—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

—Took the Oath.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, if the United Kingdom had agreed to the programmes as proposed by the European Space Agency it would have increased our contribution to the agency from £85 million a year to over £200 million a year by 1993. We were not persuaded that the proposals offered sufficient scientific, industrial or commercial return to justify these enormous sums. We have decided not to increase our already substantial investment in space which is running at more than £100 million a year.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer would he not agree that British industry should have more say in formulating and planning Britain's space objectives? Would he consider Her Majesty's Government matching every penny that British industry puts into space?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Of course, British industry should have a considerable say in our considerable investment in the space programme. That is why we have resisted the enormous increases which the European Space Agency has proposed, increasing its budget from £1 billion per year to about £2 billion a year by 1993. Many of these increases were made without consulting industry. We will happily work alongside industry and work with it in looking at our space investment in the future.

My Lords, would my noble friend bear in mind that France is so certain of the industrial future in space that she is currently contributing not £100 million as we are but £800 million? Germany is investing much more than we are; even Italy is doing much more than we are. Can we really afford to opt out? Would it not be better to try to make an agreement with British industry to cut back the over-ambitious programme now put before us but at least to maintain a stake in the future of the European Space Agency?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Of course I am aware of the investment that has been put in by France, Germany and Italy. I am also aware that our economy is proceeding on a very satisfactory basis. One reason is that the Government are prudent with the amount of taxpayers' money which they actually invest.

Since the meeting in Rome in 1985 when all parties decided to formulate a balanced long-term plan for the next decade, the European Space Agency has adopted a new programme, Hermes, aimed at putting a man in space—something which the United States of America achieved in the 1960s. I do not see that it is absolutely necessary that we continue to re-invent the wheel. What we should like to do is to proceed with industry to look at the commerical logic of investment in space.

My Lords, on the assumption that the Prime Minister's efforts in Copenhagen are successful in securing some proper financial discipline within the European Community and that very substantial savings are made both in fraud prevention and detection and in the cutting out of wasteful expenditure, would the noble Lord give an indication as to whether the Government, in those circumstances, might be prepared to give new consideration to this?

My Lords, in the event that we are able to negotiate our way to ensuring that there is no wasteful expenditure within the European Community, we do not propose to reinvest in other expenditure that could by any description be called wasteful. What we shall do is look at prudent expenditure within the European Space Agency. I hope that we shall be able to proceed in a sensible way.

My Lords, how far will this refusal on the part of Her Majesty's Government affect the possible production in this country of the well-known HOTOL aircraft which is capable, apparently, of reaching Australia in an hour or two?

My Lords, HOTOL was not discussed at the meeting of the European Space Agency. We originally provided funding to assist in the proof of concept studies on HOTOL. We must await the results of those studies; the companies and the Government will then see how best to proceed.

My Lords, at a time when our systems of local government, the National Health Service, social security and education are badly in need of repair and maintenance, is this the time to be spending further money on ventures into space? No amount of space technology will remedy ineffective management and sloppy direction.

My Lords, I agree that no amount of space investment is a remedy for any of those ills that afflict us. However, there is sensible and prudent investment in space. Space will yield great benefits, but wasteful investment will not.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognise the value of competent business linguists to firms seeking overseas business. A network of language export centres is being established by the Department of Education and Science and the Manpower Services Commission to ensure that an adequate supply of such people is available.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Answer. I appreciate that perhaps my supplementary is not directly pointed at him. Does he agree that it is possible for students to obtain an A-level pass in a foreign language and still not be able to speak that language fluently? In view of the fact that the whole curricula of education are under review, will it be possible to review the way foreign languages are taught in schools and to reflect that in examinations?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. There is a programme called Foreign Languages at Work developed by the British Overseas Trade Board, which is part of my department, the London Chamber of Commerce and Lloyds Bank. The scheme enables students who do not continue with foreign languages up to A-level to maintain a practical grasp of the language. That, of course, does help. Over 200 schools are currently providing the course. That is one of the reasons why the Government are so keen that there should be a core curriculum.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what proportion of the core curriculum the Government are proposing to devote to modern languages?

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord recognises that that is entirely another question.

My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that Latin is an extremely important basis for learning European languages and that it should be taught in schools to assist students of almost any other language spoken in Europe?

My Lords, since the Question was about language training for the export market, I should be interested to know what part of the export market still speaks Latin.

My Lords, will the noble Lord look at the excellent language training in polytechnics, build on it and see that it is properly financed?

My Lords, I certainly recognise that excellent language training has been done in the polytechnics. I hope that this long continues and that it is extended.

My Lords, has my noble friend seen recent statistics showing that those who, because of their upbringing, have already had to learn two or more languages are very apt to learn still more languages? Is he aware that languages come easily to them? It is upon such young people, especially those who are not good with their hands but who are often good at languages, that we should be concentrating.

My Lords, I have noticed that one of the unfairnesses of life is that those who can learn two languages are often able to learn three, four or even more. Some of us like myself who find difficulty in speaking one language find it impossible to learn two.

My Lords, does not the Minister agree that those big firms who take this problem seriously, as they should, tend to send their people on intensive courses in the country concerned? One can learn more in two months in Germany than during a whole A-level course in any school or polytechnic. Will arrangements be made for firms to consult each other about the best method of training for this purpose?

My Lords, we are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of speaking foreign languages. I doubt whether we can learn some languages in as short a period as a month or two. I know that within Government, where languages have to be mastered, two years are devoted at the outset of a career to learning Chinese, Japanese or other languages. We benefit from the fact that English is becoming the world's foremost commercial language, but that is not an excuse for not mastering others.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the Manpower Services Commission provides training opportunities for both employed and unemployed people, including single parents. For trainees in employment, support is limited to payment of training costs in appropriate cases.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and congratulate him on the success of this scheme. Can he say whether the response has been what was hoped for and are the Government satisfied about the number of women who obtain employment after taking this training?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The scheme only started in September and is being piloted in 10 areas. I think we should see how it continues and recognise that many single parents find it difficult to find work especially when children are very young. We shall see how it works out in practice.

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether any creche facilities can be made available through MSC schemes? My information is that such facilities are not available. Would it not be helpful to single parents, particularly very young women, if such facilities were available?

My Lords, under this scheme arrangements have to be made for single parents to have their children looked after during the period of training. With regard to the provision of creche facilities during normal training, we have to accept that while there is a great demand for training places, we must ensure that those trained are able to take up skilled employment at the end of the courses. But I hope that people will take training courses even if creche facilities are not available, as they cannot always be available in the work place.

My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware—I am sure that he is—that it is possible that people with family responsibilities who go on an MSC training course can be worse off on the training allowances than they were on the accumulation of benefits they had before going on the course; and that that has the effect of making it impossible for some people who wish to take training, and who would be useful when trained, to start or to continue on the courses?

My Lords, that is a problem. One of the difficulties is that many single parents are not eligible for unemployment benefit because in view of their circumstances they obtain other allowances. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, together with the Department of Health and Social Security, will be looking at that matter. It is important of course that as many of those people who are able and willing to work should do so.

My Lords, given the Government's stated intention to assist lone parents to remove themselves from being dependent upon means-tested benefits, can the noble Lord state what further plans the Government have to ensure that lone parents can take part in the whole range of available training facilities?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It is a different question if we are to look at the whole range of schemes. We must ensure that people with the right aptitudes can take part in government training schemes in circumstances which will permit them to take employment afterwards. I am happy to look into her question, to write to her afterwards and to put the reply in the Library.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the modernisation of the ballistic missile early-warning radar at Fylingdales as agreed between ourselves and the US Government conforms fully with US obligations under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

My Lords, am I correct in believing that the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty bans the large phased-array radar system (of which Fylingdales is one example) with five exceptions? Is it the case that the Fylingdales system does not satisfy any one of those five exceptions?

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no locus standi to interpret the ABM Treaty because we are not parties to that treaty. The United States authorities have fully discussed the matter with Her Majesty's Government. We are satisfied on that basis that the proposal to modify is fully in accordance with US obligations.

My Lords, as the Soviet Government have recently permitted American experts to inspect a similar installation at Krasnoyarsk, will the Government suggest to our American friends that they would do well to permit Soviet experts to inspect the similar installation at Fylingdales?

My Lords, what the Soviets choose to do by way of allowing people to look at Krasnoyarsk is a matter for them.

My Lords, indeed. Might we not do well to emulate the Soviet example in that respect? Is it not the case that we had the gravest suspicions, which were enunciated from that Front Bench, about the Russian development, and that we are now apparently satisfied that we were mistaken? Would it not be equally in the general interest of promoting confidence between the powers if we were to do the same?

My Lords, I should have thought that the most important thing would be for us to take care to ensure that our technology is at the forefront of that necessary to defend the West.

My Lords, do I understand correctly that the early warning system which is in operation at Fylingdales is for the benefit of the people of this nation, to help them in the terrible event of a war being declared? Is it right that the whole object is the safety of the people? If it is anything else, does it matter?

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right.

My Lords, the Minister has said that there have been discussions with the United States Government. Is he aware that many United States official experts have said that this new system breaks the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? Is he further aware that when he speaks about modernisation, he is talking about a totally new system, on a new site, with new equipment, which again breaks the ABM Treaty? Will he tell the House why the Government have not published the memorandum of understanding with the United States on the operation of this equipment and whether they intend to do so?

Order, order!

My Lords, the present arrangements are for modernisation. They do not change the character and the nature of the Fylingdales radar. I can arrange for a copy of the United States/United Kingdom agreement on the modernisation of Fylingdales to be made available.

I beg leave to ask the Question, of which I gave private notice to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House this morning. The Question is in the following terms: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on their decision on the merger of British Airways and British Caledonian.

My Lords, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the proposed merger between British Airways plc and British Caledonian plc was published at 0900 hrs this morning. The MMC is to be congratulated on completing its report on this complex issue within three months.

The commission indentified some potential benefits from a merger, notably a strengthening of BA's ability to compete worldwide; financial savings and synergy benefits; and the removal of any risk there may be of the enforced liquidation of the British Caledonian Group.

The MMC also identified a number of possible detriments in the merger as it was originally presented to it. These include a reduction in competition; a powerful market position for the merged airline; a potential threat to charter operators at Gatwick; and the possibility that the merged airline might withhold from competitors maintenance and training facilities currently provided by British Caledonian.

In the course of the MMC's inquiry, and in response to the objections of various parties and anxieties expressed by the commission, BA developed its proposals for the merger. The proposals ultimately put forward to the commission by BA included the following: On licences, BA shall within a month of merger return all B.Cal's licences on domestic routes, including the Channel Islands, and B.Cal's licences to operate 10 European routes; other routes currently operated by B.Cal to be submitted to a review by the CAA. Although BA may reapply to the CAA for reissue of licences, it undertakes not to rely on its rights as incumbent in reapplying or to oppose applications from other airlines for licences on the great majority of routes; for example, all domestic routes, all European routes except those to Italy and perhaps Portugal and all routes to the USA and Canada. BA is to withdraw (in the same timescale) all B.Cal's pending appeals against Air Europe licences on eight European routes.

On slots, BA is to surrender a minimum of 5,000 slots at Gatwick. Slots associated with licences returned and not reissued to BA will be surrendered. The MMC estimated that that could release as many as 20,000 of the 35,000 slots presently operated by B.Cal at Gatwick if none of the licences returned is reissued to BA. On airport services, BA to continue to make these available without discrimination to other airlines currently served by B.Cal.

The commission considered that the possible effect of the merger on competition would be reduced very considerably by these proposals, through the return of licences and slots (nearly 20,000 slots at Gatwick if none of the licences to be returned is eventually reissued to British Airways). The position of the merged airline at Gatwick will be modified considerably, and opportunities for the growth and development of other airlines will be correspondingly increased.

After assessing the balance between advantages and detriments of the merger proposals as finally developed, the commission concluded that the merger may be expected not to operate against the public interest. In the absence of an adverse public interest finding by the commission, there are no powers for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take action on the report.

I have made it clear that, in the event of a successful offer by BA and B.Cal, I expect British Airways proposals to be implemented in full. If at any future time concerns arise about the competitive situation in the airline industry, there are powers available under the competition legislation. The Secretary of State for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority also have powers for the regulation of the civil aviation industry; and if the merger goes ahead the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has undertaken to report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in a year about its implementation on the basis proposed.

The Monopolies and Mergers Commission were asked to report on the specific matter of this proposed merger. The implications of the report for civil aviation and airports policy are matters for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for allowing this Private Notice Question, and to the Secretary of State for the Statement that he has just made. While it is foolish to claim that I have read all 89 pages of the report—which he said was published only at 9 o'clock this morning—is it not correct that the general nature of the report justifies the insistence that this should have been a matter which should have gone to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Am I correct in saying that the 10 conditions laid down are precisely those in the report of the MMC, and that no additional conditions have been put in? Is it not also clear that the Government have no choice but to allow the merger to proceed? Is not the alternative to allow a foreign airline to take over B.Cal? The Chairman of B.Cal has suggested that this might be the case. It may be recalled that I resisted that possibility in the course of our debate on 5th November which dealt with the general question of the proposed merger.

Will not the intended surrender of routes lead to substitutions rather than competition? How will the consumer benefit eventually from the merger? What is the present position with regard to the Government's White Paper on airline competition policy which was published in 1984? Will the Government and the aviation Minister now consider revising their policies and issuing a new document? What assurance can the Secretary of State give other airlines who are in a position to make meaningful bids for the licences which are to be reallocated?

The Secretary of State referred to the possibility of 20,000 slots being available at Gatwick should any of them not be reallocated to BA. But the condition, which I gather has been accepted by BA along with the other nine conditions, is that they will surrender 5,000 slots at Gatwick. Does this not imply that there is an expectation that BA will be successful in any applications that they may make for some of the routes which they are now having to surrender but for which they will be entitled to make application? What action will the Minister take in the event that British Airways break any of the voluntary undertakings given to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? I gather that they are voluntary undertakings.

The Secretary of State referred to the statement by the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority that within a year he will report to the Secretary of State for Transport about the implementation of these proposals. Perhaps I may ask the Secretary of State, if it is not looking too far into the future, what the position will be if the report of the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority should be unfavourable?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I am happy to confirm that the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission showed that my decision to refer the matter in the first place was correct. That is why, having received advice, it was so referred. I am also glad to say that it is only three months and five days since that decision took place, and it is an entry perhaps in the Guinness Book of Records which I hope will be broken in the future.

There were conditions in the report and each and every one of those conditions is contained in the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I hope that they will be honoured by British Airways. Perhaps I may say at the outset that I do not know whether any bid will go through. The position is that British Airways bid for British Caledonian. It is an offer which obviously had to be welcomed by British Caledonian since British Caledonian is a private company and unquoted. That bid was referred, at which point it lapsed.

It is now open to British Airways to make a fresh bid for British Caledonian. If they make a fresh bid then British Airways have volunteered—and I would expect them to do so—to keep the conditions contained in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. If they do not, then it is up to me at that time to consider the position. I cannot decide in advance. It is a matter at which I must look at that time and decide in those circumstances that it could be against the public policy and could engender a full reference to the monopolies commission. A full reference takes a year or two and is a very considerable undertaking. However, I have no reason to believe, if the offer were to go ahead and be satisfactorily concluded, that British Airways would not adhere to it in the full.

The undertakings of British Airways are merely to say that they will surrender the licences within a month, although I expect the services will continue until such time as the CAA determines the position under those licences. The CAA will then invite bids from independents and other bodies. They will consider them—if I can adopt the terminology of the City—with level playing fields. In other words, British Airways will not have any rights as incumbent but will be considered equally with the other independent airlines. It is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority then to determine who will have the new licences.

With regard to slots, British Airways have offered unconditionally to give up 5,000 slots at Gatwick. In the event that they do not get any of these licences back, that number will rise to 20,000. To the extent that they get some back, come what may, British Airways are offering to give up 5,000 slots at Gatwick. I hope very much that this is an offer which will be seen by all parties as a way of allowing this merger to proceed, having regard to competition policy generally.

On airline policy, and the 1984 White Paper, that is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I have little doubt that he will be considering his position in the light of this reference and of what actually happens in the real world should this bid proceed. We should be concerned that there is a real policy of competition in the airline industry. There are many of us who travelled on the shuttle to Scotland some years ago before British Midland decided to operate a competing service. Many of us will remember the remarkable increase in quality of accommodation that occurred after that. Competition is vital to the maintenance of a good economy. I hope that the furtherance of this bid, and the rigid adoption of its conditions, will ensure that we have a competitive airline industry in this country.

My Lords, I regret that we had to have this information by means of a Private Notice Question. In my ignorance, I thought that as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was a Member of your Lordships' House we would have benefited to the extent that he would have made a Statement in that capacity to the House.

If I may go on from there, I shall be brief. I want to make only four points, and the noble Lord has referred to one of them. I regret that there are no powers for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take action on the report in the absence of an adverse public interest finding by the commission. I know what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said about the legislation available but I think that most of us would wish that he—

Question!

I am on a question. I am on my first point. I think we should have preferred for the noble Lord, Lord Young, as a Minister, to have had that right. Secondly, I had hoped—

Order. This is a Private Notice Question.

I can make my four points, each in the form of a question if that will satisfy the Chief Whip. Is the Minister aware that I had hoped that the Government would announce a fresh review of airline policy and the structure of the industry with a view to avoiding anti-competitive consequences possibly arising from the British Airways/British Caledonian link-up? This was not for the commission to recommend, but it was for the Government. I think we should have had much more confidence in it if the Government had felt able to do that.

Thirdly, is the Minister aware that I should now like to move on to the position of charter airlines? Is he aware that for many years I have been saying to the House that my fear is that the charter industry will be driven out of Gatwick, particularly as there is no second runway? Is he also aware that this fear has now been recognised? The question I should like to ask concerning the notice issued today is: can the noble Lord comment on the attitude of British Airways, which says that it will merge the charter activities of British Air Tours with the relatively small charter activities operated by B.Cal under the B.Cal name? Does the Minister feel that there is no chance of the new merged airline in its very strong position having an unfair advantage over the charter airlines already at Gatwick?

Is the Minister aware that there is a wide fear that the position at Gatwick may become a monopoly? Would he not agree that one of the reasons why British Airways offered such a very large sum of money for the assets of British Caledonian was, first, for the routes, and, secondly, for the facilities that it enjoys at Gatwick? I am wondering whether Gatwick will now become a monoply for the new merged airline.

In conclusion, British Airways has put forward proposals to mitigate the fears of concealing a monopoly, and apparently the Government and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have accepted these. I ask the Minister whether he realises that I should have been much happier had there been a review of the airline industry and the policies of the Government in this connection.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. I make one point on whether or not a Statement should have been made to your Lordships' House. There are some 300 to 400 considerations to be made by the Office of Fair Trading of situations that could possibly involve a reference to the MMC each year. There are some 10 to 13—that is, I think, the greatest number—of references each year. This matter is market sensitive. It has long been a convention that on such matters announcements are made before the market opens. I hope that all in your Lordships' House will agree that it would be a matter of some difficulty were such a decision to be announced during the course of trading.

The copy of the Monopolies and Mergers report has been available in the Library since nine o'clock this morning; so there has been a considerable period of time for those wishing to study the actual results. Now I have the opportunity of making a Statement in your Lordships' House this afternoon. Although, during Question Time today, I have dealt with a variety of subjects, I fear I cannot cover a review of airline policy. That is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I have little doubt that he will he looking at the position and considering whether a review should, or should not, take place.

I am aware that there are fears about charter traffic at Gatwick. That is one of the matters which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission considered. The commission's view was that the proposals made did not operate against public interests. I am bound by that. It has looked at the matter in considerable detail and since it has said that the entire subject will not operate against the public interest, I fear that I have no powers to alter that decision, even if I disagreed with it. If that is not in some cases considered to be the correct position, then it is the responsibility of those who pass the legislation, for that indeed is the statutory position at the present time.

Finally, concern has been expressed about the slots at Gatwick. It is possible that the 33,500 slots that British Caledonian has at the moment at Gatwick could be reduced either to 13,500 or, at the very worst case, if it got all the licences back, some 28,000. I am told that there are 155,000 slots available at Gatwick Airport; so I do not think that is a monopoly position in itself.

My Lords, if the merger goes through, can my noble friend tell your Lordships what percentage of the total scheduled service mileage of this country will be operated by the new merged company? In that context, is he aware of the very serious alarm at present in the minds of those who operate the smaller scheduled airlines as to the effect of this merger upon them? Can he give them any indication of the Government's policy which will give them some reassurance?

My Lords, I cannot answer as to what percentage of, say, domestic flights would be covered by the new merged company in the event that this merger were to go through. That depends very much upon the result of the reapplication to the CAA for licences for all parties concerned—

I did ask for the maximum, my Lords.

My Lords, the maximum is the percentage shown in the report which in some cases goes up to 80 per cent. and even higher on individual lines. It is a matter which the Civil Aviation Authority will take into account. What is important is that we have competition and that, I hope, is a matter of which it is fully seized, as will be my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

My Lords, I recognise the difficulties in dealing with a very difficult problem. Can my noble friend give an assurance that the facilities enjoyed at both Heathrow and Gatwick by the smaller airlines will not be prejudiced in any way whatever?

My Lords, I am grateful, but I cannot give such an assurance. What I can say is that in accordance with the terms of the MMC report, British Airways will continue with the same facilities that are presently offered by British Caledonian to independent and other airlines without any detriment. I have little doubt that British Airways will follow that through. If it does not, I shall have to consider the situation again.

My Lords, while the unions are generally in favour of this merger, there must be some concern about employment prospects. Can the noble Lord say what effect the merger will have on employment in British Caledonian and other companies and whether there is likely to be any significant redundancy? Secondly, can the noble Lord give an assurance that when the domestic routes of British Caledonian are reallocated there will still be genuine competition on each domestic route?

Yes, my Lords. As to employment, it is difficult if not impossible at this time to foresee the impact, for we do not yet know whether British Airways will proceed to make an offer. In the event it does go through and in the event that there are ultimately job losses within British Caledonian, I suspect there will be equal job gains within the independent airlines. For, at the end of the day, the same number of routes will undoubtedly be flown and more or less the same number of people will be employed. However, that may well be at different locations. As far as I can tell, what we are seeing here is a determination by the CAA as to who should operate the individual routes.

I cannot imagine that the CAA would not wish to see competition within these routes and I have little doubt that it will endeavour to ensure that competition still prevails. But it may well be that some of these routes are not profitable or could well be flown by British Caledonian for its own purposes; for example, to serve as feeder lines for international flights. It may well be that only British Airways will seek to continue to fly those routes in the future because they may well be loss lines for other independents. That is part of the review the Civil Aviation Authority will be undertaking in the months to come. I have little doubt that all in your Lordships' House will be keeping a close eye on the outcome.

My Lords, can my noble friend shed light on the European dimension to this? Is it the case that if the merger goes through it would be open to the European Commission to refer it to the European Court and that in theory at least the European Court could require the merger to be unscrambled? Has there been any indication of the view of the European Commission in this context?

My Lords, what the European Commission decides to do is a matter solely for it, but it is aware of the terms of the merger. It is aware that British Airways will be surrendering British Caledonian's licences to all its European routes. My suspicion is that it will be content with that but it is a matter for the Commission and the Commission only to decide.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his last reply is rather disturbing? He has not been able to deny that the Commission could have power to interfere with something which I thought was a 100 per cent. domestic concern of this country. Is he in a position to clear the misapprehension that I at any rate had from his last answer?

My Lords, I suspect that air flights between here and European countries are not just a 100 per cent. domestic concern of this country but a matter for the European Commission. The Commission could well take a view on it. Most international airline policy is often conducted on a multilateral basis.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Kindersley and Lord Selkirk. As is the custom in short debates, the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debates. In the case of the noble Lord's debate all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of eight minutes and in that of the noble Earl to 12½ minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, it would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate.

rose to call attention to recent developments in the field of complementary medicine and its relationship to conventional treatment; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his luck in the ballot and for introducing this important debate today in such an interesting way. I must begin by declaring an interest, in that I am the Honorary President of the Natural Medicine Society, although I hasten to add that I do not speak on their behalf today but on my own.

When I began to think about this debate I was struck by a peculiar circumstance, and this was to some extent echoed in the speech of the noble Lord. Today, alternative, or complementary, medicine is regarded by some people as a minority interest. Some even regard it as a hobby for cranks, an interest pursued by strange people who wear woolly hats and green wellies and who fortify themselves with non-alcoholic punch made up of carrot juice and herbs. Those noble Lords who know me will know that I like a glass of scotch and a cigar with the best.

At the best people take the view, which seems to be that of the Department of Health and Social Security, that alternative medicine is a fringe movement of recent vintage. This is in fact an historical distortion. In the medical sense the Johnny-come-lately on the scene is so-called conventional medicine. Natural medicines have existed for thousands of years since long before there were surgeons or members of the BMA, and they were in use long before the aspirin was invented.

Indeed, over the centuries man learned that if nature provides a problem it very often, if you look hard enough, provides a solution also. The simplest one we all learned in our childhood: if you get stung by a stinging nettle, you find a dock leaf. Over the centuries mankind did in fact build up an enormous amount of knowledge about nature and natural cures, and this exists in the culture of civilised man.

All that has been pushed aside. Since the emergence of what I call the "Aspirin Age" we have turned our backs on the fund of natural culture and natural medicine and all its wisdom, and we have relegated it to the back burner. People with vested interests and others have declared that it is old fashioned, out of date, not useful and that all we need to do is ignore it.

The great drug explosion of the past 40 or 50 years has turned medicine on its head. For every illness and every sickness, science, backed by the giant drug companies and entrenched medical interests, seeks to find a magic silver bullet: "Give us an illness and we will find a drug". That is the answer that the medical profession gives.

No one, least of all myself, would dispute the benefit that some drugs have brought to mankind, or dispute the incredible advances and achievements made by modern surgery. However, it is time to ask ourselves whether we are placing too much reliance on drugs. Have we not become a drug-orientated society? Is it not too easy to dispense drugs instead of looking for a cure?

I am not exaggerating. With the hundreds of millions of pounds that are spent on the National Health Service and the millions of pounds that drug companies have spent on drugs, we might be permitted to think ourselves a healthier nation than we were some time ago. Consider these facts. In this country one in two adults takes a synthetic drug every day; 75 per cent. of all visits to general practitioners end with the prescription of a synthetic drug; 15 million adults take synthetic drugs on a regular basis. Does that suggest a healthier nation? All those figures were taken from official or scientific reports.

There would be no cause for concern if the unprecedented growth in the use of drugs had led us to become healthy, but in many areas the indications are that our health is worse and not better. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys reported that in the period 1972 to 1980 the incidence of chronic illness in this country rose from 20 per cent. to 29 per cent. in males and from 21 per cent. to 32 per cent. in females. At any one time almost one-third of the nation has a long-standing illness. We also know that the incidents of lung cancer and heart disease are rising, not falling.

Are we not therefore entitled to ask ourselves whether we are spending the money in the right way? Are we right in relegating to the background natural medicines, homoeopathic medicines and the holistic approach to medicines? Is there perhaps not some vested interest that is eager to keep them there, such as the big drug companies?

In the speech today I do not have time to enter into the history of the drug explosion but I should like to make two points in passing. We all know that drugs are a profitable business. For 15 years the profits of the drug industry have far outranked those of other big industries. An amount worth £25 of a drug called diazepam will be stamped into pills, packaged and sold for 140 times more than it cost. That is an enormous mark-up which any industrialist would envy. That drug is called Valium and the nation is stunned by Valium at this time. To promote Valium the manufacturers spent over £100 million in 10 years. That will give the House some idea of the penetration it has achieved in this country.

I shall not criticise doctors, but overworked doctors, when they have a queue in their surgery, find it far easier to prescribe a synthetic drug than to treat the patient in depth. If the patient has a headache, the doctor gives him a pill; he does not ask why the patient has a headache and what has caused it. He does not investigate the circumstances largely because he does not have the time or the interest. It is simpler to prescribe a Mogadon than to spend time discovering, "What causes your sleeplessness, my dear?". Doctors cannot do that and the result is that in this country millions of sleeping pills are being taken every day.

As regards drugs, doctors have only to look at the literature issued by the drug companies. Most of them know no more than the information given to them by the drug companies. We are in a dangerous situation. I am not saying that holistic medicine, alternative medicine or contemporary medicine has all the answers. I am saying that with the crisis in our health, with the enormous development in the use of drugs, we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and we have turned our back on holistic and alternative medicine.

What is more, we find a strange hostility from the bigwigs of the medical profession and a strange hostility from the DHSS. The Department of Health and Social Security insists that all drugs must be tested. That is quite right and we do not disagree with that in view of what has happened as regards certain drugs issued by major drug manufacturers. However, it is also insisting that certain natural medicines should also be tested in the same way, though that is impossible. First, they have been tested for 100 years on human beings with no ill effects; they are perfectly natural products. Secondly, the natural medicines industry does not have the resources to put them through the kind of test upon which the department insists. We find it difficult to persuade the DHSS to take a different course. It has appointed one person to the committee but we think that there should be a whole committee advising the DHSS on alternative medicines. The department will not accept that view. I am not saying that the department is entirely unsympathetic but we have had great difficulty.

To reject alternative medicines is the same as saying that we should no longer read Dickens because we have Graham Greene, or that we should no longer use the railways because we have motorways. It is there, it is important, it is a weapon and it can be used in a complementary sense. What is needed is a recognition by the medical profession and the Government that they do not have all the answers. They should come to the Natural Medicines Society, and to the various organisations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, and obtain advice and help. Two things would arise from that. First, one would cut the National Health bill; secondly, one would make a happier and healthier nation.

My Lords, I speak to your Lordships today under the handicap of the tail-end of a particularly nasty cold. I mention that fact for three reasons: first, as evidence of the total inability of my profession of medicine to deal effectively with certain ailments; secondly, to show that doctors are just as delighted to discuss their own ailments as anybody else; and thirdly, so that noble Lords will understand if I do not achieve the degree of audibility that I should wish. I say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that I have not taken a single tablet. I agree with him that the nation has become too dependent on remedies and particularly on a tablet as being a talisman to cure disease or to ward it off. Perhaps my own profession has been responsible for reinforcing that kind of dependence on remedies.

Tragically, when in general practice, I found that it took perhaps only 30 seconds to give a patient a bottle of inert medicine. It may have taken 20 minutes to explain to patients that they would get better with the expenditure of nothing more costly than time. I am afraid that we often prescribe unnecessarily and I speak as one who prescribes for many noble Lords (I see one of them looking at me now) and for honourable Members in another place. The degree of dependence on remedies is excessive. It is right that we should discuss the subject; it is one of immense importance.

I have had the honour of speaking in your Lordships' House for nearly 12 years. During that time we have, I believe, debated this or a closely related subject on six occasions. The first occasion was early in 1976—a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who will speak later. I have spoken on the six occasions. My beliefs are just the same. It is a pity that our Standing Orders do not allow me to say, "See House of Lords' Hansard, column such and such, on such and such a date" and then sit down. The point is that I merely intend to say what I have said before. However, as far as I can, I shall try to summarise and recapitulate the basic issues that face us.

The noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, is entirely right. These problems have been with us for years. We have wrestled with them for far too long and it is high time that some of them were resolved. They are not yet resolved. But the noble Lord has told us of some of the steps being taken within alternative and complementary medicine groups outside the medical profession. Some of the developments will, I hope, assist toward a solution before long.

We have to look at the basic fact that there are two separate issues with which we should be deeply concerned. First, we have a duty to make as certain as possible that methods of treatment which are proved to be efficacious and not dangerous become generally available, particularly remedies and forms of treatment which come from sources outside the medical establishment. We have a duty to remove barriers. If some form of treatment is helpful, it should be available, and it is our duty to ensure that it is available not only in private practice but also in the National Health Service.

Our second duty is to protect the very vulnerable sections of our community; namely, the chronically sick and those suffering from incurable ailments. They must be protected from exploitation, even from fraud. In that connection I must make absolutely clear, as I have done before in this House, that there is no statute giving doctors a monopoly on practising medicine.

It is true that there is an Act concerning dentistry, which makes it a criminal offence for anyone who is not a registered and properly qualified dental practitioner to perform any dental operations within a patient's mouth. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, will confirm that. Similarly, another Act has provisions with regard to eyes, although that monopoly has recently been weakened with regard to optometry. However, there is no medical Act which confers a monopoly on doctors. Any person—any of your Lordships—may practise medicine and treat various conditions tomorrow.

So far as I am aware, there are only two statutes in relation to practising medicine. One was passed at the beginning of this century and makes it an offence for an unregistered and unqualified practitioner to treat pulmonary tuberculosis. There is now hardly any incidence of that disease, but the offence remains. Another Act, promulgated during the war, makes it an offence for unregistered and unqualified people to treat venereal disease. Apart from those two statutes, there is nothing to say that anybody may not practise medicine.

Of course, one cannot pretend fraudulently to be a registered or qualified medical practitioner when that is not the case, but anyone can practise medicine. There are certain handicaps—for example, such a person cannot issue prescriptions, National Health Service certificates of one kind or another, or death certificates, and he may find himself in grave difficulties if someone under his care dies. However, it must be remembered that there is no statute which gives doctors a monopoly on the practice of medicine. It is important to remember that fact.

There are no statutes to restrict the practice of various unorthodox forms of medicine. If one asks the question, "What is an osteopath?" the answer is that it is anybody who chooses to call himself an osteopath. Anyone can say, "I am an osteopath" and practise osteopathy. However, as the noble Lord in his introductory speech made clear, it is a fact that an increasing number of people who practise osteopathy are people who have had satisfactory and proper training and have passed a series of examinations which prove that they possess the necessary degree of skill and knowledge. They are members of organisations which prescribe standards of professional and ethical conduct. The osteopaths are becoming organised.

It is important that we have some kind of control over who can do what. I do not want to exceed the time allotted to me today, but I should like to tell the House about something that happened to me years ago when I was a medical student. A collier who worked at the coalface in Wrexham had a very serious accident and received a big lump sum payment in compensation. With that money he bought a shop and set up in business as a herbalist. After he had been there one year, a fire broke out in the shop. It was a perfectly genuine fire; it was not a case of arson.

I talked with the adjuster who dealt with his claim and a loss of profits claim was settled at the rate of £800 a week. A collier would never have earned £800 a week in the 1930s. One may ask what training he had received, and the answer would be none. I am not asserting that he did anything wrong. Perhaps the remedies he was selling were perfectly proper, but I feel there is a need to ensure that the public is protected.

Therefore we have a duty to remove the impediments which stand in the way of making available forms of acceptable treatment. Osteopathy achieves results that my profession does not achieve. Acupuncture achieves results that, frankly, I cannot understand; nevertheless, it achieves them.

The noble Lord's Motion is concerned with recent developments, one of which is that an increasing number of qualified, registered medical practitioners are taking up such forms of treatment, and they practise them themselves. There are many medically qualified osteopaths and acupuncturists. However, I fear that the people who practise those disciplines, and perhaps practise them very efficiently, are not playing a great part in making it possible for their non-registered, non-medically qualified colleagues to enter into practice. In a sense, some of them are seeking to reinforce what to them is a closed shop. It is a trend that must be examined.

It is necessary, if we are to accept into the medical profession those forms of treatment and the people who practise them—and I am not talking merely about the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act, which set up a council to look after physiotherapists, chiropodists and so on—that there should be separate bodies to oversee each area so that the public can be sure that there exist standards of skill and training and that such people are operating within certain disciplines and codes of professional practice and ethics. When that is achieved we shall be in a position to move much further ahead. They have already done so in New Zealand, as the noble Lord will tell us.

As a doctor, I welcome the increased understanding of the fact that there are people outside the medical profession who have skills that are not necessarily possessed by my own profession. I hope that somehow or other Parliament will take the necessary steps to ensure that some of those skills are made available not just privately but through the National Health Service. Other things, in addition to this debate, will have to take place before that can happen.

My Lords, let me start with the following words:

"If anything is certain in this uncertain world it is that complementary therapists are here to stay—and without doubt their use will continue to expand as the months and years go by".

That was spoken by Dr. Tonkin, President of the Research Council for Complementary Medicine, when he read a paper to the Sixth Colloquium on Conventional Medicine and Complementary Therapies on 19th March 1986. Dr. Tonkin wisely balanced that optimistic statement of faith with the cautionary observation that there was an increasing number of publications purporting to provide guidance and advice on "improvement of health" and "the curing of illness" by people who were highly skilled in the art of presentation but short on the science of verification.

Because of the brief time that is allowed to me in this sort of debate, I should like first to confine my observations to the therapy of homoeopathy and then to make some more general remarks about recent developments in complementary medicine generally. Homoeopathy is the medical practice of treating like with like; that is to say, it treats an illness with a substance in extreme dilution that produces in a healthy person similar symptoms when taken in large doses. Current traditional medical opinion is that symptoms are caused by the illness—for example, the influenza virus produces headaches, aching limbs et cetera. Homoeopathy by contrast views the symptoms as the body's reaction against the illness as it attempts to overcome it.

The major disparity between homoeopathy and attitudes of conventional treatment is that homoeopathy concentrates on treating the whole patient rather than the disease and practitioners of homoeopathy believe that people vary in their response to illness according to their individual basic temperament. Accordingly, different medicines will probably be prescribed for different individuals suffering from the same illness.

The relationship between homoeopathy and conventional medicine was investigated by the BMA as part of an overall study of complementary medicine lasting three years, instigated, as we heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, in 1983 as a result of a challenge by its president, Prince Charles, a member of a family that has followed homoeopathic practices for six generations. The BMA reported on 12th May 1986, exactly 18 months ago tomorrow.

A body which in a judicial sense might well be considered by origins, practice and teaching to be hardly standing on the Olympian summit of independence, the BMA reported that there was no proof that many alternative therapies are effective and that some risk harming patients. It approved a limited role for acupuncture, manipulation and hypnotherapy, but argued that the results of homoeopathy are due to a placebo effect, where the patient's belief in the treatment rather than any pharmacological effect leads to the patient feeling better.

I think it was encouraging that, in its conclusions about homoeopathy, the BMA conceded, albeit through gritted teeth, that the patient felt better. I think that by subsuming this within a failure of those treatments—which is what it obviously meant to project—it seems rather to have thrown out the baby with the bath water. If I go to a doctor of whatever sort feeling ill and I am made to feel better, that is what I want. That the medicine prescribed has no observable effect on, say, the pulse or blood pressure of 1,000 randomly selected rats does not matter to me very much, quite frankly.

For the record, doctors from the faculty of homoeopathy at the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital reacted by saying that the report, "masquerades as a scientific document", and is deplorable. The British Holistic Medical Association said that the report was, "incomplete, faulty and biased". It said further that no discussion on treatment, as we have already heard, can exclude mention of the self-healing potential present in all human beings or a description of diet, exercise, relaxation, medication, counselling, psychotherapy and human support in the process of recovery, factors that I personally think crucial, especially counselling and human support.

In this context it is revealing that two doctors reported in The Lancet of 7th September 1985 that,

"the consultations of complementary practitioners are, at 36 minutes, six times longer than those of general practitioners".

Furthermore, The Lancet of 17th October 1986 gave the closest demonstration to a scientific proof of homoeopathic medicine with the results of a trial involving 144 people who suffered from hay fever and were treated at clinics of the Glasgow and London homoeopathic hospitals and by 26 National Health Service family doctors. The purpose was to examine assertions that the beneficial effects of homoeopathic treatment were induced by suggestion or a case of mind over matter rather than by the action of the microdose of the medicine prescribed. Patients were given either a homoeopathic preparation of mixed grass pollens or a placebo. The improvement of those given subtoxic levels of the pollen mixture was effected in their reduced need for their normal antihistamine therapy to alleviate their hay fever—a promising experiment, I think.

I turn to complementary medicine generally. Observations across Western Europe show that there is a clear and quantifiable trend towards greater reliance on non-conventional medicine. A survey in the Netherlands in 1980 published by the Netherlands Institute of Preventive Medicine questioned 3,782 adults and showed that 6.9 per cent. had consulted complementary medical practitioners in the previous year, giving a national figure of 6 million consultations in a not over-large country. A survey conducted in 1983 and reported in the British Medical Journal showed that of general practitioner trainees 76 per cent. wished to learn one or more skills such as hypnotherapy, acupuncture or homoeopathy.

In a study on complementary medicine and the general practitioner two doctors, one a general practitioner, reported on responses of 145 randomly selected general practitioners in the Avon area, about which we have heard a little, in the BMJ of 7th June 1986. Overall general practitioners knew little about the techniques of complementary medicine. Despite this 110–76 per cent.—had referred patients for this type of treatment over the past year to medically qualified colleagues; and 104–72 per cent.—had referred patients to non-medically qualified practitioners. We must remember that it is only a decade since the General Medical Council rescinded a ban of referral of patients to non-medical practitioners. In parenthesis most—93 per cent.—of those who responded believed that complementary practitioners needed statutory regulation and only 3 per cent. thought that they should be banned. The BMJ article's abstract ends as follows:

"The results of the study show a surprisingly high interest in complementary medicine among general practitioners in the Avon area".

Indeed, this interest on the part of general practitioners to become more involved with complementary medicine is one of the most marked recent developments in the relationship of complementary medicine to conventional treatment. In the study in The Lancet which I mentioned earlier, the highest levels of complementary consultation found were in Oxford, Cambridge and Exeter, which are well served medically. Other reports have established that complementary medicine does not thrive in regions where conventional medicine is poorly represented.

The disorders for which patients see complementary practitioners do not exactly overlap those for which they see conventional practitioners. The former tend to be chronic, mild and musculoskeletal and stress related rather than infectious. One-third of the complementary medical patients were seeking simultaneous help from doctors—38 per cent. in the Dutch survey. Thus the role of traditional medicine is truly complementary to rather than conflicting with conventional medicine, with each system finding its separate region of competence.

Finally, in summary, I believe that, if based on an acknowledgement of this separation of regions of competence, a decision by a person who is ill to consult a complementary medical practitioner can only make sense and that the fields of complementary and conventional treatment can, should and will draw even closer together.

My Lords, some of you will be aware that I find the subject of our debate totally fascinating; so, before I start to compress my 30-minute speech into eight minutes, I must declare an interest in that as a dental surgeon I use some of the complementary natural therapies, and I am also chairman of the Natural Medicine Society.

Like my noble friend Lord Kindersley, I think it is appropriate for us to acknowledge the efforts that the Prince of Wales has made to try to establish a dialogue between complementary practitioners and those in conventional medicine. I know that his presence at some of the meetings of the recent series of colloquia at the Royal Society of Medicine devoted to this problem which I and my noble friend attended was very much appreciated.

As clinicians we all agree that the patient comes first and our role is to define the best and most appropriate treatment for any individual, taking into account his physical illness along with its social, emotional and spiritual components. Health is always in the news. Hardly a day goes by without some reference to the subject.

The Government must be congratulated for the recent announcement of yet more funds to be made available. I suppose that this is because we are continually told by doctors and politicians alike that the solution to the problem is more cash—money to build more hospitals, to buy more equipment and to pay more staff. As ever, this implies the long-standing myth that if only medicine had all the resources it wanted all our health problems would be solved; as it happens, nothing could be further from the truth.

An examination of the relative merits of professional and lay health care by the World Health Organisation found that modern medicine appeared to have contributed little to the overall decline and mortality. It concluded that that seemed to be a negative correlation between provision of medical services and health. It was always assumed once the backlog of demand for health services had been worked through that, with the massive benefits of free treatment and free advice on prevention linked with free immunisation procedures, fewer people would become ill. I should be interested to know—and perhaps the Minister can tell me—his views on why that has not happened. Why has there not been a considerable improvement in the nation's health despite the massive increase in spending in the NHS year by year? Rather than spending more time and money on measures designed to promote good health, it seems that we opted instead for the most inefficient route both in terms of finance and of health.

For the most part the NHS simply waits for people to fall ill before taking any action. Very little time is allocated to prevention. Having reached the stage of receiving the sick patient, the NHS in the form of its doctors applies increasingly expensive and technical means to deal with the illness ignoring the cheaper and safer alternatives, partly because doctors are not trained in those but mainly because the use of safer, cheaper alternatives would threaten the profitability of the drug companies.

It seems to me that conventional medicine has failed to promote good health and thus minimise the use of its medical services and has failed to incorporate cheaper, safer and often more beneficial alternative therapies in medicines. If my noble friend the Minister tells me when he replies that the NHS has always had an extensive programme of health education and preventive medicine, I would have to remind him that the proportion of the NHS budget devoted to those areas is only a tiny fraction of the total, and that preventive medicine as referred to by successive governments is really only a synonym for screening techniques. Those techniques are a form of early diagnosis, not prevention. Many of those aspects of screening and the other mainstay of preventive medicine, immunisation, are I believe very suspect.

One recent US study has shown that over half the people who died from cancer and heart attacks had been declared fit at their most recent annual medical checkup and that the treatments available after detection had proved to be largely ineffective. Here comes the point of our debate this afternoon for it is in the critique of conventional therapeutics that the movement for positive health and alternative medicine finds its justification.

As the myth of the effectiveness of modern medicine gives way to a growing awareness of the limits of the practice of conventional medical techniques more and more people are taking the decision to seek safer and, in many cases, more effective ways of coping with illness.

It seems reasonable in a democratic society to allow a minority to choose to opt out of the orthodox medical system but there are signs that even this basic freedom is being eroded. There is a feeling that the health establishment is seeking to discourage competition in the form of alternative medicines and practitioners in Britain by restricting the authority to assess medicines to orthodox qualified doctors and scientists, and in Europe generally by legislation limiting the practice of medicine in all its forms to those with orthodox qualifications.

My noble friend will be aware of the substantial increase in the work involved with the administration of the Medicines Act and of the consequential setting up of a commission led by Dr. Evans and Mr. Cunliffe who were looking at the problems faced by the DHSS in reviewing and running a licensed medicine system.

Those of us who are involved in complementary medicine are extremely concerned that the advisers to the department are predominantly experts in orthodox medicine. It seems sensible to me that the assessment of natural and herbal medicines and the vast range of homoepathic remedies should be carried out by experts who are familiar with their use and practical application.

Perhaps the Minister could tell us why it is that despite the fact that there is a provision for a special advisory committee on alternative medicines under the Medicines Act 1971 and that many other countries have such a committee, the DHSS continues to obstruct any contribution by such experts. I can assure the Minister that experts in the use and application of these alternative medicines are ready and willing to help with the problem of assessment and licensing.

The Natural Medicine Society has already formed a scientific committee which has prepared itself to supply the specialist input should the DHSS be persuaded that it is suitably qualified and expert.

In conclusion, I have said very little about recent developments. I am sorry that there is not a copy of the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine in our Library so that your Lordships could read of the daily advances that take place. In my personal experience in the field of acupuncture with the Society of Biophysical Medicine I can report on the continued success in the treatment of heroin and tranquilliser addiction without the use of any drugs. I can also report on the new success in the treatment and management of patients with AIDS.

I ask my noble friend and other noble Lords to carefully examine the fact that the widespread use of antibiotics, steroids, major tranquillisers, antidepressants and other powerful chemicals will ultimately destroy our health. There has never been a more critical period for human health which will be enhanced by a closer relationship with those dedicated practitioners in the complementary therapies.

My Lords, I am very tempted to go down the path of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and have a discussion with him about preventive medicine and the persistence of much ill-health in our society today, but I shall have to reserve that to a discussion with the noble Lord afterwards because I have so little time at my disposal to talk about complementary medicine.

I thought that it might be interesting for the House to hear the views of another practising conventional physician. I am conventional in professional terms but not in other ways! I like the term "complementary" because it assumes co-operation rather than separation or confrontation with science-based medicine. In my practice, I often refer patients to complementary therapists. Usually I choose osteopaths but sometimes I choose an Alexander teacher. Those are the two approaches that I feel are nearest in their bases to the anatomical and physiological concepts which I believe to be a reality. But I am often asked to comment on a variety of other disciplines such as homoeopathy, acupuncture and some of the more exotic such as cranial osteopathy or even aromatherapy.

There are many patients who consult both GPs and specialists with apparently physical symptoms but with very little to find in the way of demonstrable physical abnormalities, even after exhaustive investigations.

Here I shall diverge a little to consider the nature of pain, the symptom which brings most patients to seek our help. Although pain is triggered by the stimulation of pain sensitive nerve endings, what we actually experience is an unpleasant emotion which tends to make us cry out or swear, as the case may be. Very similar sensations can be caused by emotional distress without the nerve endings being stimulated. Many people feel emotional pain as if it were bodily pain. The existence of emotional pain per se is often denied. It is easier to blame it on a disordered organ or system. Such people comprise a substantial proportion of those attending GPs surgeries or outpatient departments and even occupying beds in hospital where their often obscure pains are being investigated.

Such patients do not find it easy either to accept a psycho-therapeutic approach. It is much more acceptable to have a displaced vertebra than to admit to a chronically unhappy marriage or a childhood deprived of affection. Many of these unhappy people find their way to one of the complementary therapies where they find a sympathetic ear and someone who can give them half an hour to one hour of their undivided attention, specifically directed to their symptom. A good therapist will ask a patient all about his life's concerns and usually uses a treatment involving touch or massage. The therapeutic component is much neglected by doctors and especially by psychiatrists. It is therefore not surprising that many people feel better. They may never have had enough holding and undivided attention in their lives, even as babies or children.

However, there are dangers, especially if patients go directly to complementary therapists. People are very easily led by plausible practitioners who promise relief from symptoms. I have two examples from my own experience where things went very wrong. One concerned a young woman who was an insulin-dependent diabetic. She was persuaded by a naturopath to give up her insulin injections and try natural remedies. She ended up in the ward where I was a duty house physician with a severe diabetic ketosis which had a fatal outcome.

In another case a woman, who was a friend rather than a patient, was in her fifties and had carcinoma of the breast. She was persuaded to try a form of natural treatment involving a bizarre vegan diet with vegetable juice and coffee enemas. She had a painful death without the benefit of modern chemotherapy such as tamoxifen, the anti-oestrogen treatment, which helps many patients with breast cancer.

I therefore support all moves by the many therapies to draw up approved training programmes, as has been suggested by many speakers. I also agree with many speakers that the attitude of the BMA in its report, which does not necessarily represent the attitude of many of its members, is likely to exacerbate the division. That will increase the dangers of the type which I have mentioned in my two anecdotes. The Royal College of General Practitioners is a good deal more tolerant. We recognise complementary practitioners as potential allies rather than enemies. I very much welcome the establishment of the Research Council in Complementary Medicine, founded largely through the efforts of Dr. Richard Tonkin, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge.

As regards research, I believe that each complementary therapy must agree to conduct some form of randomised control trial. That is the established scientific method for assessing treatments and there is no reason why it should not be adapted in such a way that it can be applied to complementary medicine. That is the best way of assessing whether the therapy is such as to make a good case for inclusion or an increased role in the National Health Service.

It is not enough to point only to successes. It is necessary to look at everyone who is being treated. Failures must be examined as well, and there are failures. It is necessary to compare the outcome of using those methods with the outcome of using other methods and with the outcome of those who receive no treatment at all. As other speakers have pointed out, the human body and mind have remarkable powers of repair and recovery. It has been said that complementary therapies work mainly by providing a good environment in which those natural powers of repair can operate.

My Lords, the question of how much or how little we need of the many things we consume in our diet is closely related to complementary medicine in that it is not something which can only be prescribed by a doctor and does not need expensive drugs.

A case in point, which I have studied in some detail, is zinc. Zinc is needed by the body for many purposes. Professor Bryce Smith is a professor of organic chemistry at Reading University. He is not a medical doctor. He has, in co-operation with a medical doctor, investigated the effects of zinc on anorexia nervosa. Compulsive fasting is an important disease which is normally treated by psychiatrists. It usually takes some time to cure. Professor Bryce Smith is convinced that in many cases additional zinc is beneficial. He has naturally tried to interest doctors engaged in treating the disease. Their response can briefly and accurately be described as dismissive. I have also written to various people who might be interested and have had very much the same response.

My noble friend Lady Trumpington, when she was at the DHSS, told me that treatment is a matter for the doctor concerned and that the DHSS does not undertake to have any views. Of course doctors can read the medical literature and contribute to it. But it is extremely voluminous and it is difficult for the individual doctor to keep up to date. I know that many suggested treatments are put forward, some for unworthy motives. However, I think that this particular case is a strong one. A professor of organic chemistry cannot easily be dismissed as a crank. Furthermore, the suggested dose is well below the toxic level.

In speaking of Professor Bryce Smith, perhaps I may mention that he has done much detailed work on the possible toxicity of metals for which we have no known need. I think we can probably say that by now we know of all the elements which we actually need. However, we probably do not know all the uses they have. He has found that pregnant women in particular have too much lead and cadmium, which seems to have an undesirable effect on their babies.

The Natural Medicine Society, of which the first speaker is the president, has, in a recent booklet called The Health Crisis, described investigations regarding schoolchildren in New York as long ago as 1934. I do not know why there is nothing more recent. However, doctors looking at a block of children were asked whether or not the children should have their tonsils removed. On the whole, about half the children were classified as needing to have that organ removed. However, if the children who were regarded as not requiring treatment were then examined by another independent group of doctors, once again half the children were recommended to have their tonsils out. That investigation progressed through two stages, until the investigators ran out of independent doctors to examine the children.

There are dangers in finding fault with doctors. It may reduce the confidence that patients feel in them and that in turn may have an important effect on the cure. On the other hand, the Government who spend the taxpayers' money on the NHS, have a responsibility to look at the matters which I have mentioned.

As regards a way forward, I think that what might be called orthodox scientific investigations of complementary medicines, which the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, has mentioned, are the proper way to proceed. I hope that the Government will feel able to give them all the support they can.

My Lords, I feel that today I am undergoing the experience which my pupils used to have in class when they were required to summarise a lengthy passage into something that occupied only two paragraphs. I have prepared a speech which must now be compressed, without any notice, into about a quarter of the time. I therefore have an enhanced respect for the medical profession7—for which I had great respect already—when I reflect that one of the problems that faces doctors is lack of time.

One of the things we seek when we consult a doctor is the time to tell him our troubles without feeling that we are keeping someone waiting and that the clock is being watched. I think that if we are at all critical of conventional medicine and of the profession, this is very often the reason, when the doctors themselves are the first to say,. "We would like to be able to give you what we want and what we know you need—time—but we are unable to do so because of pressure of work."

So many of us, probably as a result of the environmental and psychological pressures of the modern world, suffer from chronic conditions which cannot be cured by surgery and which can only be alleviated by drugs. These are conditions ranging from arthritis to insomnia. In such circumstances what we need is to be listened to by a sympathetic ear and the benefits that that gives us. We also desperately need the hope of a cure. We do not want to be told that we have got to learn to live with our condition. These are two of the things which alternative therapies can very often give us—namely, time and at least the hope of a betterment of our condition.

More generally and fundamentally, I think we reject the traditional mechanist, reductionist approach of conventional medicine. We have a visceral reaction against the concept that we are nothing more than highly complex machines needing perhaps a little chemical adjustment here or excision with a knife there.

How can I express it? We know that we are not mere machines and we deeply resent the attempt of science to downgrade us to that status. I think of the experience of an acquaintance who bared his soul to a psychiatrist for an hour. He turned to the doctor for an oracular reply and received this answer: "Well, I have listened very carefully to all that you have told me and what I have to say is that you should take two of these little white pills at night and one of these big blue ones in the morning. Come back and see me in a month if you are no better. Good morning."

This is perhaps an exaggeration and perhaps it happens much less now than it did. We all know that we live in a world which is increasingly dominated by science and one where everything must be provable and testable. Medicine is a scientific discipline, so everything has to be provable and testable. I know that here I may be exposing myself to attack, but I must say that in some deep sense the flight to alternative therapies is a humanistic rejection of this exclusively scientific domination, a sort of reassertion of metaphysical forces and an affirmation of our spiritual essence.

My own experience has been largely with acupuncture, from which I have derived, and seen others derive, enormous benefit and by no means only in the relief of pain, as suggested in the BMA report already referred to by several of your Lordships. I have seen it used to perform the function of a kind of tonic and to confer a general sense of well-being. I have seen the increased energy and alertness which it has induced in others. It is my belief that this effect is connected with what Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homoeopathy, called "the vital force", the mysterious element of physical, psychological and spiritual energy which the Chinese have always referred to as "Ch'i". The nature of this is about to be scientifically investigated by Dr. Julian Kenyon of the Centre for the Study of Complementary Medicine, together with a team of researchers.

I should like just to mention another therapy of which I have considerable experience. I think its exponents would deny that it should be classified as medicine of any sort, complementary or otherwise. It is a bodily skill to be learned, and those who learn it are not patients but pupils. I am referring to the Alexander Technique, which has already been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Rea.

Your Lordships may know of the little man from Tasmania, an aspiring actor and reciter, who, in the process of investigating the failure of his own vocal powers, discovered by accident the existence of a dynamic relationship between head, neck and torso which, owing to stress and anxiety, has been largely lost by civilised man although it is still observable in children.

By laying guiding hands on others he was able to teach them how to regain poise and co-ordination, with enormous benefit to themselves in combating pain and tension and in achieving ease and grace of movement. It is much used by actors. It is also effective in counteracting the downward pull of gravity in age.

Unfortunately the virtues of this teaching are not recognised by the Establishment, so it is only obtainable at a price. I should like to see it taught to all growing children so that they learn to write without crouching over their desks and to improve the posture of many stooping and slumped adolescents.

I have just touched upon two areas of complementary medicine of which I happen to have first-hand experience. They are two out of many which unfortunately the profession looks at askance and the National Health Service will not use.

I was going to tell your Lordships what we should do about this situation but this has already been done much more ably that I could have achieved by, among others, my noble friend Lord Winstanley and the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, who gave us an admirable survey of all that is already being done. We can but hope that this progress will continue to be made.

My Lords, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Kindersley for initiating this most interesting debate. I am also most grateful to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for bringing alternative medicine out of the shadows where it has been for far too long.

Although I may have been observed carrying a lighted pumpkin into your Lordships' House about the time of Hallowe'en, I can assure your Lordships that I am not a witch. I did it rather to deter any witches who might have thought of parking their broomsticks at the Peers' entrance.

In the medical world, as in many other fields, there are so many new things being discovered. The horizons of knowledge are being so constantly expanded that what today may be considered as magic or an old wives' tale tomorrow will be taken for granted.

Flying has become commonplace; television communications across the world by means of a space satellite, continuous. Men have landed on the moon. Innoculation and immunisation have stamped out many of the old diseases and, with better diet, living conditions and medical care, people are living longer.

And yet—and yet, there is a basic urge among people to get back to their roots, to touch living animals and to grow living things; to eat brown bread and eggs that have been laid by hens scratching about in old orchards. In fact, a desire to go back to the cave. A turning away from orthodox medicine towards alternative therapies often fulfils this need.

In the old days a doctor had time to talk at length to his patients. Practitioners would be able to listen to the complaints. The bedside manner, the healing art of listening, is very often an important part of the cure. Now there is often no time. There are too many patients; some doctors have banded together into group practices so there is not always the close personal relationship between doctor and patient. Even worse, some doctors simply do not have more than five minutes to give to each patient. In five minutes there is not very much one can do. One can check the obvious things and if there is nothing chronically wrong one can give a pill and send the patient away. The practitioners of alternative medicine have often more time to give to their patients.

When alternative medicine is spoken of what exactly is meant? In the Board of Science working party report of the BMA which has been mentioned there are about 100 different types of alternative therapy, including astrology, Hellerwork, Rosicrucian healing, pyramid healing and thermal mud. Without wishing to waste your Lordships' time with a long speech, I should like to touch on some of the better known and more impressive alternative therapies, many of which I have found to be effective.

The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, has already said—better than I could—all that I intended to say about homoeopathy. However, I always carry arnica pills in my handbag for shock or bruising and have often found them most useful. Once we found two people who had just fallen off a motorbike but who were not injured. After some arnica pills and tea they were perfectly able to get on again and ride down the road. Another time the pills proved most effective when a lady was bitten by her own dog.

In the area of placebos, this summer my whippet had her leg nearly severed. It was stitched up twice and saved by the local vet but he said that normal skin would not be likely to grow again. With homoeopathic hypercal cream and lotion the skin is now pretty well perfect and some of the hair has grown.

Acupuncture, first mentioned in the Yellow Emperor's Classic or Internal Medicine, about 100 BC, is a Chinese science of healing by piercing the skin at various points to increase the harmonious balance in the body between the forces of Yin and Yang. It is much used in Chinese hospitals today and there are many practising acupuncturists here, as we have heard.

I shall not go through manipulative therapy, osteopathy and chiropractic, because that has all been said. Healing, or the laying on of hands, has been practised since early times. Many doctors and nurses have this power and it comes also to many priests and some lay people. Quite simply, it is the power of God working through the hands of the healer. The healer is simply a conductor without whom nothing would happen, but it is through him that the power comes. Anyone who has been ill will know that some nurses have this power, and merely the touch of their hands makes one feel better.

Major Bruce Macmanaway, who has been practising and teaching as a healer internationally for over 20 years, has healed and taught healing to many people at his Westbank Centre in Fife, which he founded in 1959. Indeed, he cured my husband of severe migraine headaches from which he suffered as a result of a war injury.

There are also herbalism and radionics, but I dare not go into those because I shall run out of time. However, I should like to say that the President of the Royal College of Physicians in Scotland, Dr. Michael Oliver, says he believes that there is a place for alternative medicine. As the Royal Colleges, through the General Medical Council, are responsible for setting the standards of medicine, which are precise and internationally recognised, he also feels that standards of some kind relevant to each of the various alternative sciences should be set so that people can practise them. That would protect the practitioners, the public and the patients.

There are many other sources of alternative therapy, some more efficacious than others. I believe that most people now accept the idea that for real health the mind, the body and the spirit all must be made whole.

We are all like the Venerable Bede's sparrow flying across a lighted room from darkness into darkness. While we are there in the light, let us keep our feathers unruffled and our wings unbroken, and those of the other sparrows flying through with us, so that we can enjoy the light of this world, as do the robins who sing every Christmas on the Christmas tree at home.

My Lords, it is difficult in a debate such as this to give our contributions the appearance of debating when there is such a wide measure of agreement between all who have spoken—agreement on the need for co-operation between the orthodox and the unorthodox.

I should like to develop two points in particular: the reference by noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, to the importance of proper training and that of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, to the public duty to see that effective treatments are sufficiently available. I take as my theme training and the career structure in the field of homoeopathy. The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, gave a great deal of information about homoeopathy, a very long established practice going back nearly 200 years. It is recognised within the National Health Service. There are fine hospitals and practitioners available all over the country.

The Faculty of Homoeopathy, established by statute in 1950, prescribes the very elaborate training recommended for homoeopathic specialists, a training built on three years' ordinary medical training before registration, three more years of ordinary medical training and then, on top of that, four years, I believe, of specialist training in homoeopathic practice, clinical practice and research. That is very long and effective training.

Does the medical establishment take any cognisance, give any blessing to this training in the field of homoeopathy? I regret to say that it does nothing of the kind. Within the medical establishment the arm responsible for training is the Joint Committee for Higher Medical Training set up by those great bodies, the Royal colleges. That joint committee has so far refused to associate itself with this very elaborate and sound general training recommended by the Faculty of Homoeopathy.

Does that matter? I have no desire to try to push people off their reserves, or even prejudices, if they have no practical ill effects. However, I regret to say that the failure of the joint committee in this direction has serious negative effects as a disincentive to the growing number of bright young doctors who are deeply interested in homoeopathy and who would like to add this to their own specialty. They have to embark, if they are going to acquire this specialty, on the additional seven years, or whatever it is, on top of their training for registration. It is somewhat of a gamble for them to embark on that when they cannot be sure of receiving recognised status within their profession at the end of the day.

I ask that a clear message go from this House to the Joint Committee for Higher Medical Training to ask it to reconsider its arrangements in relation to homoeopathic training. One step which would go a long way towards solving the problem—the gap in co-operation—would be if the joint committee were to appoint a qualified and experienced homoeopathic consultant to work as a full member or to be co-opted for ad hoc purposes. If that step can be taken, it will lead to measures that will remove the disincentive to bright young doctors wishing to acquire this specialty. That, in turn, will lead to an increased supply of doctors within the National Health Service to cater for the growing demand and to provide a better service for the public to the great benefit of the nation's health.

My Lords, many of your Lordships know of my interest in osteopathy as I have been chairman of the Osteopathic Educational Foundation for many years. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kindersley for setting the scene and thus providing me with an opportunity to give an account of recent developments in the osteopathic profession since our last debate on this subject in 1985.

During that debate, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, the then Minister, referred to the steps that a profession should take before full recognition could be bestowed upon it. He rightly pointed out that it is up to the profession concerned to decide whether it should be complementary, supplementary or alternative. I wish to say that osteopaths decided a long time ago that they are complementary to medicine, and the profession has worked successfully alongside orthodox medicine for many years. That view was supported by the BMA report, referred to by my noble friend Lord Kindersley, which emphasised the debt owed to osteopathy by demonstrating the value of palpation in the examination of the spine and the use of techniques using the minimum of force to relieve pain.

The first point made by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur related to the efficacy of a therapy in the treatment of specific conditions. The scope of osteopathy is, of course, well defined and involves the science of bio-mechanics. A recent research project conducted by the Genesis Osteopathic Foundation showed that of 1,110 consecutive new patients consulting 238 osteopaths, 95 per cent. had attended for spinal or extremity joint pain. That should be viewed in conjunction with the Which report of October last year, to which my noble friend also referred.

The Consumers' Association found that osteopathy was, by far, the most widely used form of complementary medicine, accounting for 42 per cent. of all complementary medical consultations. Eighty per cent. of patients attending an osteopath or chiropractor had done so because they were suffering from back pain, and over 80 per cent. of all patients claimed that their condition had been cured or improved by manipulative treatment. That is a high percentage.

The second point that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur made was that a profession must be shown to have reached maturity and to have an established and recognised governing body. In the case of osteopathy, the first School of Osteopathy was established in 1917. Your Lordships' House debated a Bill on the regulation and registration of osteopathy as long ago as 1935. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and while it eventually fell, the then Minister for Health recommended that a voluntary register of osteopaths be established.

As a result of that recommendation, the General Council and Register of Osteopaths was established and currently has a membership of almot 1,000 practitioners. There are other professional and postgraduate osteopathic associations with some 320 additional members.

I am delighted to say that there is now a general consensus within the osteopathic profession to work together and to attempt to achieve statutory registration. A welcome development is that the postgraduate education programme of the British School of Osteopathy is now to be open to graduates of the other osteopathic schools. I am also pleased to know that closer links are being formed between the osteopathic and chiropractic professions, as they see the statutory registration of their professions as a common goal. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Ferrier says about chiropractic.

In that debate, the Minister also pointed out that a therapy must be based on a systematic body of knowledge, compatible with the acknowledged basis of contemporary medical practice. The BMA report has shown that to be the case for osteopathy, and there is clearly an organised, reputable and coherent body of knowledge underlining osteopathic practice. The BMA underlines that point by stating:

"The registered lay practitioner may be regarded as providing a generally safe and helpful service".

The working relationship of a therapy to orthodox medicine was also referred to by the Minister. Your Lordships may be interested to learn that nearly 10 per cent. of the 1,110 new patients in the survey that I have mentioned were referred to an osteopath by their general practitioner. An appropriate code of practice is obviously vital for the protection of patients, and members of the major osteopathic bodies are all governed by a set code of ethics.

The Minister's final point was that a profession must have recognised courses of training with adequate examinations. Training is clearly the key to the future registration of osteopaths. I have mentioned before that the first osteopathic school, the British School of Osteopathy, was founded in 1917. It is now proud to have Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal as its patron. There are however other schools of osteopathy which offer a serious and worthwhile training, but it is vital that all osteopathic practitioners are aware of their limits of competence and are trained to distinguish between mechanical disorders and serious pathology. That is particularly important, as the Genesis survey has shown that over one-third of all new patients attending osteopaths did so without first having consulted a registered medical practitioner.

My noble friend Lord Kindersley drew attention to the educational initiative of an external assessment of all osteopathic training schools to be undertaken by the British Accreditation Council. My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox is the principal sponsor for that exercise and will shortly be providing your Lordships with more information about that most welcome development. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur rightly accepted that it is the Government's duty to protect the public from harmful medical products. Clearly, statutory registration of osteopaths would be a sound consumer protection measure. Any proposals put to Parliament by osteopaths must be soundly based on criteria which would safeguard the public's interest.

I submit that it is also the Government's responsibility to support and encourage action that will ensure the early establishment of a statutory register of osteopaths. All the criteria necessary for registration have now been fulfilled. It remains only for osteopaths to agree upon an accepted standard of training on which legislation can be based. Parliament will then be in a position to grant osteopathy the legal status it deserves.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for initiating this debate. It is reassuring to hear of plans to undertake an independent assessment of the various provisions for osteopathic education in Great Britain. This development has been referred to by my noble friends Lord Cullen and Lord Kindersley. Those osteopaths who have given and are giving so much help to people in pain and in dire trouble should no longer be denied the status of full-blown professionals. At the same time the public deserve protection from anyone whose qualifications may not meet the required level. This assessment is to be conducted by the British Accreditation Council for further and higher independent education, known as BAC for short.

Set up with the assistance of the Department of Education and Science, BAC was established to monitor, inspect and improve independent institutions of further education and is therefore uniquely qualified to make a totally independent assessment of osteopathic training. The assessment will be offered to all schools who provide a training course in osteopathy. As funds have been made available to cover the considerable cost of the assessment, no school will be prevented from participating through lack of finance. The hope is that all schools will become involved since the BAC is in a position to give help and advice to individual institutions on the educational content of their courses.

The team of BAC's inspectors will include former HMIs, senior educationists, and a doctor who is currently head of the department of a London teaching hospital and who has considerable experience in medical education. A professor and doctor of osteopathic education from the Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine will provide an independent osteopathic opinion. I believe that I am not alone in this House in thinking that the inclusion of medical representation and an external osteopathic view are essential if this exercise is to be fully credible.

The BAC will furnish all these requirements. Clearly, it seems the right body to undertake this task. It is very encouraging to know that the Consumers' Association has nominated a representative to act as observer to the BAC team thus making sure that the interests of the public are properly represented. The aim of the inspection is to assess the scope and efficiency of all osteopathic education. The inspection team will discuss with the faculty of schools what it considers to be the appropriate standards for osteopathic training. By this process of consultation the BAC will then be able to make recommendations on what should constitute a minimum standard of osteopathic training to ensure the safe and efficient treatment of patients. I believe that the BAC inspection is a crucial step forward. It will enable sound proposals for the statutory registrations of osteopaths to be presented to Parliament.

My Lords, we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord who introduced this short debate. I do not mind confessing that I have laid aside all the notes that I had made as so much of what I had written has been said. I believe that I can make the best possible contribution to the debate by first turning to the debt which the world owes the medical profession. We are inclined to pour scorn on the pill wallahs and so on. In one of my incarnations I was chairman of a pharmaceutical company. It was only then that I found out the dedication of the medical profession to whom civilisation owes so much.

I now turn to this debate. It is in two parts: the recent developments in the field of complementary medicine and its relationships to conventional treatment. Instead of referring to my notes I should like to go back over my medical history. I was an orphan and was brought up by an uncle who was a very eminent physiologist. I was in the army when the 'flu epidemic broke out in 1917. I wrote to my uncle for advice. He wrote back on a postcard—which unfortunately I have lost; it had a halfpenny stamp on it—saying, "The medical profession knows nothing about what they call influenza. Alcohol is a preventive and possibly quinine." I applied myself to his advice and as a matter of fact I did not get 'flu.

A little later, I found myself in the tropics. As a working man I had to go abroad on a job and was struck down by malignant malaria. I was sent home, really I think to die, when I was 23. I was mended by quinine, which is of course a drug, a product of cinnamon bark. I took a lot of it. When I was 26 years old and home on leave, I told an eminent tropical medicine man that I had taken 6,000 grains of quinine in one calendar year. He said, "Good God man, if you can survive that you can survive anything." Fortunately it had knocked the malaria out of me.

However, those days are gone. We have had great advances in drugs dealing with malaria. We therefore come to the present developments in the field of complementary medicine. That leads me to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friend Lord Cullen said. I have promoted the question of chiropractors for many years. Fourteen years ago I raised the question of X-rays. The position with regard to X-rays has advanced enormously. A chiropractor will not normally address himself to a diagnosis unless the patient has been X-rayed. That is a great advance. I remember the days when a noble Lord in this Chamber asked what a chiropractor was. Since other people have asked the same question, my definition is that chiropractics is a method of healing which relies upon the removal of nerve interference by manual adjustment of the spinal column.

My noble friend and the noble Baroness who has just spoken mentioned the importance of osteopathy. That is "a system of healing consisting largely of massage and manipulation". These two methods go hand in hand. Great progress has been made since the last debate on this subject. I think that was in 1976. It was the date that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, indicated.

I do not know whether noble Lords are aware of this fact. A couple of months ago the British Chiropractic Association organised an international conference on chiropractic in London which was attended by over 600 delegates from all over the world. I am not a chiropractor, but I am a happy and contented patient because I kept knocking myself about falling off horses. I owe a tremendous debt, not only to the 6,000 grains of quinine, but to the hours of care from chiropractors who have put my back straight, off and on, for a number of years. The conference was fascinating. I attended the opening ceremony and there met chiropractors, men and women, from all over the world—the US, Australia, New Zealand, Greece; they were all there—and we talked of the progress which had been made in treatment.

The noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Cullen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, have urged the importance of training. The chiropractors foresaw that. They established an Anglo-European college in Bournemouth under the guidance of an eminent doctor of chiropractic who is a Dane. The college is making a tremendous contribution to the health of the nation. When we first talked about this, people asked, "Where are the chiropractors? There are none." That was quite right. But now there is a good number. The college produces each year 30 or 40 fully trained graduates who have undertaken an arduous four-year course. There are more practitioners available than ever before.

I shall go on waffling because I have a very nice and efficient GP who looks after me. My revered uncle, sending me out to India, said, "Fear God and keep your bowels open". Similarly, when I said to my doctor the other day, "Look here, when I get up quickly, I get frightfully giddy. Can you give me a pill for it?" he said "No. Don't get up quickly".

These are important factors in addressing ourselves to this fascinating debate. But the number of speakers involved and the wisdom which we have had uncovered indicates that we ought to have a longer debate on the subject if the powers-that-be think we should. We have not talked about diseases such as diabetes; we have not talked about Pasteur, the plagues, cholera and all sorts of tropical diseases which I have been in contact with in India. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord who introduced this debate. I hope that the time will come when, by putting down a Motion, the powers-that-be will give us the opportunity of having a more extended debate on this interesting subject.

My Lords, I want to follow the delightful speech, almost life story, of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and his last words in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, not only on the quality of his presentation but on the timing of the debate. I want to put it in the context of the role of the Secretary of State and the task that he now has before him. Before saying that, however, I must say that in the few years I have been here I have never ceased to be amazed by the breadth of experience contained in your Lordships' House, and that has come before us today. I feel deeply grateful.

The new Secretary of State, Mr. John Moore, has indicated that he will take a new look at the National Health Service. Obviously he has some serious financial problems to deal with. Right across the country there are hospital closures, specialist units are threatened with closure and hospital waiting lists continue to grow. I shall not go into those issues today. I hope that when the Secretary of State begins to have his new look at the National Health Service or the nation's health he will not just concentrate on the structure of the National Health Service and the problems of the funding of it. My hope is that he will, first, read today's debate in your Lordships' House and will take a much broader look at how this very unhealthy nation, spending such a low proportion of its gross domestic product on health, can be made more healthy.

Such a broad inquiry would look not only at the crucial role of natural medicine, as has been mentioned with absolute unanimity in the Chamber today, but at the whole field of health improvement rather than disease management, which has basically been the role of the National Health Service in its first 40 years. I hope he will look with far greater concentration at improving the nation's diet, increasing exercise, perhaps not getting up so quickly, decreasing smoking, excessive drinking and the problems of how we deal with chronic illness within the community. I hope that it will be a very broad sweep look in which essentially natural medicines or alternative medicines will play their part.

The Secretary of State has to do this in the light of the fact that there is a significant fall in confidence in the National Health Service. An opinion poll was published very recently which showed a significant fall.

I do not think the National Health Service is underfunded. In my view there is a growing body of opinion which believes that orthodox medicine has some serious shortcomings. I believe that those noble Lords who are general practitioners will accept this. I suspect that as time proceeds it will come to be recognised that current medical training fits its graduates for dealing with emergency interventions and what I call mechanical repair, but is a poor foundation for health promotion and that great range of disorders in which mind, body and environment so obviously inter-react.

If one considers what I call doctor-induced diseases we have a real problem before us. I saw a recent survey which showed that one person in 10 who enters hospital as an in-patient picks up an illness that he did not have before he went in. Some two out of five people receiving clinical drugs have side-effects and in many cases those side-effects are much more serious than the condition for which they were being treated. Obviously deaths by prescribed drugs are not easy to estimate, but the likely figure in this country according to responsible estimates is in the region of 15,000 a year; that is, rather more than twice as many as the number killed on the roads of our country.

It is not my intention to run down the medical profession. I have the greatest respect for it. Indeed I have much respect for the British Medical Association and the Royal Colleges. But in the past they have been extremely cautious. I am thinking especially of the BMA, in so far as it is representative of the medical profession; it certainly is not entirely representative of the medical profession in your Lordships' House, as we well know. The BMA has been very cautious, conservative and very protective of its own interests especially when it comes to complementary medicine. I suppose that I can make a similar criticism of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. One must recognise that people are inclined to defend their professions and their livelihoods. There is nothing surprising about that.

There has been a lot of criticism, starting with that from the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, of the BMA's report of the Board of Science working party on alternative therapy. That shows just how entrenched the medical profession is. I should like to have quoted from the report but I cannot do so because at the bottom of every single page it says:

"Not to be published in any form".

It is rather like the Government's attitude to Spycatcher. If a report is produced which says, "Not to be published in any form", I cannot say anything about it. But it reflects a certain attitude of the profession in terms of explaining itself to the public.

There are encouraging signs. The noble Lords, Lord Kindersley and Lord Broadbridge, referred to the study published in the British Medical Journal by Dr. Richard Wharton and Dr. George Lewith. I shall not go into the report because the noble Lords have quoted from it but shall quote one sentence which I thought was extremely encouraging. A questionnaire was sent to 200 general practitioners in Avon, of whom 145 responded. The report says that,

"(59%) thought that the complementary techniques being assessed were useful to their patients: (76%) had referred patients for this type of treatment over the past year to medically qualified colleagues and (72%) had referred patients to non-medically qualified practitioners".

That show a striking difference of attitude between general practitioners and those who are hospital based.

It is my view that attitudes are changing both among the public and the medical profession. I believe that in the next few years we shall see a substantial increase in the take-up, if I may call it that, of complementary medicine. Reference has been made by a number of noble Lords to registration. It is of extreme importance. The DHSS has a responsibility to protect the health of the nation and equally the professions have a responsibility to ensure the quality of those who practise in their name. As regards registration, whether it is for osteopaths or other complementary therapists—whether in acupuncture, homoeopathy or herbal medicine—the principle is the same. Progress is being made in this area as well.

Reference was made to a Which? report—it is not the same witch referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange—which stated that 64 per cent. of the people who had consulted complementary practitioners went to osteopaths or chiropractors, that more than 80 per cent. of them had sought help because of back pain and that nearly 90 per cent. reported that their condition had been either cured or improved by treatment. That is a record of success which any more traditional medical practitioner would call high.

The BMA report stated that the registered lay practitioner provides a safe and helpful service. Since the publication of the Which? report the BMA has become more conciliatory, stating that there is evidence that a great many people may get benefit from alternative medicine. The changing attitude of the BMA owes something to the initiative and enthusiasm shown not only by his Royal Highness Prince Charles but also by other members of the Royal Family. There is no better way for the British nation to gain a lead than from the actual behaviour of the Royal Family. In this respect they have made a great contribution.

Britain is the only major English-speaking country in the Western world where there is no statutory registration for osteopaths and chiropractors. The point has been emphasised and it must now be carried into practice. The principle that lay behind the Bill that was published in 1986 is one that ought to be carried into practice and I hope that the Government will decide so to do. It is clear that the old idea of one umbrella organisation for all complementary therapies is seen to be unworkable. I understand that the DHSS now favours the statutory registration of osteopaths and does not see that this would bar any other complementary medicine groups from taking similar steps in the future. It has made it clear that any proposals for registration must be firmly based on criteria that safeguard the public interest, and rightly so.

The Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine is undergoing a restructuring and is establishing more of a college structure. It is wise to do so. It is now generally accepted that in complementary medicine each profession is evolving at a different rate according to its own experience and needs and the availability of practitioners. Osteopaths have now reached a stage in their development when statutory registration is the next logical step to be undertaken.

In conclusion, I should like to restate the World Health Organisation's definition of health as,

"a state of complete physical, mental and social well being".

I urge the Secretary of State in taking his new look at our health service to see it holistically, not just in terms of disease management, important though that is, but to see health in the broader context of the ills of our society; environmental stress caused by overcrowding, inadequate housing, pollution, declining welfare services both in rural areas and in inner cities, high noise levels, unemployment and increasing poverty for significant groups in our society. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, there is much saving to be made in cash and caring by avoiding the belief that there is a pill for every ill and by mobilising all the skills of those who want to promote good health as opposed to curing disease.

The 40th anniversary of the National Health Service would be a good moment for the Secretary of State and those who work with him—the Minister himself and your Lordships—to stand back and have a look at the health of the nation to see whether the National Health Service for which we have worked in our different ways for more than 40 years is the right structure for dealing with the problems of the next 40 years. In doing this the Secretary of State must be able to carry with him the support of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and I hope that they too will read the report of your Lordships' debate.

My Lords, every speaker in this debate is united in welcoming the good fortune of my noble friend Lord Kindersley in winning the ballot and so initiating this wide-ranging debate today. It is of boundless interest to people at all levels of society. I would tell my noble friend Lady Strange that in preparation for this debate I have read of no fewer than 160 therapies and variations of them, stretching, if that is the word, from absent healing, at one end—just because it is the first "a" and for no other reason—to yoga. It is hardly surprising then that the subject of my noble friend's speech is one which attracts what I can only describe as passion; now, I would accept after many years, more for than against.

We have heard about the need to protect the public, and one great step in this direction would be to reduce the obvious confusion there is both in this House and among the public at large about the terms we use. We bandy the terms "alternative", "complementary", "fringe", "natural", "supplementary" and even "unorthodox". I do not intend to open a semantic debate but these many terms used by the public and practitioners alike show me that there is a lack of real cohesion outside the conventional treatment world. I shall define my terms and, with your permission, my Lords, will take my noble friend's lead and refer for ease to natural therapies to embrace all such concepts, including medicines. Again I do so with no significance intended.

The need to protect the public goes far beyond the need to define terms. As I said in your Lordships' House the other day, people should be educated to believe that their health is the most precious thing they have. That is why, for example, we have set up the Health Education Authority, and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health is giving the matter a very high profile indeed. I can tell my noble friend Lord Colwyn that we can, and will, do more.

The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, knows perfectly well that health care is more than just encouraging people to do or eat healthy things. Just like the doctors whom the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned, the Government have a duty to try to protect the public from having a condition worsened and, at the extreme, from poisoning themselves. This duty was of course exercised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, himself. Protecting the public is what the National Health Service sets out to do.

One of the ways we do this is by means of the Medicines Act. This covers all medicines, including homoeopathic medicines. There are some 6,000 of these on the market approved by what is known as a "grandfather clause". That is to say that they were on the market before that Act came into force. Action against these is to be considered only on the grounds of risk to users. We have not had to consider rejecting an application to place a homoeopathic medicine on the market since the Medicines Act came into force, so the difficulty about efficacy has so far been theoretical. That is why we have not, up to now, felt the need to have natural therapists on the licensing authority, which, by law, has to be expert but not necessarily representative.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that we have to have testing to protect the public. The noble Lord accepted that principle as applying to natural medicine. That principle of testing must be pursued regardless of the cost to individual manufacturers.

The roles and scope of the various professional groups which work in the health service are clearly understood by the public and professionals alike. That understanding does not stem from a lack of complexity within those professions—far from it—but from standards which we all recognise and understand and to which all practitioners adhere. In spite of the 4 million people—growing by 15 per cent. a year, we are told—using natural therapies, such clearly-stated standards and objectives are not available for all to see in relation to the natural therapies.

I know that there are pockets of mutual understanding and agreement, but there are no defined terms which are accepted and recognised as standard by all practitioners of any one type of natural therapy. I regard that as a great handicap to furtherance of the natural therapists' case for greater recognition. If agreement cannot be reached among themselves, what are the public or the medical profession to make of it?

The need for the natural therapists to get their house in order is not a new concept. I think we all understand why it is such a difficult one for them to take on board, but it is one which no one, other than the practitioners themselves, can achieve. It is of course open to a particular therapy group, or groups, to decide that it would be in their own interests and those of their patients to pursue a tighter regulation of their affairs. This could only be welcomed if it achieved common, recognised standards for all to see and to which all practitioners subscribed.

One way of doing that could be some form of registration—statutory or otherwise As far as statutory registration is concerned, my noble friend Lord Cullen has asked for the Government's support in this. But I would remind him—and he indeed spoke on this matter from this Box in the past—that the Government have consistently said that, should organisations representative of alternative practitioners wish—separately or together—to set up a registration system for their members, it would probably be argued at some stage that this will require the force of law if the desired aim of providing protection for the public is to be achieved. If that is the case it will be for Parliament as a whole to decide whether proposals which are put forward are acceptable for statute either in whole or in part.

In regard to non-statutory registration it is important that any register should inspire the full confidence of the major professions and organisations concerned. But these matters are in the hands of the therapy groups themselves to pursue. We would not wish to restrict any individual's right of access to natural therapies, but those individuals have a right to expect quality of service from anyone professing to provide health care in any form, whether natural or conventional.

I return to the extreme value we all place on health, which is based on treatment prescribed or provided by registered medical practitioners either as general practitioners working in the community or as hospital doctors. Clinicians are free to prescribe any treatment regime—including any natural therapy—they feel appropriate to the care of individual patients. We see no reason to alter the basic principle that decisions on treatment must rest with the clinician concerned. Decisions about appropriate treatment for individual cases and about who should provide it are for the doctor. It is for his judgment, and he—or she, incidentally—must be satisfied as to the quality of care provided by himself or herself or by any health care professional or other therapist to whom a patient may be referred. I can tell my noble friend Lord Colwyn that European legislation does not restrict the practice of conventional or other medicine in the United Kingdom. The only restrictions are those of common law, to which all practitioners are bound.

I can understand the call that is sometimes made for some, if not all, natural therapies to be available within the National Health Service. Of course we should like to see available as wide a range as possible of effective treatments and therapies. But Ministers do not have the knowledge and experience to dictate what treatment shall be prescribed or provided, and cannot force upon the medical and other professions already practising within the health service the services of other therapists. Nor would we wish to be able to do so. Wider use of natural therapies is not in the Government's hands; it is very largely in the hands of the therapists themselves.

General practitioners and hospital doctors are free to use natural therapy techniques, and some do—for example, osteopathy, acupuncture, or homoeothapy—and in some areas healers have found a place working with conventional medicine. But wider use in the National Health Service must depend on those doctors who are already practising these methods convincing more of their fellow doctors of the benefits and effectiveness of such forms of treatment.

The inquiry in New Zealand which has been referred to today was to establish whether their medical insurance scheme should pay for natural therapists. Our systems are quite different, and in any case, as I shall explain, some, albeit limited, therapies are provided within the National Health Service already.

My noble friend Lord Kitchener has drawn attention to the views of Professor Bryce-Smith and others on the value of minerals in the diet. Minerals have long been thought valuable as an aid to health care, and in passing I should say that on a recent visit to China I noted the numerous entries for mineral substances which appear in their traditional pharmacopoeia.

Regulatory procedures for natural therapists would be useless without consensus among the practitioners. My noble friend Lord Kindersley has spoken about the Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which was established in 1985 to develop a register to be policed and endorsed by some of the leading therapy organisations. There is also the Institute for Complementary Medicine, which has similar aims and wishes to be instrumental in establishing a Board of Complementary Medicine to govern the natural therapy world. While those aims are sound. I understand that not all the major organisations in the field are included in the institute's register, nor would they all endorse the qualifications of others on that register. These umbrella organisations are additional to the numerous bodies representative of groups of practitioners in many fields.

I cannot help feeling that such apparent duplication is unhelpful and a particular point of confusion for the public. But it is not an item on which I am prepared to be didactic. Therapists must make up their own minds. I noted the views of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, about the Joint Committee on Higher Education. The Government are not in a position to dictate to them. The training of medical practitioners is for the medical profession itself.

I made all these points also to representatives of the Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. I emphasised to both groups which came to see me in the past few weeks that the Government regard it solely as a matter for the therapy groups to decide whether, and if so how, they should set about seeking further recognition. One school of thought favoured the umbrella-board approach, another favoured the group-by-group approach. For myself I believe that the former will almost certainly be a spur to the latter, and there is also the option of applying to the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine. I do not know if my noble friend, Lord Kindersley, intended to suggest that the Council for Complementary Medicine provides the spark and that osteopaths have taken the lead. In fact, I am advised that the osteopaths started on the long road to registration as long ago as 1935. My noble friends Lord Kindersley, Lord Cullen and Lady Lane-Fox have set out for this House the stage which they have now reached in working towards a sound basis for seeking statutory recognition. I do not see such action by any one group as a bar to any other group taking similar steps. Indeed, I am aware that chiropractors are seeking to take action on similar lines. The Government would not wish to stand in their way.

On the last occasion when this matter was discussed, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, speaking from this Box, enumerated the basic principles required of practitioners before they could be given recognition, and before it is even worth considering their role within health care. The remarks of my noble friend Lord Kindersley have shown that those requirements did not fall on deaf ears. Representatives of osteopaths met me very recently to set out in some detail the plans they had for the future, which they hope might lead to a submission for statutory registration. It is heartening to learn that there has since been agreement among osteopaths on this issue. They have suggested that, as a precursor to reopening the question of statutory registration, an independent assessment of the educational standards of osteopathic training might be needed.

If Parliament is to consider legislation, I should certainly think it reasonable to expect any proposals to be soundly based on independent criteria which clearly safeguard the public interest and are, of course, accepted by all practitioners. Such an assessment would seem to provide a good method of establishing the educational status and credibility of training schools, and the task is one which must be carried out by a recognised and independent body. If as a result a new Bill were to be formulated, the important issue would be whether the provisions had the full agreement of those practitioners whom it would affect.

The view of the medical profession would also be important. We do, of course, now have the benefit of the British Medical Association's report on alternative medicines. I note that your Lordships have been pretty scathing about that, but the report was extensive in its coverage of the natural therapies and I, like others, had hoped it might break new ground in recommending a more generous perspective on this issue. Instead, it reminded us that efficacy is at the centre of any considerations affecting health care: upon that there could be no compromise. Dialogue on any level between the conventional and natural worlds is important, and it is heartening to hear of the steps being taken. The Royal Society of Medicine's series of colloquia and their report will, no doubt, provide interesting material.

As noble Lords have pointed out, there already exists a measure of natural therapy within the National Health Service. There is, for example, the homoeopathic hospital in Bristol and there are welcome moves, such as the St. Marylebone Parish Church crypt and the various University examples, in which both types of treatment co-exist.

Whether osteopaths or any other therapy groups do decide to seek registration, the Government have made it clear that any action which is considered must be based primarily on principles which safeguard the public interest. Questions such as new registration might work and whether existing untrained practitioners are allowed to continue practising must, in the first instance, be for therapy groups to decide among themselves, although I should tell the House that a two-tier system does seem to me to be more consistent with the overall aim of registration. The proof of any group's action will be in whether finally agreed proposals are able to be drawn into a Bill and whether Parliament and the public, as well as practitioners, find the proposals soundly and credibly based.

The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, among several noble Lords, raised the question of the National Health Service saving of money through natural therapies. If natural therapies were undertaken within the National Health Service that would undoubtedly place an additional load on public resources. As one noble Lord pointed out, many therapies are in fact quite labour-intensive because of their essentially one-to-one nature and the longer consultation process which they need. Indeed, this is a factor which militates against their use in the health service.

On my long list was a therapy which struck me particularly. I remember that it was St. Paul who wrote:

"Use a little wine for thy stomach's sake".

Medical science and the healing arts are, it seems, constantly developing. I discovered that in modern wine therapy champagne may be taken to provide strength and contractability of the muscles. Bordeaux, Burgundy and Loire wine all have their distinct and different uses. Be that as it may, since 1948 there has been no bar to the use of natural therapies by doctors who practise within the National Health Service. There has also been no bar to therapists practising under common law. The future is never certain, but increasingly natural therapy groups seem to recognise the need to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt the efficacy of their procedures. That is essential if a general understanding is to develop between all those concerned with the provision of good health care. I hope and expect that neither the conventional and generally accepted side of health care, nor its unorthodox counterpart, will set its face against change.

The noble Lord, Lord Willis, reminded us that medicine has its origins in the things people found conveniently to hand many centuries ago. The earliest physicians used plants, herbs, leeches and diet to treat their patients; I do agree, of course, that we should never forget that. However, I do not know why the noble Lord decried aspirin—"the Aspirin Age", was, I believe, his phrase. I would remind him that many of those crude applications of natural entities have been refined and are in use today, including aspirin, which has its origins in willow bark.

I do not accept that we have turned our back on natural medicine; as I have said, many modern medicines have evolved from herbal or herbal-based medicines. What we do now is control the purity and potency of the essential substance. Examples of such evolution are digoxin, derived from foxglove, and atropine and, as I have already said, aspirin.

Health care is constantly changing and there is surely a need for open-mindedness to explore new and different techniques and to review older ones. There is, however, an even greater need to safeguard the health care which is available to the public: change for change's sake is not a tenable option. On the other hand, change—even if only of attitudes—and a mutual understanding where it can benefit patient care is worthy of consideration. This is not merely a one-sided affair but holds good for conventional and natural practitioners alike.

The Government must retain their even-handed view on the issues brought before us today. While wishing to see the best possible treatment available to patients, our general attitude remains—in a phrase which your Lordships know well—benignly neutral. We are concerned, above all, that the best treatment is provided by those best able to do so and in the most cost-effective way: health is too precious a commodity for anything else to be acceptable.

My Lords, I am most grateful, but almost embarrassed, to find so much support in the House this afternoon for complementary medicine, including that from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, expressed in his rather guarded comments on the subject. There were, however, encouraging signs that the Department of Health and Social Security is now taking a much more positive attitude towards statutory registration than we have seen in the past.

There is one point I should like to make clear; it concerns a remark I made about the Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. It never had any intention at any time to form its own general register for all therapies. It was formed as an umbrella organisation, following advice from the Department of Health and Social Security that this was the right way to go about it. That advice has now changed slightly and the Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine has changed its own shape slightly, but it remains the unofficial channel of communication between the Department of Health and Social Security and the separate therapy organisations. I hope it will become the official channel of communication in order that this dialogue can continue and the various steps which the noble Lord outlined in his concluding remarks can take place.

They are beginning to take place. I hope that the medical establishment, whose support is necessary if the DHSS is to take this positive role, the royal colleges and the BMA will read the report of this debate in Hansard and discover the tremendous support and unanimity in this House for complementary medicine.

I thank your Lordships for allowing the opportunity for this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a further business statement. I originally announced that the standard time for noble Lords taking part in the debate of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, which will follow shortly, was 12½ minutes per Peer. That figure was the result of an instant mathematical calculation on my being informed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was no longer taking part.

I have since learnt that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was wrongly omitted from the list, for which I must apologise to him and to the House. The standard time per Peer is now 11 minutes.

rose to call attention to the preparation and drafting of parliamentary legislation; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Earl for the opportunity to discuss this matter. There is nothing formal in my remarks; I really am sincerely grateful because this debate gives me the opportunity to pay a tribute, which I have long wanted to pay, to a body of very skilful, dedicated, extremely hard-working and thoroughly loyal men. I refer to parliamentary counsel, who undertake the drafting of Bills.

I apologise for bringing my personal experience into the debate but what I have just said is based on six years' experience as a Minister handling far more than the average amount of legislation and on 10 years as a chairman of various Standing Committees. As your Lordships know, the chairman of a Standing Committee in the other place exercises many of the functions of the Speaker in the other House where the procedure is very different indeed from that followed in this Chamber.

It is the Minister who is responsible for legislation, I am sure that all noble Lords will follow the good example set by the noble Earl in not attempting to criticise those who assist the Minister and give him advice. The Minister is here to accept responsibility for what he decides. Of course it is absolutely true that once the Minister has decided on the general shape of legislation which the Government may be initiating, it is for the parliamentary draftsmen to give form to it, and it is only when they start on that process that a whole host of important and less important points which require an answer are thrown up.

As every one of your Lordships knows, when one goes to a solicitor and asks him to prepare a document he may be given only two sentences of instruction but he produces a document which perhaps runs to several paragraphs, all of which are necessary because from his past experience he knows that matters may arise which the lay client has not considered. That is one of his functions. The same remarks apply to the process of drafting Bills.

It is no excuse for a Minister to say that he leaves everything to the draftsmen. Of course he must leave many of the technicalities to the draftsmen but if he leaves too much to them we shall be getting into an argument which the noble Earl asserts and which I, with respect, deny; namely, that governments, Ministers and chairmen of Standing Committees do not have the foggiest idea what the legislation is about. The Minister has the responsibility of understanding the final draft as it comes to him. If he is not absolutely clear about it, his officials and the draftsman are at his service ready to explain anything that he does not fully understand. If, say, a provision seems to be one sentence too long, they can explain why that additional sentence has to be included.

As a former chairman of committees, I can only say God help a chairman who tries to carry out his function of keeping order and ensuring that every speech is relevant to the clause in question and a particular amendment to the Bill, without fully understanding what every part of the Bill is about. Of course he understands it and he is helped enormously by parliamentary draftsmen.

When a Standing Committee sits, the public can see that on the left of the chairman is the clerk of the committee and on the chairman's right is the parliamentary draftsman, who is continually advising and assisting him during the proceedings. On the other hand, the public do not see the pre-sitting conferences which have to take place and in which the chairman is advised by his officials, the clerk in charge of the Bill and in particular the parliamentary draftsman as to which amendments fail for a variety of good reasons. The chairman is indebted to them for that information and advice when making his decision to select amendments at his discretion. That of course is a key part of the function of democracy in the other place and it is a very good reason why this House must take the greatest possible pains in examining the legislation coming from the other place.

This Chamber does not suffer limitation in selection of amendments or the whole variety of restrictions that exist in the other place, and so is enabled to do a thorough re-examination of legislation. Nor do we have the guillotine, which is a most important element in all these considerations.

The parliamentary draftsmen perform a task of immense value without which Parliament would not be able to function. Although I am sure it is not the case, should any subsequent speaker feel inclined to complain about the language and the work of a parliamentary draftsman, I would reply that in the first place it is for the Minister to take responsibility for the content of a Bill. We should be in a very ragged situation indeed if every civil servant were encouraged to defend himself by writing letters to the press instead of having the Minister defend him—or defend himself if it is his responsibility—in one or other Chamber of Parliament.

Finally, I should like to say a few words about governments and their responsibility for legislation. Probably all governments introduce far too much legislation. I entirely agree with the noble Earl's comments on that score. Perhaps it is not fully realised by those who have not had the burden of government upon their shoulders that far more than half of all government legislation—indeed, I think most of it—comes not from the initiative or desire of the Government but from a reaction to public pressures of one kind or another.

The House will be debating a forthcoming Rates Bill. We all know what happened about rates during the Conservative conference in Scotland, which clearly stimulated the Government into more detailed thinking about their position on rates. We shall have to consider immediate legislation about knives and the carrying of guns, and we all know why that legislation has become necessary. Governments have to respond to that, and do it quickly.

When one hears said, "Look at all the amendments; that proves that the Government do not know what they are talking about and have not thought the matter through", I ask noble Lords to pause a moment in their thinking and to bear in mind that government have the responsibility of taking public opinion with them. For that reason we in this House especially should give adequate periods of pause between one proceeding and another, between Committee and Report and so on, so that public reaction and public experience can be fully taken into account.

When one is concerned with taxation affecting the rights of 25 million people, one is very humble about it and very glad to receive information, albeit at a most inconvenient moment. This happens when some small section of the community that one had not intended to affect in the slightest says, "We do this kind of business"—of which one has never heard before—"and this will bear heavily on us. Will you please amend the legislation so that it does not impinge on our activity unless you intended it to do so?". If one did not so intend, it is one's duty to relieve the impact of the taxation provisions that would otherwise fall unjustly on those in question.

For those reasons, I beg your Lordships not only to share with me the appreciation of the work done by parliamentary counsel but to understand the difficulties and the pressures facing governments—and we are talking about all governments here; there is no party point in the issue.

My Lords, your Lordships will be greatly indebted to the noble Earl who is not only an eminent lawyer but has also held some of the greatest offices of state. When he introduces the debate as he did, one hopes against hope that at last some notice may be taken of what the Renton Committee in 1975 said was widespread concern about the complexity and lack of clarity of much of our legislation. Those words apply every bit as much today as they did then.

I can give several examples from last Session. I take only two. One was the Pilotage Bill. It contained a provision that I am confident no noble Lord in the Committee could understand, not even the Minister. By the time everybody had grumbled disagreeably about it, the Minister decided that it was unnecessary, and it was withdrawn.

The other example was an extraordinary one. It was the Local Government (Finance) Bill, which was to correct a former measure of similar nature. It was so drawn that the Government could be persuaded by the local authorities that it did not mean what they thought it meant but rather as it ultimately turned out to be. As a result corrective legislation had to be rushed through.

The Renton Committee recommended that, instead of trying to meet every envisageable circumstance, we should legislate in broad general terms laying down general rules. The committee quoted a memorandum by my noble and learned friends the Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Wheatley, the then Lord Justice Clerk, in which they said precisely: we are used to interpreting general rules and applying them to particular situations. They said further that, if you try to lay down a stipulation to cover every situation you can envisage, you are sure to leave out something and you confuse the court which will not know what your real purpose is and in particular will not know whether the case before the court is intended to be covered by the statute. The examples that I have given already show that no notice has been taken of that recommendation to stipulate in broad general terms.

The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was right in paying tribute to the high intellectual quality, the loyalty and the devotion of parliamentary draftsmen, but it is entirely beside the point. The point is that they obstinately insist on continuing to legislate in the terms condemned by the Renton Committee.

I want to take up one point that the noble Earl and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, made concerning the quantity of legislation. I believe it is due to two factors. The first is that the officials who have to administer the law are always conscious that it can be improved; therefore, there is a constant urgency from the Civil Service to bring in improving legislation. The second is the ambition of Ministers. One knows that some Ministers, like Disraeli with the second Reform Bill, Neville Chamberlain with the Local Government Bill and Lord Butler with the Education Bill, made their reputation by carrying through legislation. I hope that it is not just old friendship that makes me add to that list the name of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, with the Mental Health Act 1959.

What is the cure for that? The cure lies purely in the machinery of government. It is the job of the Future Legislation Committee to curb those two urgencies, the urgency of the Civil Service constantly to improve its machinery and the urgency of Ministers to make a name by carrying through legislation. It is the job of the Future Legislation Committee to see that the situation does not get out of hand, as it has.

As to quality, the same goes for another government committee, the Legislation Committee, which obviously has not been doing its job, given the spate of criticism that occurred both before and after Renton. If the noble and learned Lord can assure us on those two matters, that will at any rate be something.

I have one final point. Can we not have at least one Bill framed on Renton principles as a trial to see how it works? If it works we can go forward on the Renton principle. If it fails the Government can go forward on their present policy. When I say the Government, I mean successive governments. I can remember being rather annoyed with my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones on his very tepid reception of the Renton Committee report. If we can do those things, the debate will have been of value.

My Lords, I very much regret that I shall have to leave the Chamber before the debate has closed. I have two short points to make. I crave your Lordships' indulgence when I have to make my departure.

There are two examples of legislation enacted this year to add to those that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has already recited. The first is the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. That received Royal Assent in some haste before the general election. Many noble Lords who are present today will recall that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, had some clear things to say about that.

There is no need to recall the words of the sections of that Act. However, my reference relates to Sections 5 to 7. Those sections require notices to be served which confer rights of first refusal. In Section 7 the tenants are given the power to serve a counter-offer. The landlord then only has to decide whether to accept it or reject it. The statutory power given to the tenant seems to me to be purposeless if that is all it leads to. Neither I nor my brethren down the road who practise in these matters have been able to find any provision that enables some kind of process of arbitration to be resorted to if the landlord does not accept the counter-offer.

That is a good example of hurried legislation. At this stage I wish to associate myself exactly with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. They said that our statutory draftsmen are men of great skill, great intellect, great honesty and great endeavour, who often have to climb a mountain that has a converse slope—one facing towards them rather than one going away from them.

The point I now wish to make is that I feel sure that that omission would have been noticed not only by noble and learned Lords in this Chamber but by all other noble Lords if the matter had been debated. That position would have been avoided if there had been a little less haste on the matter.

The second example which I seek to draw to the attention of noble Lords is one concerning the control of advertisements by means of a regulation. That regulation was issued under a power by the Secretary of State and it relates to Sections 109 and 63 of the Town and Country Planning Act. It was brought into effect on 7th January this year. I do not expect your Lordships to be immediately conversant with its provisions. It is sufficient for the purposes of the debate to say that they take up a considerable space for what they achieve. They are expressed in tortuous and convoluted language. Administrative provisions are mixed in with other provisions of law regarding what it is wanted to achieve. How it is to be achieved is thrown in at the same time. They take some five pages of legislation. The result is that there is a mass of litigation pending. I have been involved in some and was offered about 50 dock briefs only a week ago, which regrettably I had to turn down.

Those provisions are so hedged about with administrative matters that what will happen and what has happened is that either of the parties, the local authority or the person who is affected, will cut corners. They will either wilfully misconstrue what the provisions set out or will ignore them in order to try to give effect to them. That is legislation done by statutory instrument. Again there is no chance of addressing the matter.

I have only one or two other things to say. I wish to exhort those who are responsible for drafting our legislation to try to return to simple principles, to have conceived for them the whole design, to use short sentences. English is a language of short words. Its clearest expression in ordinary writing is short sentences. There are many noble and learned Lords in the Chamber today who are very experienced in writing clear, concise judgments. It would be impertinent of me as a young member of the profession to do more than to say that they are generally a delight to read. It is particularly sad that the example of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is not followed. His sentences are short, to the point and a pleasure to read. If that example could be followed by those who draft our legislation—although some might not agree with the legal content—it would be a very good star to follow. I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me this indulgence.

My Lords, had I known how many noble and learned Lords and noble and learned lawyers would be taking part in the debate I should not have put my name down. I was tempted to withdraw but the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, persuaded me not to against my better judgment. As a complete layman or laywoman I very much wish to support him in this debate.

Before I say anything more I wish to associate myself with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, have said about the quality, dedication and the hard work of the parliamentary draftsmen. I want to make it quite clear that I am not in any way intending to be derogatory to them in what I am going to say.

The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, touched upon the drafting of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Bill in the last Parliament. I wish to elaborate a little on that. Noble Lords on all sides of the House were affronted at Clause 22, which merely gave effect to Schedule 3 of the Bill. Schedule 3 gave immense and far-reaching powers to the Secretary of State to reduce the amount of personal community charge determined by any local authority if he thought it was excessive or unreasonable.

Such powers and such an important basic principle of the Bill should never have been tucked away in the schedules but should have appeared, and should always appear, on the face of a Bill in the form of a clause immediately perceivable by anyone who reads the Bill, be he expert or layman. On that occasion, as many of your Lordships will recollect, the proposed clause and schedule were totally unacceptable to the House. Finally on Report the Government, who had protested in Committee that it was too late to alter them, were obliged to take them back and amend them with only three working days to go before Third Reading or else risk losing the Bill. That must have been very hard on the draftsmen and I hope that the Government have learnt a lesson from this and will not repeat that mistake.

I wish to say a few words about comprehensibility. Quite often I, like other noble Lords, am quite unable to understand Bills or parts of Bills. I am not just talking about highly technical Bills. To start with I naturally thought that that was just my own stupidity and lack of legal training, but when I found that sometimes even some of the best legal brains in the House were as mystified as I was I came to the conclusion that it could not just be me, or not always me. It is not just that a clause in a Bill refers to a previous Act and, when one goes to that Act, one finds a reference to an earlier Act. It is a matter of drafting and use of English.

For instance, last week the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had trouble, along with many other noble Lords, with a new clause in the Criminal Justice Bill concerning the length of penknife blades. It was indeed a winner!The clause read:

"Any person who has with him in a public place without good reason or lawful authority any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed (except a pocket knife with no blade which is longer than three inches or which locks when open) shall be guilty of an offence".

Was the exception for a pocket knife which was more than three inches long without a blade or for a pocket knife whose blade was less than three inches long? As drafted, one could carry a pocket knife whose blade, if any, locked when open but not one whose blade did not lock when open. I do not think that that was what was intended. It was a wonderful piece of gobbledegook. I look forward with keen anticipation to seeing what has happened to it when we come to the Report stage of the Bill next week.

That was not so much a case of double negatives, as some noble Lords thought; it was a case of negatives in the wrong place and lack of punctuation. However, double negatives instead of simple affirmatives are hardy perennials which are found in a great many Bills. I once came upon a triple negative—I cannot remember in which Bill—instead of a simple single negative.

Our troubles in this House come not so much from the quantity of legislation as from the quality. If the Bills which come to us are more carefully thought out and drafted, we shall be able to deal with them more quickly. That would reduce our workload enormously. Our job surely is not to do the detailed work of drafting and the correcting of drafting. That is the draftsman's job. The trouble is that we have such a quantity of legislation coming before the draftsmen that they do not have time to spend on it in order to get it right. If we had Bills coming before us as they should, then we should be able to concentrate on the content as opposed to the wording.

It is very important that we should have more draftsmen and that the Bills should come before us in such a way that, with very little alteration, they are comprehensible to the average layman, who will not be able to keep the law unless he knows and can understand what the law is.

My Lords, as the noble Earl said in introducing the Motion, the problems here are problems of scale. Nobody knows that better than lawyers. Perhaps I should include the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in that category as he plods to remote county courts conscienciously carrying all the law that is or might be relevant to a typical case, say, under the Rent Acts, and arrives at the other end with one arm much longer than the other.

As has been said, it is essential that the increasing quantity of legislation should not be allowed to diminish its quality. As a revising Chamber, your Lordships' House, without a guillotine, deals with the problem as best it can by sitting longer and longer hours. With justification, we are still able to say that the Bills that leave this House are better Bills.

However, the noble Earl, in his Motion, properly begs the question of whether anything more can be done at pre-parliamentary stage. Perhaps I may make three points with regard to the preparation of legislation. The best legislation is often the law- reforming legislation proceeding from the Law Commission. We should perhaps consider a mechanism whereby the Law Commission can be involved in the preparation of all draft legislation and not just that which it has had a hand in preparing.

Secondly, as has also been said, the worst legislation is rushed legislation. In that context I do not mean just short Bills, brought forward quickly to deal with a recent problem or crisis. I mean also more substantial Bills which suffer from what appears to be a last-minute rush in preparation and which come before Parliament in too raw a state.

That leads to a process recently described in the report on the working of this House as "legislate as you go". As the report pointed out, the majority of amendments in your Lordships' House are Government amendments. One appreciates that the dictates of the government timetable are often difficult to control. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will remember, for example, the Insolvency Bill introduced into the House. It was known when it was introduced that the Government had in reserve a large volume of amendments, not for consideration by this House but to be considered and put forward in another place. Surely that is something that should be avoided.

My third point is that pressures of time and volume inevitably lead to the temptation to use—and arguably to misuse—subordinate or delegated legislation. At the very worst, all Parliament sees is the framework legislation enabling the executive to produce secondary legislation at will. Objections to that go back to, if not beyond, Lord Hewart's The New Despotism of 1929. The objection is summarised by Professor de Smith:

"Acts of Parliament, sponsored by government Departments and passed into law with the acquiescence of a docile parliamentary majority, give the Executive sweeping legislative powers; and safeguards against the abuse of those powers are inadequate".

Nevertheless, pragmatically, we recognise that subordinate legislation is a necessary evil. However, I suggest that it is essential that in primary legislation we are allowed to give guidelines and boundaries to the subordinate legislation.

I do not know whether there is any truth in a report in The Times last week of a concerted campaign by Ministers to use secondary legislation as a deliberate device to block the right of Peers to amend Bills. The fact is that the Government decide what a Bill will contain and what it will not contain. This House cannot amend and will not, by convention, vote against subordinate legislation. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us an assurance that the temptation will be resisted. It would be a bad precedent, not only for this Government but for any Government hereafter.

One must remember, in giving the executive wide powers at any moment, that whatever the good intentions of the executive of the time, the powers can be misused at a later date. If the Government cannot resist the temptation to short-circuit the process, then I suggest that we should look again at the perfectly respectable and constructive technique which allows secondary legislation to be amended; that is to say, secondary legislation amendable with the approval of both Houses at subsequent dates. That would enable the executive to deal with future contingencies and retain for Parliament a measure of scrutiny.

Finally, and on a totally different topic, may I put in a plea against limping, piecemeal legislation. I have in mind the Consumer Credit Act which took many years to come into force. Another example was the Children Act 1975 much of which took 10 years to come into force. By that time it had in fact been repealed by enactment of the Adoption Act 1976 which itself is still not in force save as to the Short Title.

I suggest that it is a very unsatisfactory way of proceeding. Parliament now has the benefit of the Keeling schedule, which is of great assistance to Parliament when considering reforming legislation which deals with matters by way of piecemeal reforms to earlier legislation. It does not help the consumer at the end of the process. I do not just mean the man in the street. I mean his lawyers who have to try and find their way through this morass of legislation.

My Lords, I am grateful to have this opportunity of supporting my noble friend Lord Selkirk in this short debate. I have two requests to make to the parliamentary draftsman. One is to ask him to pass what he has drafted to a friend to see whether sometimes it can be put into better English. On that point I think he can learn something from reading some of the Acts which are over 200 years old. Many of them have no more than three sections but they are in good English and cover every point superbly.

The other request I have is in the schedules to Bills. Please do not put down amendments to an amendment to another Act. In such a case it would make life a lot easier for all noble Lords if such an amendment said, "leave out section so and so and substitute", whatever it is.

Let me illustrate this. Suppose a 1987 Bill amends an amendment to a 1977 Act which amended a 1967 Act. Say that there is a statutory instrument amending the original. The poor individual who is trying to understand exactly what that section means ends up with four books of legislation on the table. The statutes in loose-leaf books are a wonderful improvement, which was started I think in 1971. The correction principle is that whenever a section of an Act is amended a new page is produced to replace the amended page. Unfortunately, quite a number of amendments to sections of Acts are more than a year old before the new loose leaf is produced. The statutes in force are catalogued into 132 groups or subjects and many more subgroups.

In any criticism of the drafting of Bills, as has already been said, it is seldom the fault of the draftsman. After all he does what he is told. I think legislation could be improved if no single Bill covered more than one of the 132 groups, or at the most two groups.

I give an example. Section 1 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, Chapter 48, has been amended or affected by over 50 statutory instruments according to the Scottish Law Citator 1986. Almost as if to add insult to injury in this 1985 Act various sections are grouped under "Food"; an equal variety of sections are grouped under "Shipping" and the remainder are grouped under "Environment". Even a novel would have difficulty in covering such a wide range of subjects, let alone legislation. No parliamentary draftsman could possible cover the wide variety of subjects which exist in legislation, so Bills are often drafted by more than one draftsman. From time to time they have not compared with each other what they have done.

In such circumstances a Back-Bencher can have a field day. However, let me assure your Lordships that I shall never attempt to destroy any Bill, but where I have found contradictions in a Bill, if I have the time, I shall go through it with a fine-tooth comb to try to correct errors and to improve the Bill, even if it means putting down a string of amendments.

The computer Lexis system of statutes is the only one which is up to date but as yet it does not cover Scottish Acts.

As a final point I feel it rather irritating to have legislation pass through both Houses of Parliament, receive Royal Assent and then gather dust on a shelf for years before it comes into force. Again, to give an example, the Employment of Children Act 1973, Chapter 24, and the Gaming (Amendment) Act 1986, Chapter 11, are not in force yet according to the Scottish Law Citator 1986; but that, I must say, may be a wee bit out of date.

My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with something which the noble Earl has just said but I would not myself commend the words of the statute book of 200 years ago. In Chapter 2 of the Renton report we quote the words of Thomas Jefferson. He was looking at the statute book of that day. I shall not quote the very words but I strongly recommend them to the attention of the noble Earl.

Like so many other noble Lords I wished to take part in this debate, and I am very glad to do so, as I had the honour to be a member of the Renton committee. Our terms of reference were then:

"excluding matters relating to policy formulation and the legislative programme".

I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will agree that that put a curb on us and on our recommendations. I am happy to say that the noble Earl's Motion today has no such inhibition. A number of noble Lords have spread their wings much more widely than we were able to do and they have flown into the prohibited areas of matters relating to policy formulation and the legislative programme.

I should like to record the words of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in a recent debate on the workings of this House. He said:

"The real problem is the growth of government legislation".

He added:

"The simple answer is to have less government legislation".

Later he further said that,

"a number of Bills which come before the House have not been well prepared. It seems to me to be due to pressure on the draftsmen, who are, no doubt, just as good now as they were in the past but who have had to produce more Bills than they can comfortably digest".—[Official Report, 4/11/87; col. 1040.1.

When I heard those words I also heard ancestral voices. I at once turned to G. M. Young's great book, Portrait of an Age: Victorian England, where he said this about the ancestor of the noble Marquess who is commonly referred to as "the great Lord Salisbury":

"It was one of Lord Salisbury's paradoxes that only uncontentious legislation should be brought before Parliament: if it were contentious, then public opinion was not ripe for it".

That was a famous Conservative statesman who was not then Prime Minister but who became Prime Minister. I believe that Disraeli was Prime Minister when he uttered those words, or something very like them, in this House. Disraeli's administration of 1874 was, in the words of G. M. Young, not designed for legislation but for relief from legislation. That was the promise held out by Disraeli.

As I say, I turned to those words in G. M. Young's book rather wistfully, but I do not expect that much will come from repeating them in this House. However, I commend them to those who are preparing next year's and future years' legislative programme because it was not merely the volume of legislation that Lord Salisbury and Disraeli were talking about but the controversial nature of the legislation. They did not wish to bring in legislation for which the public was unprepared and so controversial that it would, so to speak, invite a future adminstration, not of their persuasion, to overturn it. Since the war we have, unfortunately, had to suffer the process of legislation, unpicking the legislation and then possibly relegislating. I believe that has done great damage to the fabric of our society.

The great Lord Salisbury was described by his own Prime Minister as a great master of jibes, flouts and jeers, and all too often jibes, flouts and jeers are hurled at parliamentary counsel. That has not happened today, though there were a few sideswipes. The late Lord Mancroft used frequently to talk sardonically about the "deathless prose" of parliamentary draftsmen. In the Renton Committee we collected what we called a chamber of horrors at the instance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. This was not just for fun but to provide awful examples of what to avoid in the future.

I should like to say, as have so many others, that I have the greatest possible respect for parliamentary counsel and have no wish to criticise them individually. Indeed, I wish to pay them a compliment for occasionally enlivening the statute book as they did in the Wills Act 1968. This shows that they have a sense of humour which they rarely have a chance to demonstrate. The Act states:

"This section applies to the will of any person dying after the passing of this Act, whether executed before or after the passing of this Act".

Contrary to what a number of noble Lords have said today, I found that it is much harder to fault a draftsman over his language in the statute book than it used to be when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I, with others, were considering the statute book, the process of drafting and the preparation of legislation. Not only that, but I believe that the structure of statutes has improved considerably and occasionally one even sees a purpose clause which we so strongly recommended; and that is gratefully received. Whether that is as a result of the recommendations of the Renton Committee, as perhaps the members of the committee like to think, or it would have come about anyway, as the draftsmen may like to claim, does not matter. I firmly believe that drafting is much better than it was and that draftsmen are to be congratulated on what they have achieved.

I do not have any criticisms of the draftsmen individually although I do collectively, and I criticise the system under which they have to work. However, before I turn to that, I advert to three matters on which I should like to question the Minister. On codes of practice or guidance, we had in this House a debate which the noble and learned Lord answered, and I believe that just after that the noble and learned Lord chaired a committee on codes of practice. I should like to ask him how that committee is progressing, when it will report and to whom, and whether the conclusions will be made known, possibly for discussion in this House.

I should also like him to consider passing to that committee this suggestion. I believe it would help greatly if the Government adopted the practice of explaining in the Explanatory Memorandum the exact legal effect of the trigger clause when a code of practice is embodied in a Bill. I believe that would improve the quality of the legislation and could save time in this House when the Bill comes before it. It would improve legislation because it would force the draftsmen to put in a brief paragraph clearly stating what the legal effect is. As past experience has demonstrated, that is not always easy to discover. Therefore, that would be accepted by the legislators who are examining the Bill and would not cause them to ask questions about the exact effect of the legislation when it comes before the relevant House.

I should like briefly to say something about recruiting. In the answer to a recent Question in this House it was distressing to hear that there are only 24 parliamentary counsel, including those who are seconded to the Law Commissions, whereas in 1975, when the Renton Committee reported, there were 23. That is a bare increase of one, which is totally insufficient when one considers the increase in the legislative programme.

My Lords, excluding those seconded elsewhere.

My Lords, that includes four seconded to the Law Commissions for consolidation. Is it the case that the complement of parliamentary counsel was increased to 30 in September, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said was the aim?

Another minor but important point is the paragraph in the Renton Report on training young parliamentary draftsmen. I believe this is a matter of increasing concern to the professions. It is certainly of concern to the Bar, especially in the matter of post-entry training. I wonder whether it is sufficient for senior draftsmen to train recruits merely by working together in pairs, which I know they do. In the report we said that first parliamentary counsel had recently examined the possibility of assigning one senior draftsman, for part of his time, to give more instruction to recruits and hoped to try this as an experiment. Now that the increase in the complement of parliamentary draftsmen is to go up from 24 to 30, I wonder whether the first parliamentary counsel is considering assigning a senior draftsman to perform that duty.

I see that I have spoken for 12 minutes, but as one or two Peers have spoken for less than their ration perhaps I may speak for a few moments more.

I believe—as I am told—that there is not sufficient dialogue between the draftsman and the Minister between the moment the draftsman gets his instructions and the time he produces his first draft. Would it not be possible for the Minister and the draftsman to discuss the draft at this very early stage? That might produce a draft which is, so to speak, less set in the mould. Alternatively, if it has not received the complete approval of the Minister at that stage he could alter the drafting or suggest alterations. It should not be later, because once it is moulded it cannot be affected otherwise than by cracking open the Bill, and no Minister wants to allow that to happen. That is an important point.

I always remember Mr. Justice Cooke, who was a member of our committee. He said that once drafting instructions had been given, the draftsman was king. That is an important expression. I am sure that he is the king of the Bill team. But should he be king to the extent that he has, so to speak, mastery over not only the drafting of the Bill but its contents? I have no more time to say other than that I believe that scrutinising of drafting by the Legislation Committee should be undertaken in time for a Bill to be referred back for drafting purposes. Like the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and, I believe, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I favour the transference of ministerial responsibility for the parliamentary counsel from the Prime Minister to the Lord Chancellor.

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, was a member of our Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, he did valiant work. He reminded us from time to time of the revising function of your Lordships' House. That is a function of which we hear a good deal these days and of which we should not lose sight. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has made a number of constructive suggestions. I welcome them, but I shall dwell only on the purpose clause.

We are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Selkirk. He has done us a great service by enabling us to have this important debate. It is the first of its kind for five years. I am glad that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate is to reply. As has been mentioned, he owes his presence to Recommendation 92 of our report.

I wish that there had been some noticeable improvement in the quality of drafting over the past five years; but alas, as noble Lords have shown, we still suffer from excessive detail, causing complexity. Another tendency is for statutes to contain unnecessary amounts of purely administrative matter—provisions dealing with the way in which government departments and other bodies are organised and operated. We sometimes even go so far as to tell the courts what to do, even when they have for ages acted on sound principles.

The draftsmen, as has been said, cannot be entirely blamed for all that. They have to follow their instructions, which are given to them in the first place not by Ministers but by the officials in each Minister's department.

I wish to put forward five proposals which I hope your Lordships will find constructive. They would lead to improvements. I have given notice of these proposals to my noble and learned friend. They have all been mentioned already. That will therefore save me some time, although I want to elaborate on one or two of them.

The first proposal was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I should like to renew the plea first put forward by the Law Commission in about 1969 and then by our Committee on the Preparation of Legislation for purpose clauses declaring Parliament's intention. We can either have a clause covering the whole Bill and proclaiming its general legislative purpose or we can have—I think this will often be better—a number of purpose clauses setting out Parliament's intentions with regard to each part of the Bill.

Purpose clauses, whichever way they are done, are a necessary aid to interpretation by the users of statutes and by the courts. That is so whenever a Bill contains detailed provisions, so that its provisions can be better understood. Sometimes a purpose clause would enable us to have less detail, but there is another and a strong reason for declaring Parliament's intentions. Five years ago, in reply to out last debate, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham from the Woolsack pointed out that 90 per cent. of the work of our appellate courts consists of statutory interpretation—trying to fathom what our legislation means. At the time my noble and learned friend said that there was an important and purposive element in the attempts of the courts to interpret statutes.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has referred to the evidence given by two eminent Scottish judges. Each of the top judges, from both sides of the Border, who gave evidence to our committee said, in effect, "Make clear the intention of Parliament, and we will faithfully follow it, but it must be made clear". So let us have purpose clauses governing the whole or every part of each Bill. It can be done. It occasionally has been done. Let us have it as a general rule of drafting.

Secondly, I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in his most effective plea that wherever feasible we should have statements of principle, as recommended by our committee towards the end of chapter 10 of our report. That would lead to greater simplicity and clarity. It is not always feasible, but it would be so on many occasions. At present, it is scarcely ever attempted. The use of statements of principle should be encouraged.

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, in one of the many interesting speeches we have heard, said he hoped the rumour that the Government were going to have short Bills and a great deal of secondary legislation was not true. I hope it is not true, partly because we are a revising Chamber. It may help the noble Lord and my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench to he reminded that Recommendation 30 of the committee's report said:

"General principles should be set out in the body of a statute, detailed provisions of a permanent kind in Schedules, and details liable to frequent modification in statutory instruments".

I hope that puts the whole issue into proper perspective.

My third proposal is that the legislation committee of the Cabinet should resume its function as a committee which scrutinises Bills before they see the light of day. It was done effectively, as some noble Lords remember. It was effective when the Lord Chancellor was its chairman. That was the position for years. I served on it as what was called a permanent member of the committee when I was Under-Secretary at the Home Office. The late Lord Kilmuir was in the chair. The Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, as he then was, the father of our noble friend Lord Dilhorne, did valiant work. He would sit up late the night before, go through the Bills and draw attention to obscure matters. At that time, whichever party was in power, the Lord Chancellor and the law officers "had a go" at the legislation before it saw the light of day. However, I understand that of recent years the Leader of another place has been chairman—a layman always—and it has become a mere business committee with results that are noticeable and sad. That is my third suggestion.

My fourth suggestion has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Selkirk and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It is that the Lord Chancellor's Statute Law Committee should at last become more useful. That could be done by accepting Recommendations 108 and 109 of our report. Recommendation 108 merely says:

"The Lord Chancellor should arrange for the Statute Law Committee to keep the structure and language of the statutes … under continuous review".

Recommendation 109 states that its report should be published and laid before Parliament not less often than every three years.

My fifth and last suggestion is in support of my noble friend Lord Selkirk and relates to ministerial responsibility. The Prime Minister is responsible as Minister for the Civil Service for the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The Lord Advocate is responsible in Scotland. But the Prime Minister is responsible for administration only. She has no overall responsibility for drafting practice. Neither has any other Minister on this side of the Border. Each Minister theoretically and constitutionally is responsible for his own Bill, but in practice they nearly always duck responsibility for drafting when challenged. When they are challenged on a piece of dubious drafting they answer that the draftsman says it is all right, and that is the end of the matter. Except to the extent that the draftsmen have to follow the instructions given to them by officials, the draftsmen are therefore de facto autonomous, a law unto themselves. They are splendid people but self-governing de facto and the results have been mentioned by noble Lords in almost every speech we have heard in this debate.

It is essential that they should be answerable to a Minister for the drafting policies and practices which they pursue. The Prime Minister cannot conceivably be asked to do this work even though she was a very skilful barrister when in practice. Clearly the Lord Chancellor should be the Minister responsible.

My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has been alerted to what is still after these many years widespread concern about the quality of our legislation. He has had various constructive proposals put before him to improve the matter. I hope that we shall have some very positive replies from him.

My Lords, if any noble Lord present was hoping at this moment to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I sympathise with him if he feels constrained to remain in his place to listen to me. It is also rather intimidating to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whose name is so indelibly associated with the subject we are discussing.

I have the honour to be a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I can introduce a cheerful note into the debate by reporting that there have been tremendous strides in consolidation in recent years—cutting out the dead wood in the statutes and keeping only that which remains valid. There have been numerous small consolidations while major topics that have been the subject of consolidation have included adoption, child care, companies, customs and excise, employment protection, highways, housing, magistrates' courts, the National Health Service and the Rent Acts. In addition, there has been a consolidated Interpretation Act incorporating improvements recommended by the Law Commissions.

When one turns to subordinate legislation it is not such a happy picture. Perhaps I may give two examples. The London Cab Order of 1934 is still in force. But let the reader beware, my Lords! It has been amended 16 times. To give an example which affects more people personally, the teachers' superannuation regulations of 1976 have since been amended 12 times. I know that every man is supposed to know the law and I do not suppose that one can administer justice on any other basis. But there is a corresponding duty upon the state to make the law accessible to the subject. I do not believe that the state is being fair to the citizen if it expects him to know the current law on teachers' superannuation.

We sometimes hear the question—and it is so easy to ask—"Why don't the statutes simply deal with general principles and leave the details to be filled in either by subordinate legislation or by the decisions of the courts?" My noble friend Lord Meston dealt with subordinate legislation and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made interesting observations about that. I therefore need not go into that subject in any detail. I would ask only whether, if the volumes of statutory instruments are going to swell at the same rate as the volumes of statutes become slimmer, will anything be achieved? If the subject has to look for the law in two places instead of one, will he be pleased about that?

It is said that the courts are there to resolve those questions which arise out of legislation but with which Parliament did not deal. The difficulty is that one has to find a citizen who is prepared to put down his money and to bring a case to decide a question which most people think Parliament should have decided anyway—one in which a great many other people are interested. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, speaking about the interpretation of legislation, brought to my mind the position that the unfortunate judge is in. He will be saying to himself, "I am not allowed to decide this case as I would if I had a completely free hand. I have to try to decide how Parliament would have decided this question if Parliament had given the matter its attention. I am not allowed to look at Hansard to try to find out what was in the mind of Parliament when it was passing this legislation and I find myself in a rather unenviable position".

I am afraid that the only answer is that in a sophisticated society we must put up with statutes which deal with all the matters that arise under them so far as Parliament is able to foresee the consequences. It is Parliament's job to do it and it is not for the citizen to bring a case to decide a question which Parliament omitted to decide.

Finally, I refer to one detailed matter. I should like to hark back to the Report stage of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill, which we discussed on Report on the day before we rose in the last Parliament. This Act, as it now is, has a penalty clause which states that a person who offends shall,

"be liable to pay the Secretary of State on demand the sum of £1,000".

It does not use the conventional words "a sum not exceeding £1,000". So I put down an amendment at Report stage to try to elucidate the matter, to find out whether this was a fixed penalty or whether it was a maximum penalty. It emerged during the debate that it was indeed a maximum penalty.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, did his best to defend the drafting of his Bill. Inter alia the noble Earl said this:

"By making the charge infinitely variable up to £1,000, it would be impossible for the carrier to know his liability. It would require infinitely delicate judgments to he made".—[0fficial Report, 12/5/87; c. 549.]

Is that not exactly what happens every day when anybody is accused of a criminal offence which carries a maximum penalty?

As I said on Report, it will be a sorry day if we are to use the statutes to kid people into supposing that if they offend they are likely to suffer a worse penalty than in fact is likely to be the case. The statutes, whatever else they do, must never be allowed in any way to seek to mislead the people.

My Lords, I should like to join in the gratitude which has been expressed to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for introducing this important and extremely valuable debate on the preparation and drafting of parliamentary legislation. If I may say so, I wish it had happened before I became Lord Chancellor: I might have made a better job of it. I bear with such fortitude as I can the reproach which has been addressed to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for my being tepid about the Renton Report. But I am not unique in that—not that that is a justification but it is at least to be borne in mind as a mitigation.

We are discussing a matter of very great importance. A large number of valuable suggestions have emerged. I cannot say that I envy the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, the pleasure of answering all the points that have been raised, but they are matters of importance and substance. There is no doubt, I am afraid, that the present state both of preparation and of legislation itself is providing less than satisfaction to the public at large, to business and to the ordinary citizen, who is finding it difficult to understand what the law is all about and who has doubts about its accessibility.

The dismaying features of the present state of play in the legislative field include, first, the great quantity of legislation that is flowing through. If I may say so without seeking to be party political, some of the legislation is of a highly controversial character. We have apparently reached the end of consensus and we move into more troublesome parliamentary times. But there it is. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will say in reply that that happened when a Labour government came in after a Conservative government. That may be so: I know not. But there is a flood of legislation that has come through and is coming through which, by its controversial quality—if that is the right word to use about it—has added to the problems that Parliament has had to face in coping with it.

Additionally there is the great length and complexity of the Bills that are coming forward. That little Bill the Copyright Bill has 277 clauses. The Criminal Justice Bill is a modest little thing compared with that, only 139 clauses. A massive burden is being placed upon the House, where we are at present coping as best we can with the Criminal Justice Bill and shall shortly be faced with the Copyright Bill. One of the troubles that we meet in the present arrangements about legislation is that these Bills come to the House for Second Reading with, broadly speaking, no preliminary indication to the Members as to their content apart from manifesto commitment, the odd leak, the odd newspaper report and sometimes White Papers, from which very frequently the Bills which follow depart in substance and significance. We are not given much chance to cope with the situation as it presents itself to us.

I was interested to read a valuable book by my old colleague Sir William Dale, who was in my department in the old days in the Attorney-General's Office. In it he urges the importance of interposing in the legislative process a stage between drafting a Bill and its enactment. This is a matter of great significance. I appreciate that it would involve major changes and that there will not be any great enthusiasm on the part of government to engage in major constitutional changes, but it is worthy of very serious thought. Sir William Dale's hook, Legislation Drafting: A New Approach, makes this point very strongly:

"A legislative body is wise to arm itself with the means of criticising and revising the draft Bills laid before it, and this the continental system of parliamentary working provides. The report of such a Committee reflecting the thorough discussion with ministers and civil servants as required, and setting out amendments proposed, with a table showing these, the text of the existing law and the text of the Bill, is a helpful guide to the House when the Bill comes to be debated".

If we had that arrangement we should not be so naked when Bills came before us as I fear we are now with our present arrangements.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, whose speech I greatly enjoyed, I commend the value of the Bills that come from the Law Commission, which is able to apply its scholarly and able mind under less pressure than we face in the House. It presents us not only with measures of law reform but with Bills to give effect to them. One of the most agreeable parts of my political life was spent working with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in that exciting period in the process of law reform when the Law Commission was created.

The concept which I have just mentioned and which is stressed in Sir William's book is not wholly alien to this country. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments works on Continental lines although as a rule the subordinate legislation it examines is already made. There is there a parallel arrangement, and I understand that an experiment on those lines was made in respect of one or two Bills. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, may have some recollection of this. I cannot take the matter further than that. A process which would give Parliament and the House of Lords a greater opportunity of being forewarned, forearmed and informed is something which we presently lack and which would be valuable.

As to drafting, I too commend the devotion and work of the parliamentary draftsmen, in spite of the frequency of adverse and often ill-informed attacks on their work. Perhaps the most spectacular attack was made by Lord Justice Harman, and for the pleasure of reading it out, I shall quote it again. It will be familiar ground to your Lordships. He was construing a statutory instrument in the Court of Appeal, and he said:

"To reach a conclusion on this matter involved the court in wading through a monstrous legislative morass, staggering from stone to stone and ignoring the marsh gas exhaling from the forest of schedules lining the way on each side. I regarded it at one time, I must confess, as a Slough of Despond through which the court would never drag its feet, but I have, by leaping from tussock to tussock as best I might, eventually, pale and exhausted, reached the other side where I find myself, I am glad to say, at the same point as that arrived at with more agility by Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls".

My Lords, it is very kind of the noble and learned Lord to give way. To be fair to parliamentary counsel, they do not draft statutory instruments. They are drafted by the departmental lawyers.

My Lords, if I may say so, I was going to make that correction myself. It is quite true. I should also add that I was once the victim of the punctilio for which Lord Justice Harman was famous. I was appearing before the Court of Appeal for a watchmaker who had suffered an injury which, as I put it to the court, affected the dexterity of his left hand. The Lord Justice said "What? The dexterity of his left hand?" I said, "My Lords, if it would be more convenient for me hereafter to refer to it as the sinisterity of his left hand, I should be very happy to do so". He was with me from that point on, incidentally. However, enough of this anecdotage.

The criticisms are occasionally easy to make and we have been given some recent examples. The fault lies in part in the system. I entirely agree with the suggestion that the responsibility for the draftsmen should rest with the Lord Chancellor's Office. I agree also that the draftsmen's numbers should be increased, because we are putting enormous burdens upon them.

The difficulties of draftsmen these days are perhaps greater than they used to be, not only because of the quantum of legislation—there may have been as much in the past, I know not—but because of the greater complexity of the matters with which they now have to deal. Much legislation—tax laws, company laws and so on—deals with complex formulae. Such legislation seeks to balance conflicting financial, economic and social interests and to make exceptions to exceptions to exceptions. It is a task of appalling complexity.

Sometimes the policy which the draftsmen have to transmit in a Bill is not properly thought out and is almost incapable of being carried out in a way which is intelligible to the average citizen. In the case of Merker Island Shipping v. Laughton in which the Court of Appeal had to construe three Acts of Parliament dealing with industrial relations, including the 1980 Act, the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Donaldson, said in his judgment:

"The Judges of this Court are all skilled lawyers of very considerable experience, yet it has taken us hours to ascertain what is and what is not offside, even with the assistance of highly experienced counsel. This cannot be right".

He added:

"I don't criticise the draftsman. His instructions may well have left him no option. When formulating policies, Ministers of whatever political persuasion should at all times be asking themselves and asking parliamentary counsel 'Is this concept too refined to be capable of expression in basic English? If so, is there some way in which we can modify the policy so that it can be properly expressed'".

I am bound to say that, if that advice was followed more often, we in Parliament would perhaps be less troubled. It is rather interesting that when the matter went to the House of Lords the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, echoed everything that had been said by the Master of the Rolls.

In these complex matters the draftsman is also subject to the stern discipline of the need for precision. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will recollect, the Renton Report stressed that the draftsman must never be forced to sacrifice certainty for simplicity, because the result may well be to frustrate the legislative intention. The draftsman is in this difficulty. While he is criticised for making laws too complicated he may also be criticised when simple provisions are found to be imprecise. It is an uneasy road.

There is also the time factor, which has already been stressed during the debate. Much legislation is carried out in far too great a hurry, and that is happening now. For instance, we are having to deal with the Criminal Justice Bill at an intolerable speed, with an insufficient gap between one stage and another. This pressure on the draftsman is not new. I remember when I was Attorney-General receiving a letter from parliamentary counsel which said: "I am sorry that this letter is so long. I did not have enough time to write a shorter one". As a matter of interest, I have since discovered that that was first said by Pascal, but I do not want to take anything from the quality of the draftsman who sent me that true letter. The draftsmen have to work under great pressure and sometimes have to deliver the goods before they have finalised the Bill themselves.

There is one final problem—I am taking advantage of my predecessors' economical use of time, with the permission of the House—and that is in the legislative field. It has been identified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, with his immense wisdom and experience. He said in a debate in the House that legislation,

"is not only much too large in quantity,"—

this was way back in 1966, as a matter of interest—

"but much too detailed in substance".

He referred in his speech on that occasion to,

"the preoccupation with every minute case which has to be regulated … as legislators, we have a responsibility in this matter, which one can perhaps define by saying that we should endeavour, so far as we can, to resist this process of detailed and excessive regimentation and try to press for a wider mesh in our legislation."—[Official Report, 1611/1966: col. 1295.]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has spoken on similar lines.

I end with the words in this context of Lord Halsbury, who said:

"The more words there are, the more words are there about which doubts may be entertained."

Looking at the clock and the passage of time, I had better take the hint of those wise words myself.

My Lords, the House is indebted to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for initiating this debate. I knew him many years ago when I was a child and he was about to embark on the legal career which led him far from the courts of Edinburgh. At that time he gave me sweets, and tonight perhaps I might say that he has rather given me savouries.

As the Minister responsible for the Scottish parliamentary draftsmen the subject particularly interests me, although I shall of course in this debate be looking at the subject in a United Kingdom context. Perhaps at the outset I should acknowledge myself as an heir to Recommendation 92 of the report of the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Renton. We must, as we were at the time of its publication, remain indebted to him for his committee's work.

The Motion before the House refers separately to the preparation and to the drafting of parliamentary legislation, and although they run into each other I should like to deal with each subject in turn. The most conspicuous part played in the preparation of a Bill is that of the parliamentary draftsman since it is his text which is placed before Parliament.

Let me say here and now that I welcome the tributes that have been paid today to the parliamentary draftsman. We should remember that his work constitutes in effect the last lap in what might be seen as a relay race. He cannot begin until he receives his instructions from the legal adviser to the department which is promoting the Bill, the legal adviser cannot prepare the instructions until the department concerned has worked out in detail how the policy is to be given effect, and for policy of course they have to wait for the decision of Ministers.

I entirely endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that the responsibility for the drafting of any Bill lies with the Minister whose Bill it is, and nowhere else. That being so I have to make a distinction—because I think it has sometimes been missed in some of the speeches this evening—between what is pure drafting and what is in fact policy, because for that too the Minister takes responsibility.

In saying that I am conscious of some of the criticisms that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Dilhorne have made. They seemed to me to go rather more to policy than to the drafting of the Bill itself. Equally let me say too to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. that the point he was making was again a policy point and not one of drafting.

I would say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that obviously Ministers learn from their errors. It must be a question of determining how best to put matters before the House. I can assure her that Ministers are conscious of the points at which they may have failed as being valuable experience for the future.

To both the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and my noble friend Lord Renton in relation to the business of a legislation committee I have to say that I do not see it likely that there will be any change in the use which that committee makes in the regulation of business. Policy scrutiny is a matter to be determined elsewhere. I take the point about the drafting, but I suggest that at the end of the day it comes back to the Minister whose Bill it is to take full responsibility for its drafting.

My Lords, surely the noble and learned Lord is not gainsaying that the job of the legislation committee is precisely to look at drafting after policy has been determined?

No, my Lords, I am not suggesting that, but what I am saying is that it can go no further than the drafting and not to policy. Certainly, as I understood it, when it was under the chairmanship of the Lord Chancellor it went beyond drafting to policy. But notwithstanding what I have said, I would be happy to draw what has been said today to the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House, who would be particularly concerned with it.

I turn to the three stages that I have referred to. Each of these stages is of equal importance in the process and, as was recognised in the Renton report, the stages before drafting begins are of crucial importance to the ease or difficulty of the draftsman's task. The comparison with a race is apt, because the demands of the parliamentary timetable and our system of sessional cycles for legislation impose strict constraints of time.

1 think it is well known that governments have in the past had to drop Bills in order to introduce, or facilitate the progress of, other Bills. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that the concept of non-contentious legislation fell apart in the early years of this century, and perhaps since then legislation has continued to be contentious in varying degrees. I cannot suggest that we shall ever get back to the halcyon days of the Victorian era in that regard.

The Government are conscious of pressures, but the matter seemed to me to be answered by what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said in relation to government business. I would not propose tonight—I do not think it appropriate—to discuss the question of how this House organises its business. That was discussed in a debate last week and does not seem to me to fall within today's topic.

I take the point about rushed legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised, and indeed the future legislation committee must be fully aware of this. Indeed, in recent years work has started early on a limited number of Bills for the Session after next. This is highly desirable for Bills of particular complexity and where that course has been adopted the drafting has benefited. An example is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill recently introduced into your Lordships' House. The drafting of that Bill has been praised by representatives of some of the outside interests consulted in the course of its preparation and will I trust also commend itself to your Lordships. But there are both political and practical difficulties in adopting this expedient more generally. The practical difficulty is that the people required to work on a Bill given an advance place in this way are often the same as those fully engaged on work for the current Session. The political difficulty needs no elaboration.

It is small wonder that with the demand on time and labour to prepare Bills for the next Session and some Bills for the Session after next, the size of the task and the constraints of time occasionally result in the introduction of Bills that need amendment on matters which in an ideal world would have been dealt with before introduction. That is not to say that a multitude of government amendments while a Bill is going through Parliament is necessarily a sign of lack of preparation. In many, and perhaps most cases, they are not drafting amendments but reflect the Government's response to points of substance made by Members and by those outside Parliament who are affected by, or interested in, the subject.

Indeed, I go along entirely with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, about the importance of listening while legislation is going through Parliament and taking advantage of the passage of the Bill to incorporate improvements. Therefore, an amendment is not in itself an indication of poor preparation. I should like to say, from my own personal experience, how valuable consultation has been during the passage of a Bill, as well as before it, in preparing legislation for Parliament.

In the instance of the Financial Services Bill, in which I played a little part, that was a case where there was a volume of amendments in the later stages, and a substantial proportion of those were the result of consultation with interested parties that had occurred during the course of the passage of the Bill; and the Bill was much the better for it. The same could indeed be said of the Insolvency Bill because of the debates that took place in this House because parties were alerted as to what was going through. Again, it was possible to deal with those matters by way of amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, raised the matter of the number of parliamentary draftsmen, as did the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. My noble friend Lord Renton also referred to this in passing. There has been an improvement recently. The complement of the Parliamentary Counsel Office from last September has been 12 senior and 14 junior counsel. Parliamentary draftsmen work in teams; that is to say, a senior and a junior work together.

The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, raised the question of training. There is a form of introductory talks on certain subjects which are given to those entering the office by first parliamentary counsel. However, the general view is that training juniors really has to be learning on the job—and I think noble Lords will fully understand why that is so—since the majority of junior counsel now in post have been recruited comparatively recently, six of them as recently a last September.

The main burden of the work, of course, falls on the seniors, and some idea of that burden can be gathered from a few figures. In 1976, 1,400 pages of new legislation were drafted by 11 seniors, with the assistance of eight juniors. In 1986, 2,174 pages were drafted by the same number of seniors but with the assistance of nine juniors. In addition, there are at present three seniors and one junior seconded to the Law Commission to assist in the work of law reform consolidation. It is hoped next year to increase the complement to three seniors and three juniors, as agreed with the Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for the Commission.

I should like to reply to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the use of the Law Commission in, as it were, overseeing or supervising Bills going through Parliament. First of all, there is no statutory duty for it to do so. Secondly, I suspect it is fully engaged with what it is doing at the present time and would not therefore welcome a further burden of that kind.

As regards Scotland, I have nine Scottish parliamentary draftsmen, which is an increase of one over the past 10 years. They are responsible to me and act as my legal secretaries. In addition, there are one full-time and two part-time draftsmen who have been seconded to the Scottish Law Commission. It is sometimes suggested that the burden on parliamentary draftsmen could be reduced and that even more legislation could be drafted if outside assistance was obtained. The Renton Committee examined this possibility in detail in 1975. At that time it firmly concluded that outside counsel do not provide a significant alternative resource for drafting legislation, although retired parliamentary counsel can help with consolidation. Indeed, a retired counsel has prepared the enormous consolidation of the Income and Corporation Tax Acts.

Reference has been made, obliquely, to the use of computer technology. In this connection, I am able to say, in response to a point which my noble friend Lord Balfour raised, that drafting offices are now able to produce successive drafts of a Bill in a format which enables it to be accepted by printers and rapidly produced, by modern technology, as a printed Bill. Work is also proceeding to establish statutory databases to facilitate the rapid updating of statutes in force and to enable a retrieval system to be established which would assist both the draftsmen and the user of statutes. It is recognised that here again the work of the draftsman could be eased and the time taken to prepare drafting could be reduced.

I now turn to the question of drafting. The Renton Committee recognised that many Acts were well drafted and gave no grounds for criticism. At the same time, however, I accept—perhaps I have to accept, in view of the comments made in this House this evening—that there are from time to time particular provisions that cause difficulty and are capable of improvement. A draftsman is always ready to have another go if Ministers are willing to move the necessary amendments. In the last session there were several occasions when this was done with resulting benefit to the drafting of the Bills in question.

The Government have always accepted that the drafting recommendations in the Renton Report are a valuable summary of the best drafting practice, and those recommendations are certainly taken into account when government legislation is being prepared. I count among them recommendation 30, in relation to the use to be made of subordinate legislation. I must, however, caution that they cannot be regarded as rules of universal application. The extent to which any particular device can be adopted depends on the nature of the particular Bill and the draftsman's judgment of how best he can deal with his instructions.

In that sense I think I probably have to say it is unlikely that a test case of the kind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggested can be launched, although I have to say that in the preparation of other recent legislation—the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to this—it is quite clear that various aspects and recommendations of the Renton Committee have been taken into account. I was therefore very happy to hear him say that there had been an improvement. I accept that my noble friend Lord Renton was perhaps less than enthusiastic on this, but I can recollect that when dealing with the Criminal Justice Bill for Scotland last year we made use of the formula which the Renton Committee had asked for—I remember my noble friend commented on that—which was introduced by way of amendment.

On delegated legislation, I have to say, as has been pointed out already—I think the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to this and, in part, so did my noble friend Lord Dilhorne—that it is not a matter for drafting by parliamentary counsel. However, I accept that one can always look for improvement there and I will certainly see that these matters are brought to the attention of those who would be interested in this subject. As regards the substance of the Bill, the draftsman is not a free agent. It is sometimes thought that when Ministers or officials come to a parliamentary counsel with a simple straightforward idea it is then elaborated into a text of practically impenetrable complexity. It is no part of parliamentary counsel's job to make simple things complex. On the contary, what he strives to do is to present complicated matter in as simple a way as he can.

However, as the Renton Committee acknowledged, there is a limit to what can be done in that direction. The draftsman has clients whose demands he is bound to fulfil. Those who ask for simpler legislation should address themselves to the draftsman's clients, and I am conscious that your Lordships have done that this evening. Nevertheless, a responsibility rests on Members of both Houses whose demands are not always directed to greater simplicity. I do not wish to enter today into too much detail about the issues as to whether legislation should be drafted in more general terms except to say, for instance, that the kind of thing that has been suggested in the way of purpose clauses is to be found in Clauses 28 and 163 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill, and the view is taken that that can be usefully used where the particular subject is apt for it.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton, also made reference to the statements of principle. I think that if noble Lords were to consider the legislation of the last Session they would recognise that few of the measures could have achieved their objective by statements of principle, even where the subject matter of a Bill, or part of a Bill, might lend itself to that. I question whether Parliament would be prepared to leave the detailed working out of principle to the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made that very point. Would not the citizen expect to find the answer to his case dealt with in the Bill rather than have to wait for the judgment of the court in a case which he may never be able to raise?

For those reasons we are at present going as far as we can in order to adopt such solutions. I am reminded of what was once said on this matter by a parliamentary draftsman. He said:

"Drafting complications are but a reflection of the complexity of modern society and the difficulty of saying anything simple about anything".

In reply to the noble and learned Lord opposite with regard to the giving of explanations to complex Bills, use is made of the White Paper to achieve exactly that. A White Paper has been published on the Merchant Shipping Bill which was recently introduced into your Lordships' House. That is an excellent way for the basic idea to be formulated. And, as the noble and learned Lord knows well, it has already been done. We have taken steps to deal with that point.

Two matters which complicate the task of drafting legislation are perhaps not generally appreciated. The first is the need to prepare a text which simultaneously has to serve two different purposes. First, it has to serve as a Bill indicating to Members of both Houses what changes in the laws it is intended to bring about and, secondly, it has to do duty, when enacted, as a statute telling the public, lawyers and judges what the law then is. The Renton Committee recognised this difficulty and recommended that priority should be given to the second objective. That recommendation has now been generally adopted. Its most obvious form is the almost universal use of textual amendment when altering previous legislation.

My noble friend Lord Balfour raised the issue of statutes in force. I appreciate the force of what he said. I am afraid that I can give him cold comfort in the suggestion that we shall get any further forward in bringing statutes in force up to date as quickly as he would wish. However, we take the point that he has made. I should also like to respond to the points made by my noble friend Lord Selkirk as regards Notes on Clauses. That is a matter we wish to look at again, although in the past we have made the notes available where possible to those interested in a particular Bill. I should also like to respond to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, with regard to the explanation in the Explanatory Memorandum for the purpose of a trigger clause. I heard what the noble Lord said about codes of practice. There is no committee in existence but perhaps I may write to him on the current state of play.

The second difficulty is that the substantive content of a Bill tends to develop both in the stages of preparation before introduction and as it passes through Parliament. I referred earlier to the successive stages of what may be likened to a relay race. In practice, these stages tend to overlap with alterations of policy and the emergence of new points as drafting proceeds. An experienced draftsman has told me that he regards purely as a matter of drafting the first draft of a Bill as often being the best because it is constructed to give effect to what has been presented to him at that stage as a complete picture. Any elegance of language or structure that the first draft may have had easily becomes distorted by the introduction of qualifications and new material. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that at the end of the day it is the finished product that is the subject of some criticism of the courts. But that is the product of this legislature.

The claim is often made that Acts should be drafted to be intelligible to the man in the street or, as it is sometimes suggested, put in "plain English". I think that noble Lords will recognize—and they have said so tonight—that a good deal of our legislation deals with subjects that have become so complex that a considerable effort is needed to understand them and that there is little that language can do to alleviate the difficulty. My noble friend Lord Balfour may be interested to know that earlier this year the first parliamentary counsel and other members of his office had a very friendly meeting with representatives of the Campaign for Plain English.

Parliamentary counsel offered their visitors a Bill and a particularly long sentence out of another Bill with an invitation to improve or shorten them. It is, I think, fair to say that these exchanges led to a recognition both that some legislation, at least, was in fact in pretty plain English already and that there were considerations affecting a legislative text that differed from other forms of writing. It is more important that a statutory provision should be right in the sense of achieving the desired object than that it should be attractive judged by normal standards of good writing.

We are prepared to look outside. The noble and learned Lord opposite made reference to Sir William Dale, and reference was also made to the conference of the French and British draftsmen. There are also occasions when draftsmen meet otherwise; for instance at the Commonwealth Law Conference where there are useful meetings for comparison of drafting methods. I assure the House that minds are not closed in any way and there is always a useful exchange between my draftsmen and parliamentary counsel. That is not to say that there is not good drafting and bad drafting. Perhaps no one is better aware of that than the professional draftsman himself. But any noble Lord who has tried to draft an amendment will recognise that correct and accurate drafting is not as easy as it looks.

My noble friend Lord Renton raised two points with regard to his Recommendations 108 and 109. My noble friend will recollect that after careful consideration the government of the day, of which I believe the noble and learned Lord opposite was a member, were not satisfied that the Statute Law Committee was an appropriate body to discharge the function proposed for it, or that the proposal to keep the statute book under continuous review was likely to lead to any worthwhile improvement in the drafting of legislation. At present, that remains the view of this Government, but I am anxious that the views which the noble Lord has expressed today should be drawn to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.

As regards the movement of the department from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I think that I must be cautious, notwithstanding the blandishments of the noble and learned Lord opposite, in supporting that suggestion.

I should like to put this question: what happens when the Lord Chancellor is sitting as chairman of a committee which decides that legislation before it, for which his department has been responsible, has been badly drafted? I do not suggest that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his judicial capacity should ever be placed in the position of criticising his ministerial responsibilities. Nevertheless, I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of my noble and learned friend.

No Member of Parliament can rest with an easy conscience upon the proposition that the preparation and drafting of legislation has reached a perfect pitch. My noble friend the Leader of the House, when responding to the recent debate on the report by the group on the working of this House, pointed to the pitfalls which attend instant legislation. He also made reference to timing and I apologise for going over the time allocated. However, this is an important subject and as there is a little time left I hope that noble Lords will hear me out.

It can be argued that, like the best dishes, legislation should be composed of good ingredients, be well prepared and simply served. Unfortunately, just as the dish when presented may suffer from the knife of the diner whose taste may differ from that of the chef, so too a Bill as presented can suffer parliamentary scrutiny. But I think that we should still strive to attain both of the qualities to which the Psalmist referred when he said:

"But the statutes of the Lord are right and rejoice the heart".

I should like to thank my noble friend for having introduced this useful debate. I have taken note of all that has been said. I am sure too that the debate will be noted in other quarters.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord referred in passing to secondary legislation. Will he be kind enough to deal explicitly with the important point made by the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Renton; namely, that we may have to look forward to secondary unamendable legislation taking the place of primary amendable legislation?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I should have dealt with that point but I thought I had done so in dealing with Recommendation No. 30. I am wholly unaware that any such suggestion has been made. I say that in the sense that I see legislation only as it is being presented. Certainly, I know of no plans of the kind that are suggested.

My Lords, at this late hour I do not propose to say very much more. The House has heard a brilliant defence of the existing situation. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has done and hope that he means what he says. Some of the observations made this evening are worth further consideration.

There are two matters about which I feel very strongly. One concerns the absence of any stated purpose in a Bill. As an illustration, let me cite the opening clause of the Merchant Shipping Bill:

"In this Part—

(a) sections 2 and 3 have effect in place of section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894".

Such is the opening of that Bill. I think that some statement of purpose is desirable. Secondly, it seems to me to be absolutely essential to consult the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I shall not speak any further. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what support and funding they are giving to researches into alternatives to the use of animals in laboratories as a step towards the fulfilment of the aims of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

My Lords, we have a thinnish House and it is a fairly late hour. As one totally on the other side to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I wish to congratulate him on bringing up this very difficult, interesting and delicate subject tonight. The only reason that I am speaking is that, along with the noble Earl who will be replying, I have had some small experience of this difficult problem in the Home Office.

We must make animals suffer in order that experiments can come right for ourselves. Perhaps that is right, perhaps it is wrong. I do not know. But whatever else may happen animals must be looked to and looked after in the correct manner and under the ways and the means that are laid down by Home Office procedures.

The noble Lord talked about effectiveness. We are really discussing the effectiveness of the procedures. I wish to ask the noble Earl who will be replying and the noble Lord who put down this Question to think about the circuses of way back. There was and still is great trouble about performing animals and what goes on in circuses. Bertram Mills' Circus has long since gone out. However, it used to offer every Member of Parliament of both Houses some sort of a card if they wrote and asked for one. They were not plastic cards in those days as they had not yet been invented. Wherever there was a Bertram Mills establishment, be it circus, training area or whatever, a Member of Parliament could enter day or night with the card and be shown around. They were also made welcome when they looked at how the animals were treated and what went on.

Could not the Member of Parliament within whose constituency that licensed establishment lay have a card to go in as and when he wished? That privilege could not be extended to all Members of the House of Commons but it could be extended to those Members in whose constituencies there were such establishments. Possibly it could be extended to Members of your Lordships' House who are concerned with these matters. We would have to write to the establishments and perhaps noble Lords would receive a card such as Bertram Mills used to give out which would enable them to enter any licensed establishment where scientific experiments were carried out.

That system used to work extremely well but as far as I know I was the only Member of Parliament who ever took advantage of the Bertram Mills offer. Perhaps others also did that but I was told by Mr. Bertram Mills that I was the only one who had ever gone. However, there is no reason why Members of Parliament, if they wish, should not have access to licensed establishments to see how the animals are looked after and to establish the reasons for the experiments that take place.

There should he Members of Parliament who are interested in the subject. It would not be possible to allow all Members of Parliament to enter those premises but I suggest that Members of your Lordships' House and the constituency Member concerned should have that right. They should have the right to view the conditions in which the animals are kept, their treatment and the reasons for the experiments to which they are subjected. If they have reason to think that things are not as they should be there would be ways and means to complain to the Home Office or the authorities concerned.

There is much concern among the general public as regards these experiments. I agree that many of the experiments are of no consequence at all, but equally, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, many of them are of big consequence to the general public. Her Majesty's Government and the Minister should be finding some way or some means to determine whether those experiments are absolutely necessary and that, above all, the animals concerned are treated in the proper way and in the manner that is required under the regulations. The regulations exist but there is only a given number of inspectors for a given number of cases and a given number of experiments. It should be possible for the Member of Parliament of the area concerned and for all Members of your Lordships' House-there are about three of us here tonight—to write to apply for such a certificate or such a pass to see the experiments at any time of the day or the night, as and when they wish, without previous warning being given. That was exactly how the Bertram Mills Circus arranged its affairs for us all.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has made it abundantly clear in his excellent introduction that the subject of his Unstarred Question is of very great importance and urgency. He has made it clear that the replacement of animals in medical and scientific research is an issue which people in this country regard as important. Those of us in the House are very grateful to my noble friend for having brought this matter up, as also are many people outside the House, who will be pleased to see the point being discussed this evening.

There is little doubt that all of us who took part in the debates on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill last year were impressed by and admired the efforts made by the Government to transform the whole apparatus and control of the use of live animals in laboratories in Great Britain. Indeed, many animal welfare societies were also very supportive of the Bill and relieved to see machinery set up for greatly increased protection for laboratory animals, which was the major objective of the Bill.

As my noble friend said, the Act became operative from 1st January 1987. It is too early for any detailed monitoring of the working of the Act to be carried out. However, I have been asked to bring up one point which has given concern and which has been brought to my attention by the RSPCA. It involves an area of the Act which appears not to have been put into effect. Why have the Government not appointed the full complement of Home Office inspectors when the administration of the Act necessitates an increased workload for them? I understand that at present there are only 18 inspectors appointed; the Act states that there should be 21. I have not given the noble Earl notice of my question. Perhaps he can let me have an answer at some point.

I accept that that comes rather outside my noble friend's Unstarred Question, which concerns the major aim of the Act and the part of it which is of greatest concern to the public; that is, the replacement of animals in medical and scientific research. He said that so far there has not been a concerted effort to achieve that aim and has made serious suggestions as to how it can be accelerated. At this late hour I shall not go over the points which my noble friend made. However, I should like to make one or two brief additional points.

First, I wish to mention the extent of public interest in the issue. The people of this country feel strongly about the use of animals in scientific research. The only thing which will content them is to see a steady reduction in the number of animals used. For them, that will be the measuring stick of the success of the Act.

It is important to recognise that there is a growing number of young people in this country whose interest in politics is minimal. Their interest is focused on environmental and ecological issues; they are less interested in economic and social aspects. That means that they are taken up with health issues and an interest in animals and animal rights. For those young people it is difficult to understand why there should be any animal experimentation in cosmetics. Although they are interested in the whole subject, they may not be interested enough to know of the variations in cosmetics. Nevertheless, there is a growing group of people whose interests have moved from old-style politics to the issues concerned with the environment, ecology and animals. It is therefore of great importance for the Government to accelerate measures put into the Act for the satisfaction of that growing number of people.

The objective is to see the number of animals used in experiments reduced. That is especially true of cats, dogs, primates and other very sensitive species. It is important for the Government to give encouragement to alternative methods of research and to show that it is not cost which dominates their thinking. For example, I understand that in the development of monoclonal antibodies methods have been discovered which mean that fewer mice need to be given tumours. If the Government are seen to look to cost as the ultimate arbiter, then confidence will diminish in their genuine resolve to bring down the number of animals used in scientific experiments.

Finally, what is being done to bring together and accelerate the work going on at present and to encourage more work to be undertaken? How is the necessary co-ordination, impetus and financial support to be found? My noble friend has made pertinent suggestions to the Minister as to how that can best be done. He has made it quite clear that there is no time to lose. The Act is already on trial and it will be judged by its achievements or otherwise in the continued steady reduction of animal usage during the life of this Parliament. That is the criteria which will be applied by the public. If they are not convinced, animal experiments will be an issue in the next general election and it will be an issue of greater force, bitterness and determination than ever.

My noble friend wishes to take the issue out of the hands of the militant animal rights organisations, which do so much harm to the cause and to animals themselves. He has pointed out that the Government have a limited time to show the results that the general public will insist on. He has made it clear that what is necessary is resolve, organisation and funding.

My Lords, I must confess to some trepidation in addressing your Lordships' House this evening. I hasten to mention that this is not because of any deficiencies in the Government's position on the issue in question. On the contrary, we have a good story to tell, which I shall shortly unfold. My trepidation arises from having to talk on a subject—the welfare of animals—on which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has a fund of experience and wisdom which is quite unique. On the more personal note, however, I am proud of my paternal credentials so far as animals are concerned, for, as some of your Lordships will remember, it was my father who was responsible for putting on the statute book the Badgers Act of 1973, which sought to protect those delightful creatures. It was kind and thoughtful of the noble Lord to mention that.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton is of course a long-standing and indefatigable campaigner for the improvement of animal welfare in all its aspects. The fact that he has raised the particular matter which is the subject of this evening's debate, and his speech on the subject, are both ample confirmation of his expertise. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for ensuring that we are never allowed to forget our responsibility to make sure that there is adequate and proper provision under the law to safeguard the wellbeing of animals.

The use of live animals is unfortunately necessary for some medical and biological research and for essential safety testing. Past work has made a great contribution to safeguarding the health and welfare of people and animals. For example, without animal research it is unlikely that we should now be able to treat diabetes with insulin or vaccinate against terrible diseases such as polio and diphtheria. There is still much to he done in the development of medical treatment, in extending our understanding of the workings of the body and in ensuring the safety of new substances and products. Although great progress has been made in the development of alternatives, there are many procedures and types of research for which living animals are still indispensable.

However, as we all know, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is particularly closely associated with the recent legislation which has reformed the system of control over medical and scientific experimentation on living animals. He spent many years in persuasive and articulate advocacy of the need for reform of the system of control established under the previous legislation, the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. Under the able leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation was closely involved in the discussions which eventually resulted in the proposals for a new system of control over animal experimentation now established under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This Act was introduced in your Lordships' House.

The Question which we are this evening considering goes to the heart of the new Act. It concerns alternatives to the use of living animals in research. A principal purpose of the Act is to provide a system of licensing control which ensures that only where the use of living animals is necessary and unavoidable will such use be permitted. This central philosophy is spelt out very clearly in Section 5(5) of the Act, which states:

"The Secretary of State shall not grant a project licence unless he is satisfied that the applicant has given adequate consideration to the feasibility of achieving the purpose of the programme to be specified in the licence by means not involving the use of protected animals".

The concept of alternatives has other, equally important elements. I have already mentioned the desire to replace the use of whole living animals by use of non-living material or by techniques such as tissue culture. But there is also the considerable effort made to reduce the numbers of animals used to the absolute minimum necessary, where the use of living animals cannot he avoided altogether. And there is the constant search for methods to achieve the refinement of experimental procedures so as to minimise any suffering which might be experienced by those animals involved.

These, then, are the main aspects of the quest for alternatives: replacement, reduction and refinement, the so-called "Three Rs". The new system of control is designed to maximise the use of alternatives. In particular, very detailed scrutiny is given to all proposals for projects of work involving the use of living animals. A project licence authorising the work will only be granted after the most painstaking examination of the proposals, including close attention given to the scope for replacement, reduction and refinement.

I have to say that this attention to the question of alternatives is not something entirely new. For a long time the Cruelty to Animals Inspectorate provided my right honourable friend the Home Secretary with invaluable expert advice on applications for work to be carried out under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. The new Act therefore builds upon a rich legacy of experience. Now, in particular, the project licensing system which it has introduced enables the examination of the scope for alternatives to be informed by a much more detailed knowledge of the precise nature of the work proposed. I am sure that with the application and expertise of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, together with the continuing wholehearted co-operation of licensees and applicants, we shall be able to make great progress in the principal aim of the new legislation. That is of course to keep to the absolute minimum necessary the use of living animals in experimental and other scientific research and to minimise the suffering of any animal so used.

In 1984 the Government agreed to provide some financial assistance to two organisations with considerable expertise in this field: the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME) and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW). To date, the Government have given £185,000 to FRAME and £30,000 to UFAW. The money given to FRAME is to help with three projects: a feasibility study of validation of in vitro techniques which might replace animal experiments; work on a possible database of tissue culture techniques; and an examination of the use of human tissue cultures instead of animals in medical research and toxicity testing. The money given to UFAW has supported an evaluation of the effects of various cage sizes and social groupings on the wellbeing of laboratory rats.

When we made our decision in 1984 to provide assistance for research in this field it was the first time that the Home Office had intervened in this way. Since then, we have become more than ever convinced of the need for, and importance of, well thought out and conducted research into ways of reducing animal usage and suffering in necessary experimentation.

It is not my right honourable friend's intention to seek to become a major source of finance and proposals for research in the bioligical sciences. That is the task of the highly skilled funding bodies such as the Medical Research Council, and for decision by individual commercial organisations. Nonetheless, we believe that there would be benefit in my right honourable friend having the resources available each year to assist a number of selected pieces of research in the general area of alternatives. My right honourable friend has therefore sought to have available for this purpose, from the financial year 1988–89 onwards, funds of the order of £100,000 per annum.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has rightly emphasised the need for research in this area to be properly co-ordinated and assessed and so too has the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I can assure the House that we entirely share this concern. Clearly, we must ensure that we have full information on all the possibilities for worthwhile research into alternatives and that we obtain a critical, expert and impartial evaluation of all such proposals so that only the worthy projects receive support and we get the best possible value for money spent.

With these objectives in mind my right honourable friend has asked the Animal Procedures Committee, the statutory body established under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, to advise him on the priorities of research into alternatives and to assist him in the evaluation of proposals for work in this area. The Animal Procedures Committee has a most distinguished membership of scientific, medical and veterinary experts together with representatives of the moderate animal welfare movement and distinguished lay members. My right honourable friend greatly appreciates the hard work and expertise which the chairman and members contribute and the committee has already provided him with invaluable assistance on a number of matters.

The Animal Procedures Committee is in the process of considering what will be its advice to my right honourable friend on the question of funding research into alternatives. I do not anticipate what that advice will be or my right honourable friend's eventual decisions. However, I can say that the committee has established a research sub-committee to examine the possible areas of research which might be funded and the way in which details of research proposals might be obtained and evaluated, including perhaps reference to outside assessors with particular expertise in the specific types of work to be evaluated. Later this year the full committee will be examining the matter again in the light of the subcommittee's deliberations. It is therefore likely that my right honourable friend will be in a position to make some decisions on funding of research early in the new year.

I hope I have covered many of the points raised by speakers this evening, particularly those of the introducer of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. However, I should like to answer some questions that he specifically raised. First, he asked about primates. I can tell him that the new Act now provides that the Secretary of State shall not grant a project licence authorising the use of cats, dogs or primates unless he is satisfied that animals of no other species are suitable for the purposes of the programme to be specified in the licence or that it is not practical to use animals of other species that are suitable for those purposes.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, also raised the important question of cosmetics. I can tell the noble Lord that over 75 per cent. of cosmetic tests are carried out on human volunteers. Unfortunately, some tests still need to be carried out on animals. There is continual pressure to reduce them and to minimise their effects on animals. The pressure for alternatives to the use of live animals will continue and all applications for work on cosmetics are now examined by the Animal Procedures Committee. This additional scrutiny makes it even more difficult for unjustifiable work to slip through.

My noble friend Lord Bathurst raised the point of comparison with circuses. Statutory powers of entry are a considerable infringement of personal privacy and are only given to public officials when they have a specific enforcement role in relation to the legislation in question. The Home Office inspectorate has a duty, not a power, to inspect laboratories and breeding and supplying establishments under the new Act. Many laboratories admit other bona fide visitors from time to time. That is entirely for them to decide. There can be no question of giving MPs or Members of this House, RSPCA inspectors or other private individuals who are not responsible for enforcing the law a statutory right of entry into laboratories.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, rightly reiterated the public concern that there is about the use of animals for experimentation. On these Benches, we share the same values and have the same anxiety over that. She also asked about the number of inspectors. I understand that there are now 20 inspectors. Two vacancies have recently been filled. One recent unexpected retirement is the only reason that there are not 21.

Much work is being done both in this country and abroad to develop alternative methods of research which do not involve the use of live animals. Commercial companies, as well as academic and charitable bodies, are now devoting considerable resources to this effort. However, although techniques such as cell culture and isolated organs have many valuable uses, their capacity to replace the use of the whole live animal in many areas is limited at present. Both the development and validation of new alternative techniques takes a considerable time, but we attach great importance to the efforts to find ways of reducing the use of live animals in research. This is reflected in the previous research grants to FRAME and UFAW and the new research budget.

We took the unprecedented step of making some grants of money on an ad hoc basis some three years ago. Now we propose to go much further—to increase the sums available and to establish the support of research into alternatives as a continuing feature of the Government's involvement with animal experimentation. There will need to be a continuing, highly critical examination of research proposals and in due course of the outcome and success of research for which we have provided assistance. I know that the Animal Procedures Committee and the wider scientific community will play an important and helpful part in this. We have a most worthwhile and humane goal—the minimisation of animal usage and suffering—and we are sure that research, allied to the strict controls in the 1986 Act, will be a vital element in achieving this.

My Lords, will the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, allow me to speak again? The noble Lord who is sitting on the Woolsack commissioned me to look at such places—

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will give way. This is an Unstarred Question and therefore when my noble friend has answered, that is the end of business. I hope that my noble friend will agree.

My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord has been so kind as to say—

My Lords, my noble friend is out of order.

Correct.

My noble friend has answered this Question and that is therefore the end of the debate. There can he no more debate on it.