setting up procedures and putting every claimant through them may mean that in some cases years will elapse before settlement is reached.
I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that this is a matter in which the Government should use their undoubted authority, as their will is already there, to make sure that these payments are made much more quickly than now seems likely. Could they not set in place something similar to the pneumoconiosis scheme, even though, technically speaking, that period has passed? We have heard harrowing tales of the number of mineworkers who are fully entitled to this money but who have died in the meantime. Many more deaths could take place over the next three, four or five years during which these procedures could run. The basic message to the Minister is this: can we not have his assurance that this matter will be speeded up in the interests of humanity and in order to alleviate the suffering of those who have given so much time to the mining industry?
Midnight
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, for raising this issue in the House once again and also for his efforts over the years in another place. It will be no surprise to the Minister that all noble Lords hold the same position on this matter. As described so ably by noble Lords, these miners and their widows do not have the luxury of being able to wait years for compensation. In moral terms it is the victims of this long-running tragedy who are entitled to be compensated and not so much their estates or their advisers.
But worse than that, in a Written Answer it was stated that the DTI has already spent £10 million defending these claims. So noble Lords may be right that only the legal profession is gaining as much as the victims despite the best efforts of the legal profession. The noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, pointed out the record of the previous government. I believe that the difficulty is that the government of the day will want to be confident that all claimants are bona fide. However, that is balanced by the Opposition and Back-Benchers who will always be pushing for prompt and proper compensation, as we are tonight. It is for the Minister of the day to strike the difficult balance and in this case progress the matter with zeal and energy.
The noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, hopes that this Government will not use any "tricks", as he put it, to delay compensation claims. I sincerely hope that he is not disappointed by events. I am sure that the Minister will have taken the precaution of studying Hansard on the last occasion we debated this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was then the Minister. His Answer to my Parliamentary Question referred to the comprehensive spending review. The Minister will therefore not be surprised if I repeat my Question post-CSR. It is this: what financial provision has the DTI or IRISC made for these claims for each year over the next three years? What is the expected total compensation bill, and how many interim payments have already been made?

1111
Many noble Lords have noted that interim payments may be made especially to widows when the death certificate shows emphysema as the cause of death. Unfortunately, if the certificate shows chronic obstructive airways disease interim payments might not be made—a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and many others. Does the Minister accept that COAD will have been entered on many death certificates without the doctor realising what the significance of that would be in the future? Can the Minister say what is the difference between COAD and emphysema; and will interim payments be made to widows if either is entered on the certificate as the cause of death?
As noted by many noble Lords, there are delays centred on the medical assessment procedure. The DTI is proposing a rigorous, costly and slow process, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, in his informative speech. If medically qualified people are to do these apparently very detailed examinations, will not that be a distraction from their core activity of treating patients? Can the Minister now say who is to undertake these tests, and how much capacity is available to do them?
The noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, illustrated the scale of the task when posing his Unstarred Question. How does the Minister view the noble Lord's suggestion to accept the medical decision made previously in respect of industrial disabilities?
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, mentioned the position of the plaintiffs' solicitors group. Does the Minister accept that the PSG has for years accepted and not resisted the single medical assessment process?
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon spoke sympathetically about the problems of disabled miners and their illnesses and the effect on their mobility. Mercifully, I have not met a miner suffering from any of these diseases. If the noble Lord, Lord McNair, would like to go down a pit, I can tell him that Mr. Richard Budge certainly gave me an excellent tour of one of his pits. I think that it was Rossington, but I am not confident of my memory. Not only was it reassuringly dust free, but I was struck by the morale and enthusiasm of his workforce—something that noble Lords opposite will recognise, I am sure.
But how does the Minister justify different arrangements agreed for underground workers and surface workers? Does he agree that many surface jobs were notoriously dusty and dirty, if less, dare I say it, glamorous?
Progress is being made and we are grateful for that. However, it appears to have been as a result of pressure arising from court action, which is a waste of resources, as already noted. We on these Benches believe that a speedy and efficient compensation scheme should be put in place as a matter of urgency in order that those affected can have greater enjoyment of the past few years of their life.
12.6 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, for raising this very
1112
important matter and enabling us to debate it. I join my noble friend Lord Mason in congratulating the noble Lord on his long and forceful campaign on this issue. The length of time that it is taking to resolve this matter is naturally causing a great deal of anguish, anxiety and distress and I welcome the opportunity even at this late hour to explain the action which the Government are taking to deal with it as quickly as possible.
I should like to begin by echoing the concerns raised about the terrible diseases from which many ex-miners are now suffering. For many decades, thousands of men have suffered the most appalling conditions while working underground in the nation's coal mines. They have also braved great dangers in carrying our their tasks and I pay tribute to all of them.
As a result of the sacrifices they made, many miners are now suffering from the combined debilitating effects of emphysema and chronic bronchitis as well as other conditions relating to their employment in Britain's mines. I can perfectly understand their frustration at why it is taking so long to receive their just compensation and I hope that I can assure noble Lords that the Government are doing all they can to resolve this complex matter as quickly as possible. I am acutely aware, as many speakers have said this evening, that every month miners are dying. I understand the situation of people like Cyril Richardson. The noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, spoke movingly of the contribution that miners have made to our society and I share his views. We believe that we have both a moral and a legal duty to deal with these claims fairly and promptly.
Before turning to the specific points that have been raised in the debate, it might be helpful if I set out some of the background and explain what the current position is regarding payment of compensation.
This litigation—which became known as the British Coal respiratory disease litigation—is the longest running personal injury litigation against a single employer ever in the UK. It covered a compendium of lung diseases collectively known as COAD—chronic obstructive airways disease—and principally included chronic bronchitis and emphysema among others. To date, the Government have received over 60,000 claims and are expecting as many as 100,000 in total.
The litigation began as long ago as 1992 and the court judgment was finally handed down in January this year. British Coal was found negligent in failing to protect its employees from the damaging effects of mine dust and fumes and was found liable to compensate employees suffering from these injuries. On 1st January this year, three weeks before the judgment, these liabilities passed from British Coal to the Department of Trade and Industry. It should be noted that the Government accepted liability immediately on the day of judgment. They did not appeal any aspects of the judgment.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that it does not matter how this situation arose. The current situation is a result of the fact that the matter was not tackled firmly earlier.
In taking on these liabilities the Government were left with an extremely difficult task in agreeing with the plaintiffs' solicitors group—the PSG—which negotiates

1113
on behalf of the mass of solicitors representing claimants, the handling arrangements to resolve the mass of claims. As British Coal had expected to win the trial, and had gradually run down its organisation throughout 1997, little work had been put in hand in anticipation of an adverse judgment. In addition, the court's judgment set compensation levels for only six individuals. The Government therefore need to put in place systems to handle as many as 100,000 claims. These claims cover a complex spectrum of injury and cannot be simply settled on the basis of the compensation awarded in the six cases. The judge himself has recognised this and laid down a strict timetable—and I want to emphasise this very strongly—which both parties have to meet to reach agreement and to ensure that the 600-page judgment is taken fully into account. We are due to return to court on 2 I st December to update the judge on progress, but it is hoped that many of the outstanding issues can be resolved before then.
The Government are moving as fast as they can and have recently expanded their resources within the DTI to move forward on all issues. The timetable to reach agreement depends on the plaintiffs' solicitors as well as the Government and we have already moved our position on a number of points to help facilitate that agreement.
Immediately after the court judgment in January we began work on many of these complex issues and this work formed the basis of our proposed handling arrangements which were submitted to the plaintiffs' solicitors early in March. At a court hearing on 27th March the PSG requested a further three-month adjournment to allow discussions to continue. We had no objection to such an adjournment.
Since then we have had, and continue to have, detailed discussions with the claimants' solicitors and every effort is being made to meet that timetable so as not to delay matters.
In recognition of the unwelcome delay we have offered interim payments of £2,000 to over 10,000 claimants who are receiving benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema and widows whose husbands were in receipt of that benefit. Over £20 million has now been paid out. We have also extended that offer to all widows who were bereaved after 1st January 1983, when the statutory award was introduced, and are able to produce a death certificate which shows emphysema as the cause of death together with evidence that he worked underground for British Coal for 20 years. We are also actively looking at ways in which offers of interim payments can be extended to other categories of claimant, possibly on the basis of a simple lung function test and corroboration, through British Coal's records, of significant underground working.
The latest court hearing was on 1st October when good progress was made. Despite their earlier resistance, the plaintiffs' solicitors have now accepted an important element of our proposals on a single medical process which we believe will help to speed up the handling of claims. A single agreed medical makes far better use of scarce medical resources and helps to avoid adversarial negotiation which would further delay settlements.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. Can we be assured that, unlike
1114
the previous government, the present Government will not allow X-ray film in medical examinations; film which was not of a quality to be able to discern whether or not the disease existed?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I take that point. The basis of those procedures is that we shall have a medical test which is conducted by a specialist in lung diseases. In that way, we shall be able to deal properly with all the aspects of that extremely complicated process rather than relying on a single measure.
In addition, we have recently assured the 1,000 claimants who worked for contractors underground on British Coal's premises that their claims will not be held up while British Coal's obligations are sorted out. We have also submitted proposals to the claimants' solicitors to provide full bereavement payments to widows.
A further full hearing was scheduled for Friday, 6th November, but the Government were pleased that their suggestion to adjourn that hearing and instead concentrate their efforts on a further meeting of the two parties was agreed by the claimants' solicitors. That was helpful and I understand that good progress was made to resolve the outstanding issues.
A meeting was held last Wednesday between the respective doctors advising the Government and the plaintiffs' solicitors to thrash out the remaining medical issues. The solicitors agreed also that tendering for certain medical tests can begin soon before final agreement is reached. That will help to reduce any delays after agreement is reached while the Government must follow their procurement procedures to allow competitive tendering.
My noble friend Lord Lofthouse asked about the use of DSS medicals of individuals receiving industrial injuries disablement benefit. DSS medicals exist for individuals who are in receipt of industrial injuries disablement benefit. While the medical confirms that there is a significant loss of lung function, it is not sufficiently detailed to allow an assessment of overall disability on which a full and final offer can be based; nor does it give any indication of an individual's smoking history which is necessary to apply the correct discount against the gross damages.
We must ensure that the full and final settlements that are offered are consistent with the findings of the court and the 600-page judgment. If they are not, there is a danger that some claimants will complain that they have been offered less than they are legally entitled to. That may result in individuals taking their cases back to court. Even if only a small percentage of the 100,000 claimants were to follow that route, we should still be in a very difficult position in trying to manage the further litigation.
Our aim is to avoid further litigation as much as possible, and that means making settlements that are fair to the individual, fair between individuals and in line with the judgment. The DSS medicals do not provide us with that opportunity. It should be noted also that the DSS medicals extend only to some 13,000 claimants, a small percentage of the 100,000 claims we expect in total. As I indicated, earlier receipt of DSS benefits for emphysema is being used as a basis for making interim payments of £2,000.

1115
In answer to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Mason, I shall look at whether any advice can be given to claimants about cowboys seeking improperly to represent claimants. Unfortunately, what some of them are doing is legal, although it may not be morally very attractive.
As regards costs, the High Court awarded costs against British Coal and the level of fees paid to individual solicitors for claims remain a matter for negotiation. I should make it clear that we are prepared to agree only reasonable fees and will not agree a level that results in claimants receiving less than that to which they are legally entitled.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that there is absolutely no question of waiting for miners to die to save money. We all agree that that would be deeply immoral.
I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that under the comprehensive spending review, the potential future liabilities have all been provided for.
I should point out to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that the litigation was specific to England and Wales and the judgment established liability against British Coal in respect of collieries in those countries. However, we have made it quite clear to solicitors representing Scottish miners that any compensation arrangements agreed with the solicitors' group will also be offered to Scottish miners.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that if this problem had been tackled in the same way as the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme it would have been done more quickly. British Coal set up that compensation scheme in 1975 in agreement with the unions on a no-fault liability basis to reach settlement quickly. Unfortunately, we are now in a legal situation and liabilities must be met on that basis.
I will examine the text of this debate in Hansard and if any questions asked by noble Lords have not been addressed, I shall endeavour to write to them shortly. I should like to close the debate by reiterating that the Government are acutely aware of the frustration and concern that it is taking so long to compensate the many ex-miners who are suffering from debilitating diseases. I can assure noble Lords that we are working as quickly as possible to resolve the remaining outstanding issues and looking to mitigate the effects of any delay wherever possible.
I have already mentioned that we are actively looking at ways to extend the accepting of offers of interim payments to other categories of claimant, and I expect further offers to be made shortly. In addition, there are a number of other ways in which the Government have sought to move things along to the benefit of claimants. For example, they have offered to pay general damages in advance of settling claims for special damages. That is an unusual and generous act in group litigation of this size which should mean that injured men receive awards as early as possible. They waive their legitimate legal right to take limitation points where late claims can be rejected for being out of time in all cases of emphysema. They have said that they will not reduce awards where a
1116
claimant has small airways disease, even though they were not found liable. They have accepted the plaintiffs' solicitors methodology for calculating life-time dust exposure and, finally, they have gone out to the market seeking expressions of interest in delivering the complex medical assessment process, whatever its eventual nature, to expedite contract awards once agreement has finally been reached between the two parties.
I hope that the points I have made will help to meet concerns that the Government are not doing enough on this issue. I repeat, good progress has been made in the past few weeks and an end to the delay is in sight. It is now the time for both parties, the Government and the PSG to do all they can to draw the matter to a close and begin paying the miners the compensation awards they so richly deserve.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say that he is absolutely confident that there is the capacity to carry out the medical assessments?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we believe that that can be done. Inevitably it will take a certain amount of time, but we believe that having a one-group scheme which is properly quality controlled under the direction of one person is the right way forward.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does he agree with the figures I have given—that there are only 500 positions at present in the country—and if that is the case, it will be a long time before all those miners can go through the examination period and qualify for compensation. A lot of miners will die. That will not give great encouragement in the coalfields.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sure the House will agree that these matters need to be taken extremely seriously. We cannot afford to have a system which is not agreed; which does not meet the basis of the judgment and which therefore leads to further litigation that will only delay the process even further. We need an agreed basis on the best medical footing and we need to do that as quickly as possible.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am sorry to delay the House but I did not hear the Minister refer to my specific point regarding silicosis. I understand that bronchitis and emphysema are also involved in silicosis. Will miners with silicosis but not pneumoconiosis be treated in the same way?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this case is covered by the judge's judgment. I am not sure of the case to which the noble Lord refers, but I shall certainly write to him on that.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past midnight.