House Of Lords
Thursday, 26th June 1997.
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.
The Earl of Albemarle—Took the Oath.
Council Tax: Carers' Discount
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to ensure that local authorities inform carers about the "carers' discount" on their council tax.
My Lords, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has produced a leaflet on the council tax which includes specific information about the carers' discount. This leaflet has been distributed widely to local authorities and should be widely available. Local authorities are under a general duty to ensure that discounts are being granted to the right households. Authorities are also required to include with council tax bills information on the circumstances when a council tax bill may be subject to a discount. Beyond these general responsibilities the Government believe that it is up to individual authorities to decide what further steps they need to take to ensure that their local taxpayers are aware of the entitlement to a discount.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Is she aware that there is still considerable confusion between the poll tax and the council tax? Under the poll tax only paid care workers could claim discounts, but under the council tax unpaid workers, including parents, can claim discounts. Is she further aware that wording is being put out from various councils in the following terms:
That does not appear to clarify the difference between the poll tax and the council tax. Can the Minister ensure that Statutory Instrument No. 552, the Council Tax (Additional Provisions for Discount Disregards) Regulations 1992, is again distributed to local authorities in the near future and translated into plain English for council tax payers?"Reductions available; care workers who meet certain conditions"?
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. It is essential that those entitled to discounts understand the provisions that are available to them. It would be useful to ask officials to take the first possible opportunity to remind local authorities of the need to encourage take-up of the discounts by ensuring that people understand the eligibilities and that information about them is expressed as clearly as possible in council tax bills. Indeed, I undertake to ask officials to do so. I am a great believer in spreading good practice. This is an instance in which the department could be helpful. I undertake to ensure that we are as helpful as possible.
My Lords, how can local authorities ensure that carers are aware of the discounts unless information is supplied in the council tax documents which must be sent to every household? Only a few words are needed, leaving consequent applications to be dealt with in detail.
My Lords, the noble Lord reinforces the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. There is no need to circulate a great deal of information, but it has to be clear and well presented. We will do what we can to ensure that it is.
My Lords, my noble friend's response and promised action are warmly welcomed. However, as some local authorities have denied that a discount is available, will she monitor the response to her leaflet?
My Lords, there should be no doubt about eligibility to the discount. Its purpose is to ensure that people with disabilities and their carers do not pay more council tax as a result. Other provisions are designed to take account of the specific needs of disabled people. When we bring the matter to the attention of local authorities I undertake to ensure that they are clear about the provisions.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the whole House wishes to ensure that carers receive the discount and their full entitlement, it is important to emphasise that any suggestion of prescription of either forms or procedures would be at odds with a shared desire that local authorities should be less constrained by central government and that well run authorities make it their business to ensure that information is available? Furthermore, now that the initial problems have been overcome, can she tell the House whether there is any evidence that local authorities are not making the evidence available?
My Lords, we would not wish to be prescriptive but, as I said earlier, we do wish to encourage good practice. It is important that people with disabilities and their carers should have access to a standard of clear information on the issue, which is a universal provision. I believe that the noble Lord asked me a second question.
My Lords, I asked the Minister whether she had any evidence to show that local authorities are not fulfilling their duties.
My Lords, I believe that a number of voluntary organisations are concerned that while the duty may be being fulfilled technically, the quality of information—the point. I think, made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix—is such that people with disabilities and their carers are not able to access the discounts.
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are proposing to review the criteria for the discount? At the moment, I understand, a carer must be paid no more than £30 per week for at least 24 hours work per week. By my arithmetic, that works out at something like £1.20 per hour, which strikes me as pitiful.
My Lords, as I understand it, there are a range of carers who are eligible. Their presence in the house makes the householder eligible for the discount on council tax. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to write to him with further details.
Osteoporosis
3.14 p.m.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
In National Osteoporosis Week, what action they are taking to increase public awareness of preventive measures and treatment of this debilitating condition.
My Lords, the Government are aware of the devastating effect that that condition can have on both women and men who suffer from it. Improving public awareness about prevention and treatment will be part of our new public health programme. We shall continue to fund the excellent work of the National Osteoporosis Society. I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that in one of the very rare fine intervals this week, my honourable friend the Minister for Public Health and I took part in a splendidly named event, Take Your Bones for a Walk. We both enjoyed it and we were joined by about 50 Members of both Houses of Parliament.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am delighted that she went on the walk. It is extremely important to bring out the point that it is not only women who suffer from osteoporosis. One in 12 men aged over 50 suffer from it. Is the Minister aware that the estimated annual cost to the health service of treating men's fractures caused by osteoporosis is about £150 million? It is particularly important to have follow-up treatment to prevent recurrence and a second fracture. Is the Minister also aware that people who fall suffer from a fracture only if they have osteoporotic bones? Will she make it clear that the condition affects not only women but also men; and it can also affect young people, including athletes and ballet dancers, who may suffer from stress fractures if they have been on very restrictive diets?
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for reinforcing the point which I made briefly in my original Answer—that the condition unfortunately affects both men and women, and also young people. I understand that there are about 60,000 hip fractures every year which are attributed to osteoporosis and the total cost to the NHS is about £700 million each year for treating that condition. Anything that we can all do to reinforce public health messages about taking walks and having an appropriate diet is both useful for individuals and helpful to the health service.
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the work that has been done at the Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham? The orthopaedic surgeons there have found an unusually high number of osteoporotic stress fractures among young male farmers. Will the Minister say whether her department has had time to consider my request for £35,000 for funding further research into that matter?
My Lords, I am aware of the extremely unfortunate situation where, as the noble Countess says, several young men who were both active and much younger than the average age for osteoporosis appeared to have developed those symptoms. At the moment that research is not funded by the Department of Health but I understand that the National Osteoporosis Society is looking into the matter further.
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, tabled a Question last week for Written Answer asking for more details about the nature and extent of the disease? Will the Minister make quite sure that, having regard to the limited publicity given to Answers to Written Questions, in that particular case the fullest possible publicity is given to her Answer?
My Lords, I shall be delighted to do so. I thank my noble friend for drawing attention to the Written Question. Of course, that system provides an opportunity to give more detail than it is possible to give on the Floor of the House. If my noble friend can suggest further ways in which to make Written Answers, which, as he says, are sometimes buried at the back of Hansard, more available I shall be delighted to follow his recommendations.
My Lords, is the Minister aware that general practitioners who are fundholders have been able to use their resources in order to provide screening for their patient population? What will happen in the future on that score? What plans do the Government have to improve links between primary and secondary care with regard to osteoporosis?
My Lords, as I understand it, the advisory group on osteoporosis, which reported to the department at the time at which the noble Baroness was a Minister there, recommended that there was no need for national screening in that area. But individual health authorities and GPs can make available that opportunity if they wish to do so.
My Lords, perhaps I may make it clear that I was referring to high-risk screening.
My Lords, given the high incidence of that extremely debilitating illness, is there not a strong case now to launch a major public screening programme? Medical science now has the necessary equipment to do that. I am thinking in particular of bone density scanning which brings quickly to light how serious the problem is for an individual.
My Lords, my noble friend provides me with a helpful opportunity to answer that question and the supplementary question from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. There is clearly an interest in developing screening programmes for those people who have already been demonstrated to be at high risk. But there has been no suggestion yet that national screening for the condition should be available or would be profitable. On the other hand, the Royal College of Physicians is working on national guidelines to be distributed within a few months, as I understand it, which may indicate the way to go.
My Lords, can the noble Baroness help me to understand the relative importance which this Government—or perhaps in some senses the previous Government—attach to the terrible disease of osteoporosis by telling me how many people are suffering from it? How much money is currently being spent on research into prevention and treatment? How does this compare, for example, with the number of people suffering from AIDS, and the amount of taxpayers' money which is being spent on research and prevention of AIDS?
My Lords, I am afraid it is not possible for me to give exact figures on the distribution and numbers of people with osteoporosis. As I said in response to an earlier question, there are about 60,000 fractures a year which can be attributed in some degree to osteoporosis. I shall write to the noble Lord as regards research moneys.
National Minimum Wage
3.21 p.m.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is proposed that the minimum wage will be set at the same rate for recipients of all ages and in all parts of the United Kingdom.
My Lords, it is the Government's intention to introduce a national minimum wage. As we said in our manifesto, this will be set sensibly and apply throughout the United Kingdom taking account of the economic circumstances prevailing at the time. The independent Low Pay Commission will recommend to the Government the level at which the minimum wage might be introduced. Before formulating its recommendation the commission will undertake a wide-ranging consultation exercise and take account of the needs of workers of all ages.
My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, can he give an assurance that when the commission conducts this work it will look at the evidence from other countries, and in particular the evidence from Japan? Japan has relatively low unemployment and the minimum wage varies across the country. As I understand it, it is as low as 17 per cent. of the national average wage in metropolitan Tokyo. Will he compare that situation with the figures in France where there is a relatively high national minimum wage of some 58 per cent. of average national earnings and as a result there is high unemployment with youth unemployment double what it is in this country?
My Lords, it is wrong to attribute the comparatively high level of youth unemployment in some countries to minimum wage legislation. High unemployment levels within a particular country are the product of a number of different factors. The noble Lord may be a little selective in the figures that he has mentioned. If he were to study the figures in the United States he would see the impact of the minimum wage on youth unemployment there.
My Lords, with respect, is the noble Lord's assessment of this situation entirely realistic? Is he assuming that the commission will set disparate minimum wages in different countries? Perhaps he would agree that the commission will set a minimum wage and that it will be done by subsidiary legislation with supra-national effect to impose it upon a single European labour market. Is not that the reality of the situation?
No, my Lords. The duty of the commission will be to recommend to the Government a minimum wage for the United Kingdom. As I said in response to the Question, the commission will undertake a wide-ranging consultation exercise and will consider the needs of workers of all ages and in all parts of the country.
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with the recently appointed chairman of the Low Pay Commission that whatever level the minimum national wage is set for adults, there is a strong case for setting the rate for young workers at a lower level? Would that not both encourage more young people to stay in full-time education and also act as an inducement to employers to offer more of them jobs?
My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, but I cannot anticipate what the Low Pay Commission will decide. Part of its remit will be to look into that very point.
My Lords, can my noble friend assist us as regards the questions that the Opposition asks the Government about minimum wages? On what basis does it formulate its position? Is the Conservative Party in favour of poverty wages or is it in favour of the public purse subsidising bad employers?
My Lords, I cannot answer for the Opposition. One of the purposes of the minimum wage is to remove the subsidy of family benefits as they are used to subsidise low pay.
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the third report of the Competitiveness Advisory Group set up by the European Council of Ministers, on which the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, sat when chairman of BP, stated,
The group said that,"Modernisation of the labour market and the fight for more employment in Europe is not social policy: it is essential for our long-term economic competitiveness"?
Does the noble Lord agree with that report and with his noble friend, or not?"social legislation … should be subjected to a more intensive cost-benefit analysis and that minimum wages may do more harm than good".
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is being a little selective. From my memory of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Simon, he also said that it depends at what level the minimum wage is set. He did not say that the minimum wage itself was either good or bad.
My Lords, will the Minister remind the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, that there is a convention that committees on which we sit attempt to produce unanimous reports and that a great many of us on both sides of the House have sat on committees which have produced reports for which in our individual capacity we should not be called to answer?
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Earl.
My Lords, what will be the impact on competitiveness when producers pass on additional costs as a result of a minimum wage?
My Lords, there is no proof that the minimum wage creates increased costs. The research seems to indicate that firms tend to compete on the excellence of their products and services rather than on the wages that they pay to their staff.
My Lords, will my noble friend give the assurance that a national minimum wage will in no way impair free collective bargaining in industry and that the Government will not interfere if, in the public service, trade unions make claims to maintain differentials?
My Lords, the whole question of differentials is a little outdated. Most firms and organisations today have pay scales and pay bands and people are paid according to their skills, abilities and knowledge. The whole concept of differentials lies in the past. We may be discussing here a matter which is yesterday's problem.
My Lords, is the House entitled to assume from the answers that we have heard that the Low Pay Commission will have no constraints put upon what it recommends, and that the Government will accept the recommendations whatever they may be?
My Lords, no, one cannot make that assumption. The Low Pay Commission seeks people to serve on it who are independent, not those who represent various sectors of interest. The Low Pay Commission will reach a decision. The Government will listen to the advice of that low pay unit. However, the Government have every confidence in Professor Bain. Indeed, the noble Lord may have noted that advertisements appeared yesterday inviting people to apply to serve on the Low Pay Commission.
Health Services In London
3.30 p.m.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the recent statement by the Secretary of State for Health that he will postpone decisions on London's health services, what additional costs will be incurred and how they will impact on other health services in the United Kingdom.
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has appointed a small panel of distinguished people led by Sir Leslie Turnberg, who is at present president of the Royal College of Physicians, to give him rapid advice about the best way forward for developing health services in London. This follows our commitment to look again at the previous Government's proposals for change in which Londoners had lost confidence. The panel will be short lived, have minimal expenses and will work within the framework of resources available to the health service in London. There will be no financial impact on other services in England, nor on the health budgets in other parts of the United Kingdom, which are separately funded.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that full Answer. I wonder whether the Minister will remember that in a debate in your Lordships' House in December 1993 she said that nearly everyone who has looked at London's health services agrees with Sir Bernard Tomlinson's general conclusion. Can the noble Baroness say why the Government are now promoting a further delay in terms of a further review? I do not agree with the noble Baroness that there will be no financial impact. Delay will cost money. Year after year additional money goes into London to subsidise it from other parts of the country. Where is the money coming from? Will it come from the promised improvements for breast cancer services announced a fortnight or so ago; or from cancelling new hospitals and services in other parts of the country? Those parts of the country for far too long have subsidised London to the tune of around £200 million a year.
My Lords, in 1993 I believe that we were all more optimistic. I was tempted to say that we were all younger, which is also true. I was more optimistic about the pace and nature of change in London. Since then there has been growing public and professional unease about many of the previous Government's proposals. Perhaps I may give an example. For the past two years I have been sitting on the second King's Fund Commission on London and have seen at first hand the problems that confront the capital. Professor Brian Jarman, who was involved in the original controversy and is now a member of the new advisory panel, has consistently challenged the basic assumptions on which some of those proposals were made.
It is only common sense for the new Government to take stock and tackle the causes of concern about gaps and shortcomings in the provision of services. Once those gaps and shortcomings have been analysed by the new group, the complicated and more difficult questions about relative costs will become relevant.My Lords, the absence of statistical information makes it impossible to plan for London. Is my noble friend aware that the appointment of a specialised committee to assess the basic need for beds in London is welcomed and is sensible? Can the noble Baroness satisfy me that she will apply the same procedure to Birmingham, where the same chaos reigns in the hospital service?
My Lords, my noble friend has drawn my attention previously to the problems in Birmingham, and he does so again with his usual eloquence. As I said in Answer to the original Question, the panel chaired by Sir Leslie Turnberg has a specific remit on a short-term basis to look at London. If that process is seen to be effective, it might well be applied to other cities.
My Lords, in view of the further inquiry into health services in London, does the Minister recommend that hospitals at present involved in establishing PFI contracts should put the plans on hold until the committee has reported?
My Lords, perhaps I may give your Lordships details about specific PFI arrangements in London. They are fairly brief, and may reassure the noble Baroness.
At present business cases are being put forward for the University College London hospitals, the Royal hospitals, Havering, King's, St. George's and Greenwich hospitals. Those business cases will be examined by the London review independent advisory panel chaired by Sir Leslie Turnberg. As soon as the process has been completed, those PFI agreements which are available will be subject to the same rigorous and strategic approach that is being applied to all the national agreements. That may well be within the next few months.My Lords, it has been stated that all decisions as regards London are to be postponed. I must declare an interest. Will the Minister inform me whether appointments to health authorities will also be frozen until the end of the review; or will everyone proceed with reappointment or failure to reappoint irrespective of the outcome?
My Lords, I should make it clear that there is no moratorium on change which has already been agreed and which is taking place in London. There is a moratorium on further hospital closures until the review is completed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, mentioned, there is the question of further consideration on the PFI arrangements. However, consultancy on individual services in particular hospitals will go ahead where that has been agreed. The question of appointments to health authorities is at present under urgent consideration. We hope to be able to give the go-ahead on that quickly. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is concerned that people representing local communities should be represented on the health authorities.
My Lords, while confirming that the medical profession has every faith in the wisdom of the new panel to be chaired by Sir Leslie Turnberg, as it had four years ago in the panel headed by Sir Bernard Tomlinson, can the Minister assure us that the recommendations relating to the concentration of highly specialised units such as those in clinical oncology, neuroscience and the like which arose from the Tomlinson Report will not be overturned in the new review? Many of the existing units in those specialties are non-viable. They need to be replaced by a smaller number of much larger viable units.
My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot anticipate the recommendations of the review. One of the spurs to conducting the review was precisely the extremely slow progress being made on the basis of the specialty reviews in 1993. If I were politely to describe the situation as glacial, that would be optimistic. What was occurring was the simple freezing of arrangements which must go forward, as the noble Lord suggests.
My Lords, will my noble friend inform me whether the committee will look carefully at the cost accounting procedures which have been used and which have disadvantaged all inner-city hospitals?
My Lords, the review will cover the financial procedures.
Fossil Fuel Levy Bill Hl
3.37 p.m.
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Section 33 of the Electricity Act 1989. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Carter.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.
National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill Hl
3.38 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Powers of NHS trusts to enter into agreements]:
moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1. line 26, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) The validity of an agreement which meets the conditions set out in subsection (3) cannot be challenged merely because it has not been issued with a certificate under this section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I believe that plain English should be used in the drafting of Acts of Parliament. My amendment does nothing except turn a subsection of the Bill into plain English. Clause 1 (6) reads as follows:
"Nothing in this section affects the validity of any agreement made by a National Health Service trust if the agreement has not been certified under this section; but would have been an externally financed development agreement for the purposes of this section if it had been so certified".
The subsection tells us that an uncertified agreement is valid if it would have been an externally financed development agreement for the purposes of the Act if it had been certified. But we know that already. Any agreement is by definition an externally financed development agreement if it is certified as such. Clause 1(2), at line 7, tells us that. It reads:
"an agreement is an externally financed development agreement if it is certified as such".
So what does subsection (6) really mean?
A lawyer will probably be able to work out what subsection (6) is driving at. But what about the manager of an NHS trust; the manager of a bank which is to put up the money for a development; or the building contractor who will build the new hospital? Will they be certain what subsection (6) means?
They can find out what the subsection is meant to say by coming to the House of Lords, going to the Printed Paper Office and asking for the Notes on Clauses. If they do that, they will read:
"Subsection (6) … The validity of an agreement which meets the conditions set out in subsection (3) cannot be challenged merely because it has not been issued with a certificate under this clause".
The wording is crystal clear. It is also the precise wording of my amendment. Why can we not have that wording in the Bill?
Subsection (6) is an important provision. Many people involved in the smaller PFI schemes may not wish to go for a certificate if they can safely avoid it because of the delay that may be involved. The Notes on Clauses, and my amendment in the same terms, make it abundantly clear that they can dispense with a certificate if the conditions of subsection (3) are satisfied.
I suggested to the Minister in Committee that the wording of the Notes on Clauses should be used instead of the obscure wording of the Bill. My suggestion received a partial blessing. The noble Baroness said that I raised:
"an interesting and sensible point".
She helpfully added:
"anything which adds clarity in that way and simplifies the drafting is entirely to be welcomed".—[Official Report, 19/6/97; col. 1366.]
However, I am told that my wording—the wording in the Notes on Clauses—has been turned down by the parliamentary draftsman.
All I ask now is that your Lordships should say which is plainer English, the provision in the Bill, which states that an uncertified agreement is valid if it would have been an externally financed development agreement if it had been certified as an externally financed development agreement or the Notes on Clauses, and my amendment, which say that,
"The validity of an agreement which meets the conditions set out in subsection (3) cannot be challenged merely because it has not been issued with a certificate under this section".
I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
My Lords, I support this amendment by my noble and learned friend. We have simply no right to legislate in a manner that is incomprehensible to the people to whom the legislation is addressed and who are primarily concerned, particularly if the matter can be put in lucid and plain terms as it has been by my noble and learned friend, to whom we are deeply indebted. Like many great Chancery lawyers, my noble and learned friend is a gifted draftsman. It behoves us all, including parliamentary counsel, to show a little humility in the face of that.
This is not a new style of drafting. It is a form of drafting based on hypothesis. When I gave evidence to the Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation, I drew attention to a provision in a national insurance Act which went very much on the same lines. I venture to read it:Your Lordships will see the relationship between the two styles of drafting. The matter was put very plainly by my noble and learned friend. It is extremely important because the legislation is a vital part of the process whereby democratic society frames rules which bind of themselves. If the rules are incomprehensible, then the process of democratic legislation has broken down. The noble Baroness the Minister is perfectly capable of judging this matter for herself. She has noble genes of brains and character built into the double helix of her DNA, which she has cultivated, to our admiration, and demonstrated at both Dispatch Boxes. I say "for herself" because she is indeed left to herself. At the end of every brief that a Minister has are the words: "accept", "reject", or "consider". Judging by what happened in Committee, I should think it pretty certain that the word "reject" is at the end. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I am very relieved to hear that. In any case, it is for the noble Baroness, who is in charge of the Bill, to accept this amendment if it commends itself to her. I remember the occasion in the previous Parliament when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was in charge of a Home Office Bill in relation to which the brief undoubtedly ended with the word "reject". He read it solemnly and with increased consternation. In the end he accepted the amendment. I hope that will be a model to the noble Baroness."For the purpose of this Part of the Schedule a person over pensionable age, not being an insured person, shall be treated as an employed person if he would be an insured person were he under pensionable age and would be an employed person were he an insured person".
My Lords, I wish briefly, but warmly, to support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. The interesting quotation given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was in fact a piece of legislation drafted by a former first parliamentary draftsman who was a member of our committee. We teased him about it a certain amount. He had the grace to say that we should draw attention to it in an appendix to our report—the noble and learned Lord quoted that. He conceded that it could have been done better.
What I find very interesting about the amendment is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, was prompted to draft it having studied the Notes on Clauses. The Notes frequently declare the Government's intention as to what the legislation should contain. However, instead of sticking to the simple language of the Notes on Clauses, the draftsman very often thinks that he has to elaborate it in what he considers to be more legal English, and defeats his own purpose in doing so. I stand open to correction, but I believe that this is the first time that an amendment has been tabled in identical language to that contained in the Notes on Clauses. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has perhaps introduced a useful precedent.Hear, hear!
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, we have a duty to make our laws easily understood, especially to those who have to observe them. Sometimes our laws are rather technical and those who have to observe them may not have had any kind of legal training. They may be technically excellent in their own work but not in legal matters. It is therefore essential that we should try to get the matter right.
I hope that I am not out of order in concluding with a very general comment. We know from the Queen's Speech that a great deal of legislation will be coming before us, particularly in this Session of Parliament and the next. I believe that we should, as far as we can, follow the example of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, by being vigilant and trying to improve it whenever necessary.My Lords, from these Benches I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on raising this very important matter. It seems to me that he flatters lawyers when he says that subsection (6) can probably only be understood by a lawyer. I did not understand it; its meaning only became clear when I turned to the noble and learned Lord's amendment. I had not had the wit to go to the Notes.
The noble and learned Lord raises a very important point. We are continuing with an old style of draftsmanship which is no longer relevant or acceptable. The new style, which, on this occasion, happens to have been imported from the exact language of the Notes to help people understand the original draftsmanship, shows that we have reached a watershed. The House and the legislature should consider whether it is time to adopt the new style of direct-approach English imported into the amendment. I am sure that the House will be intrigued to hear the noble Baroness's answer. When a former Law Lord puts down an amendment which he says spells out exactly what the legislature intends, is the parliamentary draftsman's view nevertheless to take precedence?My Lords, at earlier stages of the Bill I made a rather narrow point about small PFI projects financed by the contractor or the service provider himself. The Minister replied—I think quite properly—that a certificate would not be required in such instances and that an NHS trust would be entitled to enter into such agreements under the original legislation setting up the trusts. However, I believe that the amendment introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, gives great clarity to a situation where contractors and the like may be working with a series of contracts, some of which may be externally financed and which may be held up considerably if the contractor has to consider which contracts require a certificate and which do not. I ask the noble Baroness to look again at the clarity of the legislation. It appears from what is said by people much more learned in the law than I am that subsection (6) is not easy to interpret. The point of the amendment is that, however these contracts are made, they would not be ultra vires.
The Bill starts in this House. It may be inappropriate to try to amend it at Report stage here.Why?
My Lords, several speakers have said that the clarity given by the amendment is necessary. If the noble Baroness is not inclined to accept the amendment at this stage, perhaps she should look at it while the Bill is passing through another place.
No!
My Lords, when my noble friend responds to the debate, perhaps she can clarify one matter. It appears to me that the purpose of the Bill is to provide indemnity for the bankers that a project is certificated and the Government will therefore underwrite it in the last resort.
There is a provision in the Bill which suggests that if a project meets the criteria laid down but has not been submitted for certification, it will be deemed to have a certificate. That is one occasion when a project will not have a certificate. Another is when a project has been refused a certificate by the Government. We need to draw a distinction between a project which meets the criteria and which could expect to obtain a certificate if it had been submitted for one and a project which meets the criteria and has been submitted for a certificate but, for whatever reason, is refused one. That is the crux of the question and I hope that my noble friend can clarify the point. I suspect that the answer may be that the Bill has got it right and that the amendment, which is no doubt well meaning and which provides some clarity, would change the meaning of the Bill.My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, introduced his first redrafting of subsection (6) at Committee stage, he made the comment that he thought that our deliberations on the subsection would not prove absorbing. My goodness, the noble and learned Lord has been proved wrong today! In Committee the noble and learned Lord set himself the task of rewriting Clause 1(6) so that it had greater clarity. I welcomed his efforts, providing his amendment did not undermine the policy intention of the subsection. The Minister assured us that,
She went on to say that the noble and learned Lord's amendment made an unnecessary point in suggesting that,"the existing text satisfies the reasonable concern that the validity of an agreement which meets the conditions set out in subsection (3) cannot be challenged merely because it has not been issued with a certificate under this clause".
adding that,"the validity of any agreement into which a trust enters, whether externally financed or otherwise, should not be affected"
I was content to accept that explanation as to the legal position and I remain so. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has today provided us with a rewrite of subsection (6) which seems to me, first, to be much clearer and more intelligible than the form in the Bill and, secondly, to meet the points made by the Minister in Committee. The noble and learned Lord spoke in Committee and today about the need to use plain English in legislation wherever possible. Like other speakers, I agree wholeheartedly with him. When I read Bills I often feel myself transported back some 30 years to my days at university when I struggled with the convoluted syntax of Latin texts. I hope we can escape that one day—30 years on my nightmares ought to have finished. I hope that one day we shall find a way of following the noble and learned Lord's example and write legislation in plain English. Today, we on these Benches recognise the valuable contribution that the noble and learned Lord has made in rewriting this subsection. We support his amendment."a trust has express powers to enter into such contracts—under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 of the 1990 Act which set up the trusts".—[Official Report, 19/6/97; col. 1365.]
4 p.m.
My Lords, the House will not be surprised to hear that, as an active supporter of the Plain English Campaign and a non-lawyer, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his proposed amendment. Indeed, I do understand that it seeks to clarify the Bill. I am also grateful to him for his enormous courtesy in discussing this matter with me before he tabled the amendment and then discussing the exact terms of his amendment once he had done so. The amendment's objective is one with which we are in full agreement. I am grateful to the other noble Lords for their animated discussion of the particular points as they relate to this Bill and even more so for the general points that they raised about the nature of legislation.
Certainly, I do not wish to prolong the debate or appear to raise red herrings in the course of the comments that I want to make. But I am afraid that I may have to be slightly lengthy in trying to explain why, although officials and indeed I myself have spent some time poring over the amendment since the Committee stage, we still have some difficulty with it. It may help if at the outset I explain a little more about the background to subsection (6). As my noble friend Lord Monkswell, just said, the underlying purpose of the Bill is to meet anxieties about vires raised by certain banks in relation to some of the very substantial PFI projects being promoted by NHS trusts. However—this is a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater—as well as those large projects, many agreements of a less costly nature are regularly entered into between NHS trusts and private sector companies, for example, to provide equipment. Although they may seem to have the characteristics of PFI contracts, these agreements have not given rise to any practical concerns about vires. It is not our intention that these less costly agreements should attract the certification procedure of the more costly ones. As a matter of practice, agreements worth less than £1 million may be entered into by some NHS trusts without reference to the Secretary of State. Clause 1(6)—we are discussing the amendment to it—has been included to displace any doubts which might otherwise arise, by reason of the enactment of the Bill, about the vires of agreements which appear to have the features of PFI agreements but which have not been certified under Clause 1. Our approach in preparing subsection (6) has been to avoid the need to determine whether a particular agreement could or would have been certified had it been put to the Secretary of State for that purpose. Paragraph (b) of the subsection simply recognises that an agreement would have been an externally financed development agreement had it been certified—I agree that the language is cumbersome—but it does not require any examination of the question whether the particular agreement would in fact be eligible for certification—or, indeed, if it were found to be eligible, whether the Secretary of State would choose to certify it. Against that background, we can now look at the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. The amendment sets out to identify the class of agreements to which subsection (6) is to apply by reference to the conditions in subsection (3). At face value, the test whether an agreement meets those conditions may seem to be a convenient and straightforward one. However, on close examination of the conditions, the exercise turns out to be very difficult, because it is necessary first to determine the attitude of the Secretary of State to the particular agreement. Paragraph (a) of subsection (3) requires that:So, until one knows the opinion of the Secretary of State regarding the purpose or main purpose of the agreement in question, one cannot tell whether or not the agreement meets the condition in paragraph (a). It was precisely in order to avoid the need to make that kind of detailed and subjective judgment—one might almost call it psychological analysis—in the case of each uncertified agreement that subsection (6) was drafted in its present terms. I appreciate the considerable efforts which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has made in seeking to furnish your Lordships with a provision which, on its face, certainly appears shorter and clearer than the existing subsection (6). I am also conscious—several noble Lords have referred to this point, as did the noble and learned Lord himself in bringing forward the amendment—that this present amendment reflects closely, in fact is similar to and identical with, some of the terms of the Notes on Clauses as they relate to this particular Clause 1(6). But, as your Lordships will know, those notes are not intended to be more than a guide in general terms as to the kinds of agreements to which the subsection is to apply. Inevitably—I am sure that this will have been your Lordships' experience in other Bills—the notes paraphrase and summarise to some degree the actual provisions of the Bill; but they cannot replace them; nor can they be regarded as exhaustive. So it does not follow that a subsection which is drafted in terms similar to or even identical with one of the Notes on Clauses will necessarily be effective as a legal provision. We believe that this amendment gives rise to the practical difficulties that I have described. I hope that the noble and learned Lord and indeed other of your Lordships who have spoken in support of the amendment will appreciate that, although the language that he suggests is undoubtedly simpler, that simplicity may be an illusion, because it may create further complications in the enactment of the Bill. However, taking due regard of the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, about humility, I am certainly willing to take further what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, may wish to say."in his [the Secretary of State's] opinion the purpose or main purpose of the agreement is the provision of facilities in connection with the discharge by the trust of any of its functions".
My Lords, I am most grateful to all of your Lordships who spoke in favour of the amendment and for the kind remarks made about my crusade. I wonder whether I understood the noble Baroness correctly. Am I right in thinking that she would be prepared to reconsider this matter and perhaps let me have a word?
My Lords, that is certainly my intention. I fear that my reading of the brief has been so dominated by legal language that perhaps I was unclear in my response, for which I apologise to your Lordships. I was certainly saying, particularly in reaction to the points made, for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the need for clarity in legislation in general and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, about the need for humility in the face of great legal expertise, that I should certainly be willing to look at this again.
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Contracting Out (Functions In Relation To The Provision Of Guardians Ad Litem And Reporting Officers Panels) Order 1997
4.7 p.m.
rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th June be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order is made under Section 70 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It enables local authorities to contract out the provision of the guardian ad litem and reporting officer service for which they are responsible under the Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officers (Panels) Regulations 1991 as amended by the 1997 Panel Regulations. The order-making power is subject to affirmative resolution.
Guardians, or, as they are sometimes referred to, in what I must say is to my mind a rather cumbersome acronym, particularly on the basis of our previous discussion, GALROs, are appointed by courts in care and related proceedings under the Children Act 1989. Their functions are to report to the court on the child's wishes and feelings, to instruct a solicitor to act on behalf of the child and to examine which, if any, of the powers available to the court will best promote the child's welfare. In adoption proceedings under the Adoption Act 1976, there is a similar duty on guardians to report to the court on matters relating to the application. In freeing applications under the Adoption Act, the reporting officer's duties include ensuring that any part of any agreement to the making of the adoption order by the parent is given freely, unconditionally and with a full understanding of what is involved, and then witnessing such an agreement.
Under the 1991 regulations, a GALRO service is established by each local authority. There are 54 panels of GALROs in England, 25 of which are each provided by a single local authority. In many parts of the country, however, two or more local authorities have combined into consortia arrangements. That allows one of the authorities to administer the guardian service on behalf of the other authorities in the consortium. There are now 29 such arrangements, the largest being in London and covering 26 local authorities. Such an approach offers sensible economies of scale and can avoid unnecessary duplication of effort by a range of local authority, court and legal personnel.
Consortia arrangements are legally permissible under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. In some parts of the country, the GALRO service is provided by a voluntary childcare organisation on behalf of the local authority. Those arrangements currently include four panels covering 32 local authorities. In Cornwall, the NSPCC administers the service; in Cheshire it is the Boys and Girls Welfare Society. The Inner and North London Panel is administered by the National Children's Bureau and that in the area formerly known as Humberside by the Children's Society. Barnardos administers one of the six panels covering Wales.
The 1997 order before your Lordships revokes an almost identical order approved 12 months ago. The new order has been brought forward to confirm that arrangements are acceptable and in accordance with the intentions of current legislation, including the Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officers (Panels) (Amendment) Regulations 1997. The regulations, which are shortly to be laid by negative resolution, make changes which are largely concerned with the handling of complaints within the guardian service and consequences arising from recent local government reorganisation.
The order also modifies the 1991 panel regulations as amended in 1997 so that, where the local authority has contracted out any of its functions under those regulations, the provision as to membership of the complaints board for that authority is modified so that the board cannot include the person to whom the function has been contracted out or an employee of that person. I stress that local authorities will retain the responsibility for ensuring that the GALRO service is provided, even where that service is contracted out, as in the examples I have given.
The order extends the choice available to local authorities in the discharge of their duty to provide the GALRO service. Three models will be available: a single authority panel of GALROs; a consortium between authorities where one agrees to administer the panel on behalf of the others; and a contracted-out panel serving one or more local authorities.
It will be entirely up to the local authority to decide which of the three types of arrangement it wishes to have in place. If it chooses a contracted-out approach, it may determine the extent to which some or all of the functions under the panel regulations are retained or contracted out. The order enables the local authority to contract out to a voluntary organisation or other organisation that the authority considers to be appropriate.
Local authorities are responsible for the costs of the GALRO service which are currently estimated at £20 million per year. Since 1992 there has been a specific grant administered by the Department of Health. That is £6.3 million in the current year. Any contracted-out arrangements will be paid for by the local authorities from within their existing financial resources.
Under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, the proposals have to be the subject of consultation. I am pleased to tell your Lordships that the Association of Directors of Social Services, and the Local Authority Associations have been consulted and have confirmed that they are content with the proposals as I have presented them to your Lordships. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th June be approved.— (Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that very clear exposition of what is before us this afternoon. I am sure she will agree that this is a modest piece of legislation; it in no way changes the policy or the purpose of the original order. It actually clarifies the position to everybody's benefit.
In March last year when we were passing the original order, there were five local authorities or consortia which were contracting out services covering 30 local authorities in England and Wales. Today I believe that the noble Baroness said the number is about the same; it is about 29 local authorities. I ask the noble Baroness to confirm that. This is important because the additional powers conferred on local authorities were very well thought out and it was hoped that more would make use of the increased flexibility that was offered. The intention was to ensure a greater degree of independence, because the essence of this service is that it should be independent of the local authority and at arm's length. I believe that when another organisation provides the service independence is more closely safeguarded. Perhaps the noble Baroness would be kind enough to clarify the position as to whether there has been an increase or a reduction in contracted-out services. I believe that the situation is a little more confused regarding England and Wales and that complicates it somewhat. I would like to add that I am not in any way casting aspersions on the statutory childcare agencies. They have an extremely difficult job to do. However, sometimes Chinese walls are not quite as effective as one would hope and original intentions become blurred. I also ask the noble Baroness whether there is still a shortage of guardians for these purposes. I know that three years ago there was concern that children were not being represented in court. I can think of one case in London where a child was placed under a secure accommodation order and liberty was denied to that child for nine weeks without the child having a guardian ad litem. We very much support the situation before us, but there are some other points I would like to raise with the noble Baroness which concern standards. There was concern a year ago about standards. Perhaps she could tell us whether those fears were justified or whether they can now be put to rest. There was also concern about whether the machinery was working smoothly. Generally, without underestimating the difficulties of the jobs and the skills required, there was concern about the selection and performance of guardians, and I wish to ask her whether that is satisfactory and how often their appointments are now reviewed. I appreciate that I have asked a number of detailed questions of the noble Baroness; if she wishes to write to me on them, of course I would be very happy for her to do so.My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her general support for what she rightly said is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation.
On the point about the number of authorities which are now covered by locally contracted out arrangements, as I understand it, there were five panels which covered 32 local authorities in 1996. This has now been changed to four panels because one of the children's societies in Cleveland, following the local government reorganisation, has now been absorbed into a different arrangement. I agree with the noble Baroness that the ability to use the expertise of organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Barnados, which, as I said in my original remarks, operate some of the panels, is a guarantee of quality. I gather that there is no general concern about the shortage of guardians, but I appreciate the tragic case which the noble Baroness drew to your Lordships' attention about the one child in London. It is something which we will need to keep a close eye on in those local authorities and in those places where the potential shortage is something which could cause problems. On the whole, the detail about the questions of quality and of the arrangements for the individual panels is something about which, as the noble Baroness said, it would be more appropriate for me to write to her. Overall, I can give her the assurance that there is a feeling that, although some of the local authorities have contracted out the GALRO service, this has been done to organisations with a high quality reputation which can provide sufficient guardians across most of the country, although there may be some specific shortages. The GALRO service enjoys a high reputation for skilled and effective work in the courts and for technical reasons, as I explained before, the proposed order revokes and replaces a similar one which was before your Lordships' House in 1996 but it does not in any way seek to undermine the system as it was in existence in 1996 or as we hope it will continue. I refer to what the noble Baroness said, quite rightly, about the monitoring of high standards and the provision to local authorities of professional input, which is sometimes effectively done by local voluntary organisations. We hope the new order will allow local authorities a continuing choice as to whether they wish to contract out any of the functions set out in the GALRO panel regulations, as we hope they will be amended. I commend the draft order to your Lordships.On Question, Motion agreed to.
Army, Air Force And Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1997
4.19 p.m.
rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st May be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships will be aware, the purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the statutory basis for discipline in the three services. The House will be aware that since 1961 an Armed Forces Bill has been brought before the House every five years with the primary purpose of continuing in force the Acts that provide the disciplinary powers of the three armed services. Each Armed Forces Bill is an opportunity for both the services and Parliament to review service discipline.
Between each five-yearly Bill, this disciplinary code is renewed annually by the continuation order procedure involving an Order in Council which is approved by resolution of each House. Your Lordships will be aware that the last Armed Forces Bill was considered and enacted in 1996. I am inviting the House today to give the necessary annual renewal to the discipline Acts by approving the order.
I propose to take the opportunity of this debate to update your Lordships on some of the disciplinary and welfare matters which are being taken forward as a result of the passage of the Armed Forces Act last year, but I am conscious of the fact that I shall not be able to cover in my opening remarks all the matters of interest to the House.
As a large proportion of the Armed Forces Act 1996 dealt with courts martial reforms, it is not surprising that some of the continuing work touches on related issues. The first is the membership of courts martial. We have been making a detailed review of membership to examine arguments for extending the pool of court martial members to include senior non-commissioned officers. Substantial progress has been made and the results of this review will, I hope, be available before the end of the year. The services are also examining methods to streamline further the day-to-day operation of various aspects of the court system.
The changes allowing further access to industrial tribunals were accepted by this House and another place and the secondary legislation required to implement the recommendation will be laid before Parliament shortly. The proposals will allow service personnel to refer complaints to industrial tribunals as soon as they have submitted a complaint under the internal service redress of complaint procedures. At present service personnel can submit complaints only about discrimination on grounds of gender. It says "gender" in my speech. When I was a young man it used to be "sex". However, I am a little out of date in these matters, and I suppose that the same applies to your Lordships. In future, personnel will also be able to complain about matters involving racial discrimination and discrimination under the Equal Pay Act 1970.
Since the passage of the Armed Forces Act, substantial progress has been made on the complex task of consolidating the service discipline Acts. A first draft of the Army Bill has now been completed and is being scrutinised by service lawyers. The Bills for the other two services will be based on this model. Because of the complexity of the task, it will take some time to complete. We hope that the consolidated legislation will be introduced in the next parliamentary Session.
Finally, on this subject, concern was expressed in another place that minors were committing themselves to longer periods of service than were adult members of the services. We recognise the desirability of amending the discharge rules for under-18s so that they are not put at a disadvantage compared with adult service personnel. We hope to have achieved the necessary changes to the secondary legislation before the end of the year.
I should like to deal briefly with some of the major social and welfare issues affecting service personnel which currently have a high profile, both within the ministry and among the media. We are all aware that concerns still exist about racism in the Armed Forces. Let me assure the House that, like our predecessors, we will not tolerate racist behaviour in any shape or form. We shall be unremitting in our efforts to put in place a culture in which racial equality is fully embraced. We know that there have been critical comments from both the Commission for Racial Equality and from independent consultants. I can assure your Lordships that the Armed Forces have taken those criticisms very seriously indeed and at the very highest level. All personnel have a role to play in ensuring that the Armed Forces are seen, and come to be regarded by everyone in society, as an employer who will simply not tolerate racist attitudes.
Our priority is to see more citizens from the ethnic minorities joining the Armed Forces, confident that, in doing so, they join an organisation that is free from harassment, discrimination and bullying. We want and need the best recruits we can get for today's technologically advanced Navy, Army and Air Force. That means that we must recruit from every group in our society. The Ministry of Defence will be refocusing the considerable efforts already in hand in this direction.
I hope very much that the Commission for Racial Equality and local community leaders will be able to assist us in that task.
We are also determined to see the employment of more women in the services. As the House will know, women already contribute a vital role in all three services and we want to see how opportunities for them can be further expanded. Perhaps I may be permitted a further personal note. When I was previously at the Ministry of Defence some 18 years ago I tried very hard to badger the Royal Air Force into accepting women as pilots. I was unsuccessful then. I am delighted to see that the RAF has changed its mind. I have always thought that women make brilliant pilots. Those who have got so far are usually better than the men because they have had to try harder to get there.
Leaving aside pilots for a moment, we must ensure that young and able women see that the Armed Forces can and do provide a rewarding career and that any sexist attitudes are immediately challenged and eradicated.
As I said, a large proportion of the legislative changes contained in the Armed Forces Act 1996 consisted of wider-ranging reforms to the courts martial system. New procedural rules for courts martial were laid before Parliament earlier this year in statutory instruments which came into force in April. The purpose of the reforms was to reinforce the independence of the courts martial system. That was achieved at the pre-trial and trial stages principally by reducing the apparent influence of the chain of command, while preserving its necessary involvement, and enhancing the role of the judge advocate. The reforms also extended the rights of defendants being dealt with summarily—that is to say, by their commanding officers—to elect for trial by court martial. At the post-trial stage, the reforms replaced the complicated confirmation and review arrangements with an automatic one-stop review of all cases.
In addition, the right to appeal to the civilian courts martial appeals court was extended, so that it is now possible to appeal against sentence as well as conviction. All court martial decisions will thus be subject to the scrutiny of senior civilian judges.
The European Court of Human Rights was made aware of these changes. I am glad to say that it noted with satisfaction that the United Kingdom authorities had made changes to the court martial system with a view to ensuring the observance of their convention commitments. However, we recognise that this does not mean we can now become complacent about the system. We shall be keeping it under review in preparation for the next Armed Forces Bill four years from now.
Some noble Lords may be aware of the campaign, spearheaded in another place for some years now, for pardons to be granted to some 300 soldiers who were convicted by courts martial and executed during World War I for offences other than murder and mutiny. My ministerial colleagues in another place believe that we need to be satisfied that those soldiers did not suffer any injustices and it is for that reason that they recently announced their intention to look again at the cases of the British soldiers concerned. This is obviously going to be a very difficult task, not least because the individual circumstances of cases vary very greatly. It will involve painstaking research. It must be some time before we gain a clear idea of what further work, if any, is necessary. I cannot give your Lordships any idea of how long the review will take, but it is hoped that its findings will be available before the next continuation order debate takes place. I can make no commitment on that point.
As your Lordships will be aware—not least through the many powerful interventions of the noble Countess, Lady Mar—the Government are giving high priority to the health concerns of Gulf War veterans and will be tireless in their efforts to understand the reasons why some of them are now ill. Last month, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced a series of new measures designed to address veterans' concerns. First, he met veterans' representatives to hear personally what they had to say and undertook to meet them again in due course to report on the progress our studies have been making. Secondly, he announced the establishment of a new research programme designed to investigate possible interactions between the medical counter-measures which British troops were given to protect them against chemical and biological warfare agents. Thirdly, additional resources are being made available to clear the backlog of veterans waiting to be examined by the Ministry of Defence's medical assessment programme. That programme aims to provide veterans who believe they are ill as a result of their service in the Gulf with a clinical diagnosis of their medical condition.
More recently, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced that Group Captain Coker, the previous head of the medical assessment programme, is once again to share in the MoD's work on ill health among Gulf veterans. We hope that that will add to the veterans' confidence in the Ministry's procedures. He is to become a key member of a new internal advisory group which will assist the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in overseeing the department's response to veterans' health concerns. We continue to keep an open mind on all aspects of Gulf veterans' illnesses. The measures that I have just mentioned signal that a fresh start has been made. This is the beginning of a substantial process, in the course of which we will also look at the complex issues of compensation, financial assistance and war pensions.
As I said, I am very conscious that I have not covered every subject that noble Lords may wish to raise with me today. However, I would not wish to conclude without paying tribute to the very brave and talented men and women whom we are fortunate enough to have serve us in our Armed Forces. I am sure that your Lordships are happy to join me in doing so once again. Their dedication continues to be a source of admiration around the world and a source of pride for this country. It is up to us to provide them with a fair and equitable framework within which they can operate with confidence in their daily tasks. It is this basis of good morale and good working conditions that the service discipline Acts seek to provide. I invite your Lordships to approve the order before the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st May be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Gilbert.)
4.34 p.m.
My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the Minister for introducing this order so clearly and for his encouraging and helpful supplementary remarks. The order is one which we fully accept as being essential and its passage through your Lordships' House is, so far as we are concerned, a routine matter. The enactment last year of the Armed Forces Act means that it is two years since we have had a debate of precisely this kind and for many of us our discussions on the Bill are still fresh in the mind. However, I hope that the House will allow me to take just a minute or two to cover some aspects of service discipline which occupied a good deal of my attention during my time as a Minister and which I have no doubt will be of equal concern to the present Government.
The first of these relates to the treatment of ethnic minorities serving in the Armed Forces. I very much welcomed the Minister's remarks on that subject. I believe that there can be no disagreement either among Ministers or service chiefs about the need to bear down as heavily as possible on racial prejudice, discrimination and harassment whenever and wherever they may occur. As the Minister said, the responsibility that all service personnel have for promoting equal opportunities and for banishing unacceptable attitudes are clear. While serious incidents of racial harassment are mercifully rare, even one such incident is an incident too many. Events of this kind are unacceptable in themselves, disruptive to discipline and damaging to morale. But when they occur they also generate the kind of adverse publicity that the services least need at a time when recruitment of ethnic minority personnel is a key target for the Adjutant General and his opposite numbers in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. However, there is an equally worrying side to this question which, if we are not careful, could get overlooked. Last March the previous government published a report which they commissioned from the Office for Public Management, which is a firm of independent consultants. I have to say that the report contained some adverse and uncomfortable messages about racial attitudes in the Armed Services, not so much in relation to the kinds of serious incidents of bullying and harassment which we all know need to be dealt with severely, but rather in relation to the kind of day-to-day behaviour, such as jocular name-calling, which can act, however insidiously, to undermine the aims which the service chiefs have rightly and emphatically articulated. That report by the OPM deserves the closest study by the new Government. A great deal of progress has been made over the past 12 to 18 months in all three services to achieve better management practice, better training in equal opportunities issues and, through the Armed Forces Act of last year, better and fairer means of redress when things go wrong. Perhaps the biggest leap forward has been in the area of ethnic monitoring both of recruits and serving personnel. I am glad to hear from the noble Lord that the Government will continue the efforts of their predecessors and will work closely with the Commission for Racial Equality to ensure that good intentions are translated into the kind of day-to-day practice that we hope will in due course be a culture change. A second area of discipline that I want to touch on concerns drug abuse. Compulsory testing for drugs was introduced into the Army in early 1995 and into the Royal Navy more recently. Refusal to submit oneself to a drug test is now a disciplinary offence, and quite rightly any serviceman or woman whose drug test proves positive can expect to be dealt with severely. The fact that there is a random-testing programme is a powerful deterrent against wrongdoing, and while one has to concede at the same time that it is something of a draconian measure, I am convinced that it is a necessary one if we are to keep the problem of drug abuse within bounds. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government are committed to seeing these programmes continue on at least their present levels of activity? I hope that he can give me a positive answer either now or in writing. In relation to the forces' manpower budget, the cost of administering the schemes is minuscule and the benefits are clear, not only in terms of the lower incidence of drug abuse, but also for the positive message that it sends out to the public at large on the services' approach to tackling this issue. Can the Minister also give me any recent figures on the incidence of positive readings arising from the services' drug-testing programmes and the number of discharges which have resulted? Can he also confirm my understanding that, in the absence of unusual or extenuating circumstances, there is in all three services a clear presumption in favour of discharging any personnel found to have been taking drugs? The Minister referred to the review that is now under way on the question of personnel who were executed in World War I. I am well aware of the public concern that has been expressed. The Minister will not need me to tell him what a sensitive issue it is, not least because of the difficulty for us in the 1990s to place ourselves into the shoes of those who were tasked in the early years of this century, in a very different era, with deciding matters of life or death in a theatre of war. I am sure that the difficulties are not lost on the Government, and I wish them well in their consideration of the issue. However, I cannot help feeling that should the conclusion be reached that, by the standards of today or even by those of the First World War, certain individuals should be posthumously exonerated, that may well give rise to some ill-feeling on the part of the relations of those people who have not been so exonerated. I cannot help wondering whether pursuing this issue may well cause even more heartache than the gentle message that this is something that is, unfortunately, best left to the pages of history. It is customary on these occasions to pay tribute to the men and women of our Armed Forces throughout the world, as the Minister has already done. I readily join the noble Lord in those tributes. With his long experience at the Ministry of Defence, the noble Lord will need no encouragement from me to visit and to talk to our Armed Forces at every opportunity. During my time as a Minister at the MoD, I was privileged to see our forces in training and on active service in all parts of the country and in a number of places overseas. It is perhaps trite to say—nonetheless, it is as valid as it has ever been—that we owe our armed services a great debt for their dedication, professionalism and expertise; for the example that they set and for the positive image of Britain that they present not least in a theatre such as Bosnia where constructive help and sensitivity to local feelings are essential ingredients in the peacekeeping effort. The debate that has been tabled next week in the name of my noble friend Lord Vivian will doubtless give us a more substantial opportunity to discuss these and other issues. I look forward to that occasion but meanwhile I have pleasure in welcoming the order.4.42 p.m.
My Lords, I was in a bit of a quandary about whether I should declare an interest as a serving officer in the Territorial Army. I do not know whether the TA is affected by the discipline legislation. Nevertheless, I support the order. It is routine and we on these Benches have no difficulty with it. I support also much of what the Minister said.
This debate gives me the opportunity to raise three issues. I refer first to the death penalty, which is still retained by the Armed Forces for mutiny and other offences. The issue was raised last June during our discussions on the Army Act by my noble friend the late Lord Mayhew. He was given a great deal of pleasure when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who was then the Minister, said that there would be a review of the SDAWP. Indeed, the noble Earl wrote to me saying that the issue would be before Ministers in March. I believe that a certain event may have got in the way of that, but we hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how the review is going. I refer also, as did the Minister, to the review of the cases of those who were shot for cowardice during the First World War. I was recently asked to speak on the subject on a radio programme and was taken to task by somebody who had actually fought in that war. It is difficult to say that we should leave the matter to the pages of history when some who fought in that war are still alive, not to mention their relatives. We should not leave such a sensitive issue in the past because people are still affected by it today. That is why I welcome the review. Although not everyone will be exonerated by it, many cases clearly need such closer examination. I refer also to homosexuality in the Army. When we discussed the Army Act, homosexuality was one of the issues which was skirted around in this House perhaps more than in the other place. I am aware of the sensitivities associated with the issue. Indeed, all parties are aware that the Army is in a peculiar and unique position with regard to homosexuality. A case is currently before the European Court of Human Rights, so I wonder whether the Minister can tell us exactly what action is being taken to review the legal position of homosexuals in the Army. We should not be pushed into action solely as a result of a judgment made by such a court. This is an issue which the Army itself must consider. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will say that a review will take place which will spell out in black and white the exact legal position of homosexuals in the Army. There should be no remaining grey areas. Apart from those issues, I welcome the order.4.46 p.m.
My Lords, I should like first to thank both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for their courtesy in giving me notice of the subjects which they intended to raise. I am extremely grateful to both of them for their support for this order.
I have no difficulty whatsoever in giving the noble Earl the assurance that he sought from me that we are continuing with precisely the same methods as were in force under his government of ensuring that steps are taken against racial harassment in the forces. The subject arose some time ago when I served on the Select Committee on Defence in another place. At that time we had some difficulty in getting Ministers to agree that it was important not only to identify the number of recruits from the ethnic minorities, but also to identify what progress they were making through the ranks and whether they had adequate opportunities for promotion. I am delighted to say that such procedures are now in place. Indeed, they were introduced by the previous government and I pay full tribute to them for that. We are, of course, maintaining those procedures. The noble Earl asked me about the drugs programme and for some recent figures. I have those figures with me—I came armed with them—and I can therefore give them to the House now as well as writing to the noble Earl. In brief, in 1996 some 53,000 officers and soldiers were tested, of whom 300-odd gave a positive reading, while 27 refused to give a sample. By the end of the year, 164 personnel had been discharged. A further 72 who tested positive in 1996 have been discharged during the course of this year. As at 31st March this year—the latest date for which I have figures—a further 19,500 officers and soldiers have been tested, of whom 154 gave a positive reading, with one refusing to give a sample. All will be considered for discharge in accordance with the normal policy of the ministry. In order that all noble Lords are privy to what the noble Earl knows and the information on which I have been briefed, I should say that all British Army personnel and Royal Navy personnel are subject to compulsory drug testing from time to time on a random basis. It is an administrative, not a disciplinary, matter. Following a positive test or a refusal to provide a specimen, an Army officer will be required to resign and a naval officer will be administratively discharged; a soldier or rating will normally also be administratively discharged. As I understand it, a commanding officer has discretion to retain in the service soldiers of the rank of lance-corporal (or equivalent) or below if it is the first occasion on which drug misuse has been identified or the first occasion on which he or she has refused to take a test; and, as a second condition, that in the case of a positive test no trace of class A drugs is detected. That is the same position as under the previous government. The noble Earl also asked about those who were convicted of cowardice in the First World War. I rather like his turn of phrase. He questioned whether they would be posthumously exonerated rather than pardoned, which is the term that is perhaps more widely used. I am not a lawyer and possibly I am stepping outside my brief. I have always believed that "pardoned" is an unfortunate term. It implies that you think that someone has done it but it is all right because you are not cross with that individual any more. Although "exonerated" still has some undertones I believe that that is a happier turn of phrase. It will be some time before we come to any conclusion on that matter, but I shall ensure that the remarks of the noble Earl are passed on to my honourable friend in another place. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about capital punishment. A review is taking place at the moment. Up until now I have seen no papers. Therefore, I am unable to take the matter further at the moment. However, I shall write to the noble Lord as soon as I receive further information. When the review is completed, both this House and the other place will be informed of the results in the usual way. As far as concerns homosexuality in the armed services, I take seriously the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that it is far better to determine these matters ourselves than that we should be pushed into them, if that is the case—we do not know yet—by a European institution. These matters must be looked at at least once every Parliament in the course of the disciplinary arrangements that I outlined earlier this afternoon. I can inform the noble Lord that Ministers, in particular the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, are reviewing this matter at the moment. We hope to be able to bring forward such proposals or decisions as we have before there is any question of our being pressed to do so by an institution outside this country.On Question, Motion agreed to.
Coordinated Universal Time Bill Hl
4.53 p.m.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (Lord Tanlaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [References to time of day in Acts to be references to Coordinated Universal Time]:
moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("In").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. As I said at Second Reading, the Government take a neutral view on the Bill. However, if the will of the House and the other place is that the Bill is to succeed, the Government wish it to be fit for the purpose. Consequently, I have tabled a number of amendments. These amendments do not seek to change the thrust of the noble Lord's original clause. However, the Government believe that if it is to be precise there must be some definition of coordinated universal time. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 2. After all, if the Bill is about precision we must incorporate it into the Bill.
For many years in practice we have used in our everyday lives a form of coordinated universal time, probably without knowing it. This is the version of coordinated universal time that is maintained and disseminated by the National Physical Laboratory. Amendment No. 2 refers to that timescale. I hope that the way that the amendment is drafted will meet what I understand to be the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, in his amendment in that it conveys the message that the acronym for coordinated universal time is UTC. A strict interpretation of the term "coordinated universal time" is that it is the timescale realised at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. However, this is not a practical timescale. It is based on an average of national timescales such as that maintained by the National Physical Laboratory and is thus available only retrospectively. One need not worry that one loses accuracy by referring to the National Physical Laboratory version of coordinated universal time rather than the version of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. The two differ by much less than one-millionth of a second.
There is another reason why it is fitting to refer to the National Physical Laboratory timescale in the Interpretation Act. As I said earlier, for many years we have, probably unknowingly, relied on this timescale as our national reference point for time. It is the basis not only of the National Physical Laboratory's own radio time signal transmissions, but also of British Telecom's speaking clock and the pips on the BBC. This timescale, like all the timescales which contribute to coordinated universal time, is based upon atomic clocks. The first atomic clock was constructed at the National Physical Laboratory in the 1950s. It is therefore right and proper to recognise the laboratory that was in at the start of the change. However, since the statute would then refer to a specific laboratory I propose that there be power to amend subsection (2) by statutory instrument should circumstances change. This power will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The remainder of the amendment creates a parallel regime under the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954. I beg to move.
I am sorry that I was unable to attend Second Reading because of a long standing previous engagement. I had the opportunity of writing to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about my concerns. At this stage I should like to ask one question on Amendment No. 2. As far as I understand it, coordinated universal time is absolutely universal, but the National Physical Laboratory's version is purely British. I may be wrong, but that is my impression. I believe that the ability to change the timescale by means of statutory instrument provides the Government with a good safeguard in fixing future times.
As these two amendments have been grouped with Amendment No. 3 my amendment will automatically fall anyway. However, I tabled my amendment to make absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that the abbreviated letters for coordinated universal time are UTC and not CUT. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has taken that point on board. The amendment is a definite improvement to the Bill and I support it.I welcome the approach taken by Her Majesty's Government and I welcome the amendments put forward by the noble Lord. Lord Haskel.
We are part of a globally connected electronic society that is about to enter the third millennium. It will have at its fingertips a universally accepted, very accurate and predictable unified timescale. The Bill is intended to provide such a timescale. It is an essential piece of legislation which will meet the anticipated demand. UTC has already replaced GMT, or its equivalent, in most of Europe and Ireland, for that very reason. I was asked outside the Chamber why the Bill is necessary. As we approach the millennium, more and more clocks, all IT machines, videos and PCs will automatically become linked to the radio signals propagating UTC. As it appears that we have got the date wrong for the millennium with these machines, we should at least get the time right, and this is one way of ensuring that that will happen. The amendment put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, was necessary and I would have supported it, but I agree with him that it is no longer necessary, that the National Physical Laboratory's atomic clock has been specified under Section 2. There are two points worth mentioning to back up the amendment. UTC is known throughout the world. However it is translated in different languages in different countries, it is never used with its full title, Co-ordinated universal time is represented as UCT. However much one may dislike abbreviations in this modern world, they are very useful and can transcend national and linguistic boundaries, and it is also very simple for computers. That is why there are no dots between the letters U, T and C. In the National Physical Laboratory there is one atomic clock and there are 250 around the world, all of which are accurate to plus or minus one second in a million years. However, even atomic clocks have their own nano-idiosyncrasies. The fact is that they are all registered. UTC is a notional benchmark in time and it can be calculated simply. There will be a fractional nano-second between the atomic clock in Britain—the NPL clock—and the one in Germany, but it is registered and therefore UTC can be calculated. That is the world of the scientists rather than the world in which the general public and the rest of us live. Nevertheless, the Bill is essential because it is intended to bring about that world, to make it more practical and comfortable for us all. I strongly support both amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.I thank noble Lords for their support. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert ("—
"(2) In this section "Coordinated Universal Time" means the time scale maintained by the National Physical Laboratory and known as UTC (NPL).
(3) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (2) above.
(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
(2) In section 39 of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (references to time)—
"(1A) In subsection (1) above "Coordinated Universal Time" means the time scale maintained by the National Physical Laboratory and known as UTC (NPL).
(1B) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1A) above.
(1C) An order under subsection (1B) above shall be subject to negative resolution." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
SUMMER TIME
(".—(1) The Summer Time Act 1972 shall he amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 (advance of time during period of summer time) for "Greenwich mean time", in each place it occurs, there shall be substituted "Coordinated Universal Time".
(3) In section 2 (extension of period, and double summer time), in subsection (1)(b) for "Greenwich mean time" there shall be substituted "Coordinated Universal Time".
(4) In section 3 (interpretation of references) for "Greenwich mean time" there shall be substituted "Coordinated Universal Time or any other time scale".
(5) After section 3 there shall be inserted—
"Meaning of "Coordinated Universal Time".
3A. In this Act "Coordinated Universal Time" has the same meaning as in section 9 of the Interpretation Act 1978." ").
The noble Lord said: The Interpretation Act serves to imply a timescale only where one is not specifically stated. Most statutes do not specify a timescale, but one exception is the Summer Time Act 1972.
It is proposed that in the provisions of that Act which deal with time of day, when the clocks are put forward, and with the number of hours by which winter and summer time differ, there is substituted coordinated universal time in place of Greenwich mean time. This ensures a coherent regime in the application of the Interpretation Act throughout the summer months. It also reflects the practical reality for those charged with maintaining time signals.
There is also a provision in the Summer Time Act which is intended to reflect the fact that in the fields of astronomy, meteorology and navigation, it is conventional not to change to a summer time system each year, but to continue to state times according to what is currently our winter timescale. It is proposed that this provision be modified to reflect the changes elsewhere in the Act and to Coordinated Universal Time. However, it is also proposed to widen it to reflect the fact that in some cases, astronomy being the obvious example, astronomical time may still be the practical timescale.
For the benefit of noble Lords who, like me, have a fondness for Greenwich mean time, Greenwich is the home of astronomy and navigation and the amendment will in no way stop people using the phrase Greenwich mean time if they wish to do so.
Subsection (4) contains the words "or any other time scale". In the fields of navigation and tide tables, for example, our standard time has been the old GMT. I am perfectly happy that in future it should be coordinated universal time. However, the user of European timetables is expected to know that one hour must be added during summer time to whatever reading is given in the tables. Some countries add just half an hour. I sincerely hope that "or any other time scale" will never mean a few minutes, because that could, for argument's sake create great complications for planes landing at Heathrow. Will the Minister consider the wording, "or any other time fixed by statutory instrument", or be a little more definite on that point?
In other respects the Minister has covered this point. I am also happy to accept the proposal to leave out Clause 2.I also accept the clause.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, the purpose of including the phrase "or any other time scale" is to give flexibility. In a document giving tide tables the time used is specified, and to insert "by statutory instrument" would destroy the flexibility of the clause as drafted.
I accept that.
Having satisfied the noble Earl, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Use of Universal Time for other purposes]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Clause 2 is unnecessary. It bears some resemblance to the provision in the Summer Time Act 1972 to which I alluded earlier. In the context of that Act, the provision reflects the fact that in certain specialised fields it is usual not to make a change in the way time is stated during the summer months. However, such a provision is not needed in this Bill. There is nothing in other clauses which affects the use of Universal Time for the purposes of astronomy, meteorology or navigation since Section 9 of the Interpretation Act applies,
Making a specific provision for these purposes would imply that Universal Time could be used only for those purposes and not for other purposes. It could also imply that timescales other than Universal Time could not be used for those purposes. I ask that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill in order to avoid that confusion. I beg to move."unless it is otherwise specifically stated".
I included the clause simply to ensure that scientists, astronomers and other people who use Universal Time would not be affected by the Bill. I have been given reassurance by the noble Lord that that will be the case. My Bill may not move the earth, but at least it recognises that the earth moves. Unfortunately for GMT, its movement has been too irregular and too unpredictable to remain as a timescale for electronic timekeeping in this country for greater accuracy to the nearest second.
Nevertheless, I say to those Members of the Committee who bemoan the departure of GMT—that is the only criticism I have heard of the Bill, both inside and outside the Chamber, since 1975—although it might be inaccessible or invisible, the departure of GMT or UTO will still rule if my Bill becomes law. UTC—that is atomic time—will still have to adjust to the inconsistencies of the earth's movement in space and not the other way around. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that in 1996 the Nautical Almanac stated that it would no longer use GMT because of its ambiguity. That was the basis of my Question on 27th November. I suggested that we had to do something about facing the facts of how navigators, scientists and ordinary citizens would be able to get accurate time. I am happy to agree to the removal of Clause 2.Clause 2 negatived.
Clause 3 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").
The noble Lord said: The amendment ensures that the Bill follows the usual convention of coming into force two months after the Royal Assent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The reference in section 5(1) of the Summer Time Act 1972 (application of Summer Time Act 1972 to Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man) to that Act shall be construed as a reference to that Act as amended by section (Summer Time) above.").
The noble Lord said: Since the Interpretation Act does not apply to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, there is no reason to provide that for those territories generally. However, the Summer Time Act 1972 does apply to those territories and this amendment ensures that the amendments to that Act which we have discussed also extend to the islands. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
moved Amendment No. 8:
Line 1, after ("1978") insert (", the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 and the Summer Time Act 1972").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is necessary since as well as amendments to the Interpretation Act 1978 there will be amendments to the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 and the Summer Time Act 1972. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Road Transport Emission Levels: Science And Technology Committee Report
5.16 p.m.
rose to move, That this House take note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee, Towards Zero Emissions for Road Transport (1st Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 13).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I wish to thank our committee Clerk, Jake Vaughan and Professor Bell of Imperial College, our specialist adviser. They bore much of the brunt of the drafting of this complex report. We had many witness, both written and oral. Their information made this report possible and I thank them all. I thank in particular the Ford Motor Company, Johnson Matthey and all those associated with our visit to Germany.
Rather more than a century ago the internal combustion engine was invented. Its continuous development since that time has made it the prime power source for most modern transport. Matching that technical development, we have seen a great expansion in the road system to cope with increasing demand for transport speed and flexibility as well as personal mobility. Modern society in developed economies is transport dependent. We all enjoy benefits, whether we own cars or not.
This technological blessing is now in danger of becoming a curse. We have 22 million cars on the road in the United Kingdom and the number continues to rise. Emissions of toxic exhaust have become a problem more often than is acceptable. The whole transport sector uses about one-third of society's total energy consumption. Globally, there are around 500 million vehicles on the road and it is not just the toxic emissions which are a problem. CO2 emissions have also been rising, although in this country we have enjoyed some success in limiting them.
The technology of the internal combustion engine has brought great benefits. If it is now creating problems we must look for further technological development to provide solutions to those problems. We cannot turn the clock back. This report sets out to examine what is being done to relieve the atmospheric difficulties caused by exhaust fumes. It even dares to look to see whether technologies are developing which will enable us to escape totally from what is in danger of becoming the tyranny of the internal combustion engine.
I undertook some peripheral reading to help my understanding of the issues in this report. One subject is worth noting since it emphasises a particular point. About 17 years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, moved the acceptance in this House of a report from the Select Committee about electric vehicles. That was in the aftermath of the oil crisis and crude oil was priced at about 45 dollars per barrel. Alternative technologies appeared to have a chance. Who then would have predicted that crude oil prices would drop by two-thirds? It is now about 17 dollars per barrel. New technology was stopped by market forces.
That point was emphasised to us by the Ford Motor Company. Motor manufacturers produce to meet market demand and for profit, not to fulfil technological ambition, nor for philanthropy. National markets may give a lead but success depends on that lead being proved correct so that it is adopted internationally. The international market is all.
I must spend some time on the various aspects of the report: first, the issue of toxic emissions and what is being done about them. Toxic emissions include oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons, ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, sulphur dioxide and, particularly from diesel engines, particulates.
There are three points I wish to make. First, knowledge of the problems caused by those substances is not new and the motor industry, with some help from regulation, is well down the road to reducing that problem to acceptable levels in new vehicles. The serious question is whether total elimination is desirable, even if it were possible. The law of diminishing returns applies. Using 1976 as a base point, it cost £152 per vehicle to remove the first 90 per cent. of toxic emissions. It then costs another £152 to remove the next 5 per cent. of toxic emissions, and a further £218 to remove the next 2.5 per cent. That is what the current and approved regulation achieves. At that point, I note that that is a matter decided by the European Union.
I turn now to how those improvements are brought about. Pressure for environmental improvement has accelerated engine development over recent years. I pay full tribute to the motor manufacturers for their diligence in tackling the problem. Reducing the toxicity of exhausts is not a straightforward science. Action to improve one element of the problem can all to often make a different aspect worse. In addition, cleaner exhausts are frequently achieved at the cost of increased fuel consumption.
As in so many walks of life, compromise and balance are the secrets of success. While there is still progress to make, Ford expressed the view that the new lean-running engines which are currently under development throughout the world use the ultimate combustion systems for internal combustion. We are moving towards the limit of what is possible.
It is perhaps worth inserting two other points which I heard from Ford engineers when we visited its research centre at Dunton. First, I heard the comment, "You know, on a bad day in Los Angeles, the exhaust fumes coming from our latest engines are less polluted than the air entering them". And then, "Everything we do to reduce the problem of emissions—and we are pretty good—is negated by our manufacturing and sales expansion". We are back in the marketplace again.
We considered the question of fuels for internal combustion. We are all familiar with the way that the problem of lead has been reduced greatly by adjusting the rate of fuel excise duty to create a price incentive for the use of unleaded petrol. Clean technology is not simply a question of mechanical development. The chemical make-up of the fuel is also important because that affects the combustion characteristics and, therefore, the contents of the exhaust stream. That matters because of the effect that the mechanical make-up can have on the catalysts which are essential to clean up emissions.
We received evidence from Johnson Matthey plc, which is among the leaders in that field, concerning the significance of sulphur in fuels because it can shorten the life of the catalyst and reduce its efficiency. We heard also from MAN in Germany which specialises in heavy transport manufacture. Cleaning the exhaust stream carried a much higher fuel consumption penalty where the fuel had a high sulphur content. We regarded that as a matter of great importance and it is worth noting that, since our report was published, the European Parliament, in debating the proposals of the European Commission following the auto-oil study, has recommended 30 parts per million sulphur in diesel oil and 100 parts per million sulphur in petrol as the standards for introduction in the year 2000. Negotiations continue.
We examined also the question of bio-fuels and alternative fuels. Bio-fuels could be important because their impact on CO2 in the atmosphere is neutral. We received evidence about the production of bio-diesel from rape. It appears that if all the UK land set-aside from food production at 15 per cent. were used to source bio-diesel, it would produce about 6 per cent. of the present diesel demand in the UK transport sector. It follows that much research and development will be required for the sector to provide major benefits. But, of course, every contribution helps.
Are there alternative fuels? The answer is yes. Liquid petroleum gas and compressed natural gas are both cleaner products from the oil industry which are beginning to make their mark. Natural gas exists in very large quantities. When compressed and used through the internal combustion engine, the exhaust emissions are much cleaner than with oil fuels. The committee would like to see the use of that fuel encouraged. In urban fleet vehicles, such as buses and taxis, which are too often exhaust-stream offenders and where introduction might be more simple, the use of compressed natural gas could bring rapid improvement to the metropolitan atmospheres. However, additional costs are involved for new engines and fuel handling. Rapid adoption will not occur unless there is a greater price incentive in the fuel; and we have recommended accordingly.
I turn now to the existing vehicle fleet. Euro I regulations limiting noxious exhaust emissions for new vehicles came into force in 1993 and Euro II regulations requiring a higher standard are adopted this year. We can have less concern about recent additions to the vehicle fleet.
The problem is that most vehicles last about 12 years and proper maintenance over the whole of that time is essential. We had evidence from the Automobile Association that probably only 10 per cent. of the vehicles are responsible for something like 50 per cent. of toxic emissions, poor maintenance being a potent factor in causing that state of affairs. The committee takes the view that the MoT testing system should be used, through a requirement for much higher emission standards in older vehicles, to reduce the number of offensively polluting vehicles on our roads.
Behind everything that I have discussed so far lurks the hidden problem of carbon dioxide. It is a hidden problem because carbon dioxide is non-toxic and therefore raises less immediate concern. However, it is now generally accepted that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is a major cause of global warming. The good record of the UK in this matter is because of improvements in the industrial and domestic sectors; transport has yet to make a major contribution. Our financial recommendations, in particular, are designed to encourage better environmental practice, particularly greater economy, by moving the tax burden around within the sector without increasing that burden across the sector as a whole. The validity of these arguments was accepted by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget last November.
I come finally to the question of alternative technologies. We have heard nothing in evidence to convince us that battery technology is making sufficient advances to enable it to overcome the inherent limitations and problems that occur with this technology. We considered hybrid systems with batteries for town driving and internal combustion engines for power elsewhere. These systems are always likely to be heavy in weight, mechanically complex and therefore expensive. We wondered about the gyroscopic problems of a flywheel used for energy storage.
Possibly the most promising new system for propulsion that we heard about is the fuel cell—a system based on a phenomenon first observed 50 years before the internal combustion engine was invented. Fuel cells are at present powering prototype buses in Chicago and Vancouver. Mercedes Benz has one to power a prototype car, which those of us who visited Germany both saw and rode in. These particular fuel cells use hydrogen as a fuel in a totally non-polluting way by combining it with oxygen to produce water and electricity which powers electric motors. If this system is to succeed, crucial to its success will be the development of a method of producing hydrogen from renewable resources. Again, much research and development will still be needed to make such a system competitive. Some of this work is already going on in this country funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and we know that work continues in Germany, Canada, the United States and Japan.
It was a pleasure and a privilege to lead this study. I have tried to highlight some of the salient points. In our recommendations we seek to induce action that is consistent with what we have learnt. We do not say that we have the answer. Time and technological development may supersede what we have heard. However, I hope that the broad drift of what we have proposed will be accepted.
Moved, That this House take note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee, Towards Zero Emissions for Road Transport (1st Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 13).—(Lord Dixon-Smith.)
5.33 p.m.
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group although I shall not talk about rail freight today. I congratulate the Select Committee on what I consider is a fascinating report. I am no scientist, but I am an engineer and I shall leave others to discuss the technical findings. However. I believe the House will welcome this report as a major contribution to the debate on transport generally.
In its introduction the report rightly tries to put the question of zero emissions into the environmental and transport contexts adding a few comments about accidents, congestion, noise pollution and air pollution. I shall give an example of each. As regards accidents, a German study indicated that the number of injuries per billion tonne-kilometre was 248 for road freight compared with 10 for rail freight. That is quite a difference. As regards congestion, we have already heard the Department of Transport's forecast that there will be severe congestion on all our motorways in about 15 years, stretching from Preston to Maidstone and all routes in between. That will pose a challenge. As regards noise pollution, all kinds of transport seem to be fairly noisy. The best one can say is that the further one is away from the source of the noise, the less is the noise. Combating that noise poses a challenge for all modes of transport. As regards air pollution, I must refer to the transport report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. I believe that report is nearly three years old. I did a calculation of noxious emissions. If rail freight increased by 20 per cent., noxious emissions would decrease by 20 per cent. overall. Those are a few examples to show that all these matters must be put into context. They also show that if one alleviates one environmental problem, one often exacerbates another problem, as the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith, pointed out with regard to the United States. I am sure he is quite right. I continue to support public transport and rail freight but road transport is an essential element of modern life and we must accept that. I see that as part of an integrated transport policy. I do not see any prescriptive solutions to the problem. As the report indicates, there are different problems in the town and in the countryside and there are different needs. Of course there are also different causes of pollution. I consider the drive towards achieving zero emissions as being extremely important as regards many different aspects of this matter. The report examines many different solutions, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said. Some of those solutions are medium term and others are long term and some are appropriate to different locations. I believe we should encourage the development of many of these solutions; some will work in mass production terms whereas some may not, but they all have great potential. I was struck by similarities between three potential solutions. In the case of all three doubts were expressed in the report with regard to safety. Liquified petroleum gas was considered to be particularly beneficial but there were concerns about the parking of LPG vehicles in basements. However, boats have had LPG cookers for many years. They do not often blow up. I do not have a clue whether they blow up more frequently than cars catch fire on motorways, but there are instruments available to detect the gas. I hope that the committee has not rejected LPG because it considers there may be a safety problem as I am sure that there is a solution. Natural gas must be stored under pressure, but we have had gas bottles around the country for many years. I do not believe that they often blow up. As regards gyroscopic transport, of course the flywheel could fly off and hit someone, but again gyroscopes have been around for a few years now. There is already a small tramway called a Parry people mover which I believe is being developed in Weymouth which works on a gyroscopic principle; that is, when it stops at a tramstop, it picks up electric power which speeds up the gyroscope which drives the tram to the next tramstop. I should think that is extremely environmentally friendly. I am sure it is quite safe. I emphasise again that I am no scientist, but if the petrol engine was in the same state of development now as some of these other schemes, would we be wondering about the safety of petrol? I refer to half empty tanks and leakages around carburettors, which one sees in certain cars developed in the 1930s. I speak as the owner of one of those cars. One does not want to have too much petrol in a closed garage. However, that is the way that these cars have been developed. Has a real risk assessment been done on all these different processes? I hope that such safety considerations will not preclude the development of what I see as particularly exciting ways of reducing environmental pollution. How will those new ideas be encouraged? Many have already received development funding. In paragraphs 4.1 and 4.7, the report recommends fiscal encouragement as the only real answer. I am sure that it is a coincidence, but today in an Answer to a Written Question in another place about low sulphur diesel Glenda Jackson states that the Government plan to reduce by 1p a litre the tax on low sulphur diesel as soon as the EU derogation procedures have been completed. That is a great start. I am not sure that 1p a litre will make much difference. There has been worldwide development of petrol and diesel engines for many years; they are extremely efficient and cheap. If we are to introduce new, more environmentally friendly fuels and equipment there has to be significantly greater fiscal encouragement. That needs to be balanced by a fiscal disincentive on fuels which pollute. I welcome the report. I hope that the Government will consider it carefully and take action to encourage those developments. I regard the needs for cleaner fuels as totally fitting in with the Government's transport policy about which we have heard much in the past month.5.42 p.m.
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for his able leadership of the committee and the excellent summary which he has presented to your Lordships today.
There are many less polluting alternatives than the fossil hydrocarbon fuels which dominate the energy scene at present. The committee considered a wide range of them, as has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We may be forced to turn to some of those in about 40 years' time when world resources of oil and gas begin to decline. But authoritative statements by such bodies as the World Energy Council suggest that until then fossil fuels will continue to provide energy for most purposes, including in particular transport. On that rather short timescale, it is difficult to see where else the energy is to come from, especially as the population will double in that 40 years and the 8 billion people in the developing world will no more accept shank's pony as a vehicle than do those in the developed countries today. It is possible in principle, and increasingly in practice, to reduce emissions of pollutants which are injurious to health such as nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and particulates of carbon. Our committee received some quite good news, some encouraging evidence, on the progress that is being made with the internal combustion engine. For example, the Automobile Association told us that,That is just six years earlier. So in time we can look forward towards, if not zero, smaller toxic emissions from new vehicles. But outstanding culprits at present, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, pointed out, are the vehicles built years ago, some of which, especially the large old diesel engines, seem to go on for ever. In paragraph 4.11 one of our committee's more important recommendations is that emissions standards for the existing fleet should be progressively tightened. Such legislation would have to cover vehicles coming here from overseas and some sort of international co-operation would be advisable to prevent the selling on of those cheap and nasty offenders to poorer countries. I hope that the Government will be able to take all those factors into account when they introduce new legislation, as the committee recommends. But those pollutants are only half the problem set us under the title Towards Zero Emissions for Road Transport. The second half—it has been referred to several times—is the greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, which are not toxic at all but are part of the committee's remit because of their probable involvement in global warming. Carbon dioxide is an unavoidable consequence of burning carbon or hydrocarbons and the amount of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere is stoichiometrically equal to the amount of carbon in the fuel which is burnt. We can do nothing to get round that. None of the alternatives in the report is able to suggest a solution to the problem. Electric cars are run on electricity which has to be generated elsewhere. Hydrogen has to be made by processes such as electrolysis, with possible minor exceptions to which I shall refer in a moment. These merely move the site of emissions from the roads to the generating stations. This would be beneficial with polluting emissions of the kind to which I referred first, which are so troublesome in cities, but the greenhouse effect is global and the place, or even the country where these long-lived gases are emitted, is irrelevant—even to the "nimbies". The pollutants in the first category of gases—those harmful to health—are there for everyone to see or smell. The problem is with us now. It is acute and needs urgent action. The effects of carbon dioxide on climate change are less noticeable and longer term. Nevertheless Britain is obliged under the Rio Agreement, and its own subsequent United Kingdom climate change programme, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. How can we do that? There are only two ways. First, we could reduce the amount of energy we consume. But our contribution will have little relative effect, except by example—which seems to be ignored anyway by the United States and Japan. We are a small player on the global scale and will become progressively smaller compared with the developing countries. The other way is to use energy sources which are not derived from the burning of fossil fuels, especially in the developing countries. There are two such sources large enough to make significant contributions: nuclear energy and solar energy in all its forms. The former has its own pollution problems, and the committee had little to say about it except that,"A car built and fitted with a catalytic converter in 1996 produces less than 10 per cent. of the toxic emissions of a car built in 1990".
We shall have to have energy from somewhere. With solar energy, the research effort and expenditure on development have been negligible compared with nuclear energy. The reason is not far to seek. It has been said that,"the use of nuclear energy to produce hydrogen may have to be considered if the problem of global warming continues to be intractable".
Even so the present contribution of solar energy in comparison with nuclear is considerable in the developing countries, where 12 per cent. of the energy is from biomass and only 5 per cent. is nuclear. The report states in paragraph 4.31 that,"if sunbeams were weapons of war we would have developed solar energy decades ago".
This is true, and a great deal of research is in progress, as will be evidenced, for example, at the international conference on future directions in photovoltaics to be held at Imperial College early next month (on 7th July). But in conclusion I should particularly like to draw your Lordships' attention to a new and potentially important avenue of solar energy research which is referred to briefly in paragraph 4.26 of the report. This says:"A truly sustainable form of hydrogen production would be from solar energy. Research into cheap and efficient photovoltaic cells would assist the large-scale production of hydrogen through electrolysis".
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, pointed out what a very large area would be necessary to produce a significant amount of such fuels in this country. However, diesel fuels from oil bearing plants such as rape seed are already in use in small quantities in Germany, Italy and France. Unfortunately, at present the efficiency of conversion of solar energy incident on the leaf-to-oil fuel energy is miserable. It is less than 1 per cent. in most plants (and less than 0.1 per cent. for the oil bearing seeds), though possibly thermodynamic efficiencies exceed 25 per cent. Efficiencies of that kind are already achieved in photovoltaic cells. Research and development aimed at increasing yield and lowering the costs of production is the key to progress. Genetic engineering is one of the most rapidly developing of the sciences at present. Methods of gene transfer via recombinant DNA techniques into the nuclei of plants are becoming common and many of these techniques are now within the capabilities of third year undergraduates. Some of these have been developed, in the United States for example, to produce a variety of designer oils by transgenic gene transfer. The possibilities in engineering new plant species specifically designed to increase the efficiency of photosynthesis and the storage of solar energy can hardly be exaggerated. I hope the Government will play their part in encouraging these developments, by reducing, for example, the duty paid on biofuels, as already happens in other European countries and as is recommended in paragraph 4.20 of the report."one area which may be important … is research into plants, possibly using genetic engineering, to increase the amount of fuel which can be produced and to reduce its cost".
5.53 p.m.
My Lords, I warmly thank my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith for so clearly introducing this most valuable report. I must declare an interest as a committee member of the Automobile Association, which gave evidence to the committee. The AA has over 9 million members. With their families, they represent a sizeable proportion of the population and the electorate. They are pretty representative citizens. I suspect that most of them are deeply concerned about environmental matters.
The car is here to stay. It is not a luxury but an absolute necessity for many, particularly the elderly, the handicapped, and mothers—the proportion of car users who are women is rising very rapidly. The report covers scientific issues in great detail and is most valuable. If I have a criticism, it is that its analysis of economic matters and taxation issues is insubstantial. The tax recommendations that it makes are almost casual. But if we are to make progress in reducing pollution, they are of central importance. Car drivers pay £19 billion a year to the Treasury. Table 7 in the report shows that road vehicle users as a whole contribute £26 billion; the car users' contribution in fuel tax alone is £19 billion. The previous Government argued that the regular 5 per cent. increases in fuel tax were imposed for environmental reasons. I suspect that the new Chancellor will produce exactly the same arguments. However, while differential taxes may be very effective instruments, we need to be a little cautious about the view that a general increase in fuel taxes has a substantial impact on car users' habits. The evidence is rather different. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith gave the remarkable figures for the reduction in the price of a barrel of oil. However, what he did not say was that governments have taken full advantage of the situation by very substantially increasing the price paid by the road user at the petrol pump. Road users have consistently gone on using their cars and have indicated in every survey conducted by the AA that they will make other sacrifices before cutting down on the use of the car and the mileage that they cover. In addition, indiscriminate use of fuel tax is an inefficient form of taxation. Interestingly, in paragraphs 3.11 and 3.16 of the report there are quotations from the Government, who, we are told, have restated the position that,I entirely agree with that verdict, and it is borne out by the information in the table in the report which shows that road transport produces 22 per cent. of total CO2; 28 per cent comes from domestic uses; and 28 per cent. from industrial uses. We therefore need to approach the problem on a rather wider scale than simply thinking it can be solved by an increase in fuel tax. The present policy is not very efficient; it is regressive, disproportionately hitting the retired and those on low pay. It helps to make a point repeatedly made by the AA that there needs to be a fundamental reform of motor taxation. The work undertaken for the AA by David Newbury, professor of applied economics at Cambridge University, points the way. We need to separate taxation on the one hand and charging for the use of roads on the other. Alongside an integrated approach to transport policy, which we certainly need, we need a clearer structure and purpose for motoring taxation. If we have a clearer structure and purpose, understood by users, then we have some real hope that tax incentives and penalties will have the impact that we want them to have. To look beyond financial matters, people talk as though pollution caused by the car is getting worse. I have heard Members of this House indicate on a number of occasions in debates on the environment that they believed that to be the case. The report confirms that, despite the increase in traffic volume, the situation is getting better. The AA has commissioned research tracking emissions from vehicles. The results are to be announced on 30th June at a presentation in the Palace of Westminster. They indicate a dramatic reduction in toxic emissions since the introduction of catalysts, and that the emissions of CO2 have at least stabilised. We have also seen great advances in diesel engine technology. The fact is that the combination of European Union legislation and financial incentives has proved remarkably effective. The European motor industry's research prediction is that between 1992, when catalytic converters were introduced, and 2010 the amount of toxic pollutants in terms of tonnes per year due to traffic will decrease by about 75 per cent. across Europe as a whole. It is good to know that we are making progress, and the report indicates that we are likely to make more progress. Certainly there are no grounds for complacency. As a former chairman of the National Rivers Authority, I am particularly concerned about something mentioned in passing in the report—namely, the environmental damage caused by spillage, accidents to fuel-carrying vehicles and poor storage, which is a very significant problem. As far as emissions are concerned, as we have heard, the big problem lies with older cars, buses, taxi fleets and delivery vehicles. There is a clear need for targeted fiscal incentives and tighter regulation here. The committee rightly emphasises the importance of higher regulatory standards for existing vehicles. Reference has been made to the MOT test, to spot checks and to use of the new local authority powers of enforcement. The committee, perhaps rather too easily, dismisses the possibility of a scrappage scheme, but tighter enforcement might have the same effect. If people fail their test, they will simply have to get rid of the older, heavily polluting vehicles. While it is clearly very important to improve the public transport system, it is an awkward fact that some of the worst polluters are buses and taxis. Sixty per cent. of trucks and buses in the United Kingdom, most of which have diesel engines, are more than 10 years old. A very high priority must be the kind of incentives referred to by my noble friend to change the fuel use of these vehicles. If there is an area where tightening of standards is required, surely it is this one? I should like to conclude by suggesting that as regards the motorist we need to point to the good things as well as the bad. We need to encourage rather than simply scare people about what is going on. The motorist is not an enemy; motorists rarely use their vehicles selfishly, as a luxury. Properly treated, I believe the motorist is an ally and a partner. We all use motor vehicles. I was amused that, as I got into a taxi yesterday at the entrance to the House, out of it stepped one of the most well known environmental campaigners—coming, no doubt, to some important meeting about the environment. We were both using a polluting form of transport, a London taxi. Whatever our interests, however much we may be involved in campaigning, the truth is that we need the motor car or its public transport equivalent. We must therefore encourage progress and the kinds of measures that the report suggests. The report is most valuable. It shows that progress is being made and the enormous potential which exists if we stimulate the right kind of technological advance in the future."they were unconvinced that the transport sector should be targeted specifically, and that it was necessary to reduce CO2 emissions cost-effectively across all sectors".
6.4 p.m.
My Lords, it will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that, following the recent G7—or should it be G8?—summit in Denver and the subsequent meeting in New York, the question of vehicle emissions, toxic emissions in particular, and CO2 emissions is the flavour of the month.
It was a great privilege to serve on your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. I found it very rewarding to be a member on the Sub-Committee which produced the report, under the able and judicious leadership of Lord Dixon-Smith. I should like to echo his tributes to Professor Bell and to Jake Vaughan, the clerk to the committee. A question that the Sub-Committee asked itself in the beginning was why it was necessary to reduce emissions. It is clear from the report that one very good reason is because of the adverse effects of toxic emissions. Particulates are, unfortunately, an effective cause of respiratory disease, including asthma. Carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and its derivatives, sulphur and lead, all have adverse effects on human health; and vaporised hydrocarbons play an important role in causing lung cancer and other significant illnesses, although the hydrocarbons in vehicle emissions pale into insignificance, so far as the individual is concerned, when compared to the adverse effects of tobacco smoke. There is also an important environmental effect, as my noble friend Lord Porter of Luddenham, made clear, relating to carbon dioxide, the ozone layer and global warming. I shall not elaborate further on that. The report makes a number of clear conclusions and recommendations. I trust that it will be possible for the Minister to indicate what the Government's response to the recommendations will be. For instance, are the Government committed to moving towards stages III and IV relating to laying down strict emission limits? Will they apply pressure on the European Union to amend its testing cycle? What efforts will they make towards further reduction of sulphur, petrol and diesel? How can they impose tighter standards for vehicle emissions, relating not so much to new vehicles as to the existing fleet? Much work has already been done, as several noble Lords have said this afternoon: for example, in increased fuel efficiency, lean-burn engines, electronic management systems for both petrol and diesel vehicles and the introduction of biofuel, biodiesel in particular, even though the resultant use of biodiesel can only make a relatively minor contribution because of the cost and problems related to producing more such fuels. I should like to echo strongly the points made by my noble friend Lord Porter about the crucial importance for the future of genetically engineered fuel from different crops. This is something which will have a very striking effect in future because DNA recombinant technology is daily teaching us new lessons. Much is said in the report about the use of alternative fuels. Electricity is a problem. It has to be produced, often by fossil fuels. We know that the efficiency and range of existing vehicles leave a lot to be desired. Is enough work being done on the production of more effective batteries, lithium batteries in particular? I am personally much attracted by the prospect of hybrid vehicles, which already exist, the idea being that a reasonably efficient vehicle can run on an electric engine in an urban environment, but once it leaves that urban environment it can switch over to an engine fuelled by petrol or diesel, which has the effect of recharging the electric batteries. Admittedly the cost is not insubstantial, but I believe that, as the report makes clear, the potential use of such hybrid vehicles has not been as fully exploited as it might have been. When I learnt about natural gas vehicles, I expressed some concern in a meeting of the sub-committee about whether the storage tank necessary in the boot of a vehicle would make it difficult for the vehicle to carry my golf clubs. But when I went to the centre in Slough and saw a vehicle—and drove it—I was greatly impressed by its efficiency and its performance and that the part of the boot occupied by the storage tank for the natural gas was relatively small. Admittedly, there are problems in producing a sufficient number of outlets for natural gas. It is not something which can be done without substantial cost. I believe that it would be a great help if the Government could be persuaded to arrange for more of their own fleet of cars to be fuelled by natural gas. Perhaps they could also see what action could be taken to introduce natural gas powered buses in cities such as London. Without question the resultant reduction in vehicle emissions would be substantial. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said in his splendid opening remarks, the fuel cell carries considerable hope for the future. The company Ballard of Vancouver has demonstrated in buses already being driven by fuel cells, which are in turn powered by hydrogen, that this is a very substantial prospect for the future. I should like to ask the Government, as I do not know sufficient of the science, whether the possibility of the alternative fuel for fuel cells—namely, alcohol, which has been used in a number of experiments in the past—has been sufficiently explored and exploited. There is always a concern about the storage of hydrogen in vehicles to drive such fuel cells. Alcohol may perhaps have been proved to be less efficient than hydrogen but I still believe that it deserves further exploration. Like the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I must declare an interest as a member of the council of the AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. Like him, I have been greatly impressed by the fact that the AA has commissioned the National Environmental Technology Centre to produce a quarterly index for emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, benzene, volatile organic compounds and fine particles. It is also tracking emissions of CO2. That work has demonstrated, as will be said in another place on 30th June, that toxic emissions from road transport have fallen by at least a quarter since 1992. As the noble Lord said, the work on CO2 has shown that, despite continued traffic growth, the CO2 emissions from vehicles have not risen, which must reflect the increasing fuel efficiency of vehicles and voluntary agreements by manufacturers. That demonstrates substantial progress. But as the report of the sub-committee and your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology so clearly shows, much more needs to be done. But if, for instance, the Government felt able to accept the recommendation to reduce the duty on natural gas used for vehicle propulsion to the EU recommended limit and if many of the other recommendations in the report were to be implemented, we should be taking major steps towards reducing toxic emissions and CO2 emissions for the future.6.14 p.m.
My Lords, it was a great honour to serve on the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I believe that both this House and the country in general over the years will become increasingly indebted to his leadership in this matter.
The committee's report is an honest attempt to come up with workable solutions. But, in recommending them, we were all conscious that very few prognostications, particularly on scientific matters, work out in the way we think they will and that judgment is fallible. Within its remit, however, the committee has come up with proposals that could undoubtedly in both the short term and the long term have a useful impact on lowering urban atmospheric pollution. The committee worked under a very limited remit and I too would like to use this opportunity to take a slightly wider look at the overall problem of which vehicle emissions are a part. In doing so, I must declare an interest in that I was for some time the chairman of an American company at the forefront of pollution control both for utility power stations and increasingly for mobile and stationary diesel engines. I still have links with that company. That background makes me believe that any pollution control measures introduced at national level are best done with regard to the wider global scene. We should be careful about tokenism—introducing measures that look good politically but bring little real benefit. We should be particularly careful not to introduce solutions that could handicap our national economy but bring negligible global benefit. Tokenism is a real danger and there are signs of it appearing on the political scene already. I turn to CO2 pollution. As has been mentioned, it is likely but still unproven that CO2 is responsible for the current climatic changes. After this week, one could believe anything! But if we assume that it is at least contributory, then the problem is obviously an international one, as was said so well by the noble Lord, Lord Porter. Control measures introduced in a country the size of Britain, frankly, will not affect the global atmosphere to any measurable degree. However, it is important that we lead by example. Again, that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Porter. I believe that our own modest measures could have a far wider global impact if, by practising what we preach. we encourage others who can affect the global position and can do something about serious global pollution. We can do our bit by offering leadership to achieve world level co-operation over pollution control implementation and world level co-operation over scientific analysis of the problem. As has been said, to meet their obligations under the Rio Convention, the Government encouraged in this country a switch from coal to gas. But other countries that are far bigger polluters than ourselves are not necessarily in so fortunate a position. China, I believe, has over 400 coal-fired power stations. It is, indeed, a world polluter, both by CO2 and NOx. But necessity is the mother of invention. Fortunately, it is now possible at least substantially to clean up NOx and other toxic emissions, which are so damaging, from coal-fired power stations, old and new, for a cost that only raises the price of electrical generation by a factor of some 5 to 7 per cent. A major problem in those countries is cost of the huge scale of the problem. Major emissions from utilities and heating furnaces are obviously the first point at which pollution should be tackled. Countries like the United Kingdom should both instigate and play their part in developing the appropriate funding to help the western world clean up the under-developed world, helping those who have a serious pollution problem as we tackle our problems of much less degree. But, self-evidently, the conversion from oil to gas does not in the long term solve the problems of potential heating by carbon dioxide. Frankly, every attempt should be made to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. The switch from coal or oil to gas helps to ease, but does not solve, the problem; neither, of course, will fossil fuels last for ever. But there is one long-term source of inexhaustible CO2-free power; namely, nuclear power. The Chernobyl disaster was at least valuable in alerting the world to the dangers of nuclear power. But it also did much harm by changing the political perception of energy generated in that way. However, new nuclear plants continue to be built worldwide and nuclear power is already a major contributor to worldwide CO2-free energy production. I believe that statesmen at all levels should begin to stress that, ultimately, nuclear power and probably new forms of yet undiscovered fusion are the only long-term route to substantial CO2 reductions. Frankly, the green movement cannot have it both ways. If we are concerned about CO2 we have to be realistic about the practical alternatives. Meanwhile, the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste is a complete red herring. It is already being disposed of. The problem is a political rather than a scientific one. I raise this matter because those advocating a national policy for CO2 reduction should have in their minds long-term solutions. Nuclear energy is the solution that dare not speak its name. But I believe it is a solution to which the world will have to return. I turn now to the heart of this debate: vehicle emissions and the problem of pollution, particularly in cities. Our report was constrained within its brief, and its recommendations within that context are wholly practicable. But the enforcement of measures designed to reduce vehicle emissions should, I believe, be coupled with the control of the other major source of urban atmospheric pollution—namely, the burning of oil for domestic and commercial purposes. In cities, the flue gases from many a block of flats are as potentially polluting as many vehicle emissions and should be tackled simultaneously, as recommended by other learned commissions. Inescapably, the car is with us, as so clearly enunciated by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. As the report also shows, the car is not going to go away. Every teenager dreams of owning one. The national transport system wholly relies on the internal combustion engine; meanwhile we have no alternative but to learn to live with it. Every forecast indicates that we shall have another million cars on the road in this country over the next 10 years or so. To throw up our hands and to stop road building is to run away from the whole problem. Road congestion in particular is a major source of pollution, quite apart from the great economic cost to the country. To maintain that our motorway programme is finished, when on the A.1 we still have roundabouts in the Cambridge area and single carriageways north of Newcastle, is quite unrealistic. The improvement of roads, such as in the examples just quoted, can relieve congestion, relieve three-mile tailbacks at roundabouts and materially reduce pollution. The cut in the road building programme by the previous government was done as much as anything to help to knock a penny off income tax but was, in my view, a wholly false economy. The country needs to proceed with traffic calming, traffic rationing and traffic improvement measures designed to reduce congestion and the attendant pollution that comes from it. As the report so clearly states, we have to live with individual transport. It is a freedom that people want and, although we may try to ration it, I do not believe that we shall seriously reduce the use of it. Meanwhile, existing forms of the internal combustion engine can be improved, cleaned up and made more efficient. As the report says, tax and revenue concessions should be introduced to encourage these cleaner and better developments. In the long term the answer could well be fuel cells, but it may not be exclusively so. Probably two or three solutions for zero emission from road vehicles will occur in parallel—let a thousand hybrids bloom. Who knows what developments of the electric battery have yet to be discovered? I am not pessimistic. An all-electric vehicle is already with us. Battery life may not in the future be the problem we consider it to be now. One can visualise a pack of batteries, suitably designed, which could be exchanged at the equivalent of petrol stations. Clink, clunk, as one assembly is pulled out from a pre-designed compartment and replaced at one stroke with new. One could visualise changing batteries as people used to change horses. It would be a totally zero pollution solution, as indeed is the fuel cell, particularly when in both cases the basic source of electricity has been generated by clean power in the first place. Putting more money into public transport systems will help, but it will not replace the individual car or truck. Railways are not in themselves the answer. It is easy to forget that a railway journey is a three-point journey. Even if a rail infrastructure existed, where commercial transport is concerned it would be far more wasteful and would create more traffic than direct door-to-door deliveries, except, untypically, on very long hauls. In conclusion, I hope that governments of all persuasions will recognise the huge importance of cheap transport and the fact that the demand for the car is not going to go away. None of us can wholly foresee the future. Above all, I hope that the Government, when introducing measures, will resist tokenism. I hope that they will resist sneaking in tax rises under the cloak of environmental benefit and will remember that higher taxes on transport and fuel hurt the poor rather than the rich and hurt the rural dweller who has no public transport alternative. I hope they will remember that inner-city pollution, indeed, global pollution, are worldwide problems, so we should aim to encourage international research and international co-operation to find long-lasting, sensible solutions. I am sure that this report will encourage that process. I was honoured to be a member of its working committee.6.25 p.m.
My Lords, this excellent report, as we have all heard, underlines various aspects concerning vehicle exhaust emissions and we must acknowledge and thank the committee for producing it, based upon the immense amount of evidence presented to it.
Page 8 of the report states that the Government have predicted that global temperature will rise by 2°C towards the end of the next century. There are numerous learned bodies who agree with that statement, but there are some who say that they think the rise in global warming is being reduced by volcanic gases. Who is right? I do not know; I am not a scientist. However, it is estimated that road traffic accounts for about 10 per cent. out of a total of 26 billion tonnes per annum of man-made emissions and that natural emissions total 770 billion tonnes per annum. So, is a reduction in CO2 and other vehicular emissions to be encouraged? Of course it is. We have heard noble Lords today asking, "Where is the energy to come from?" A cyclist only pedals and uses energy when it is actually needed. One rarely sees a cyclist pedalling downhill and almost never when stationary. Some years ago, Volkswagen manufactured a catalysed diesel engined vehicle embracing this very principle. The Golf ecomatic's engine stopped when no energy was required and could be restarted by pressing the accelerator. The electronic wizardry achieving this mode of operation resulted in a 50 per cent. reduction in urban fuel consumption; exhaust gases, particulates and noise in urban areas were also greatly reduced. This vehicle was not successful because it was too advanced for people to appreciate the environmental and financial benefits at the time. Such a pity. This form of propulsion should perhaps be investigated again. If this car were to be sold again, encompassing further technological advances, it might now encounter a better informed market. Presumably, this principle could also be applied to commercial vehicles, thereby providing benefit to us all, and it must be appreciated that large engines produce large amounts of pollution, so the benefit would be that much greater than with cars. At the moment, the size of particulates is measured down to PM 10s. However, as much smaller particulates emitted by diesel engines and, to a lesser extent, by petrol engines cause health problems, should not measurements of PM 2.5 be introduced? I am not aware of what, if any, difficulties might be encountered by this, but surely it would be of relevance because smaller particulates get deeper into the lungs and spread more widely from the emission source. The stop-start VW ecomatic had much reduced emissions due to its very innovative mode of operation. It is, however, encouraging to learn that it is thought that within five years diesel engines will be emitting virtually no particulates. But, as the report correctly acknowledges, diesel engines have a long life and consequently any improvement will be slow in coming. Technological advances are being made all the time. Mitsubishi has a production vehicle powered by a direct injection petrol engine which increases miles per gallon consumption and reduces exhaust gases. Other manufacturers have engines which will enable vehicles to achieve 100 miles per gallon—advancement is the nature of enforced evolution. These are but two examples of recent advances, and others will be forthcoming, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, resulting in new types of vehicles producing only small, if any, amounts of exhaust gases whilst, maybe, using new types of fuel. This report explores various ways in which this can be achieved and will undoubtedly be referred to for a long time to come.6.30 p.m.
My Lords, the Select Committee has undoubtedly given us a very detailed summary of fuels and types of propulsion. I have learnt a great deal from it. I was fascinated to find that efficiency has so improved that the new passenger car in 1996, when compared with the new passenger car in 1976, 20 years earlier, emitted only 5 per cent. of the hydrocarbons, the NOx and the carbon monoxide of that earlier model. The Select Committee's report shows us the problem. If you have 20 times the number of cars that you had in 1976 travelling the same mileage, you have not made any change in emissions; alternatively, if you have the same number of cars but they travel 20 times as far, again you have not changed the emissions. On top of that, you have all the cars that are not new. So there are problems—big problems. One big problem is that you cannot cut the amount of pollutants significantly without increasing CO2, or vice versa.
The Select Committee reviewed alternative fuels for use in the internal combustion engine. There I found some fascinating details. I was amazed to learn that Italian hotels, having used their cooking oils, pass them out to be regenerated as fuel for cars and that Brazilians drive on fuel which is made from alcohol in sugar cane. But, sadly, neither of those innovative approaches seemed to score very well with the Select Committee. Nor, in fact, did other types of fuel. I put it to the House that the recommendations of the Select Committee reduce to: carry on trying, especially on fuel cells; let us do more to motivate research by tax breaks; and—this was mentioned only once but is perhaps rather important—enhanced MoT tests in order to get rid of the badly polluting older vehicles. However, I do not think that adds up to the 20 per cent. further reduction in CO2 which was recently promised by the Prime Minister. Perhaps I may refer to the terms of reference of the Select Committee. Those were: to examine whether technology will be able to maintain the benefits of road vehicles while reducing their adverse effects, particularly pollution and CO2 emissions. They went on to say:It was a very detailed inquiry and it had to have boundaries—so I am sympathetic to that—but it is unfortunate that this was the third time that telematics have been omitted from debates in your Lordships' House in the recent past. They were omitted from the Road Traffic Reduction Act, which invited local authorities to reduce traffic but did not tell them how, and they were omitted from the report on sustainable development, which we debated on 12th March. With your Lordships' permission, I intend that they shall not be omitted today. Intelligent transport systems are now sufficiently developed to play a significant part in reducing emissions, in making public transport more acceptable and in achieving an integrated transport policy. I declare an interest. I am president of ITS Focus, which is a public sector/private sector partnership, a not-for-profit association, trying to improve general traffic conditions through the use of intelligent transport systems. It is my job as president to try to get that message across. Happily, the Government have just announced a fundamental review of transport policy which, it is to be hoped, will offer us an opportunity to try to see what we can do to help in that context. The Minister for Roads very kindly wrote to me the other day saying that a national/local government working group is looking at congestion charging, which is an important part of what we hope to be involved in. Congestion is a major source of unnecessary emissions, as other noble Lords have said today. If we can reduce congestion, we can reduce emissions without necessarily having to take the traffic off the road. I shall set out some of the things ITS can do. It can act as the congestion "stick" by helping road pricing; that is to say, the message that explains that the pre-paid card on your car as you enter a zone of high charging has been debited or the alternative message that says that there is nothing to authorise you to go through so your registration plate has been recorded. Those communication messages are all part of ITS. It also helps with the "carrot" of trying to improve congestion by inviting motorists to go for alternative routes, either by road signs or by messages into their cars. Either way, it helps to improve the traffic flows. However, I would suggest that the Select Committee was wrong on one point—when it tried to equate telematics with road building only. Telematics is far wider. What can we do to help the public to move towards public transport? We know already that buses are moving down red routes and that they are due to have traffic light priorities. As they approach a traffic light, it will automatically go green. We hope to fit cameras on buses so that cars getting in the way on red routes will have their number plates recorded. There is Prestige, which is an important ticketing system to allow people through barriers faster. It will be used on London Underground. From the point of view of congestion, it will be used to get people on to buses more quickly. They will just wave their cards at the reader as they go past. They do not have to put them in the machine. All these things are making buses better to use. In this connection it is great that the Minister for Transport yesterday apparently called for more bus lines, better information on buses, more partnerships and measures to keep buses moving. ITS can help in all those areas. We are trying to do other things to help the integrated transport policy. We have trip planners and touch screens, such as the Southampton Romanse project, which will give information to travellers not just on how to get from A to B but also on how to get from A to B by alternative or several different means—combinations of bus, car, coach, rail and so on. There is already on the Internet through British Telecom a mass of travel information for those who can reach it. These things are helping to set up the integrated transport for which we are all looking. No one claims that ITS will cure the world's transport ills. We simply claim that it will help to cure them. ITS products are already coming on the market—in the USA and Japan. In Europe, Germany and Holland are major competitors. It is important that the UK is not left behind. One existing result of ITS which may be of interest to the House concerns the Traffic Master application, which is a small screen in one's car. It displays a map of motorways and major roads and shows where the congestion is. That is based on 2,500 road sensors on those motorways and major roads. Traffic Master was able to record that last year traffic on those roads grew by 5.8 per cent. It also recorded that the average M.25 motorist wasted the equivalent of half a day in a year due to congestion. We are beginning to get some rather modest and fairly crude statistics but we need more of those statistics. Such devices allows one to use alternative routes. For example, I regularly come up the A.3 to London. I know it is quite possible that there will be congestion at the beginning of the Kingston bypass. When the little arrow shows me that traffic has slowed down to five or ten miles an hour, I nip around via Esher and avoid it. A lot of people could do the same. I hope the Minister can confirm that transport telematics has a part to play in our efforts to strive for zero emissions."Issues such as improving traffic flows (through telematics or road building) … may be important elements of an overall transport strategy, but they lay outside the scope of the enquiry".
6.39 p.m.
My Lords, I too served on the sub-committee and I have reason therefore to be grateful to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith for the way in which he introduced this debate and indeed for the way he chaired the committee. I also had another go at this whole subject as a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Three years ago we produced a report which dealt at some length with the wider issues, many of which we have debated today and which, quite frankly, were not in our report. Telematics is one such issue. I am grateful that our chairman took a very strong line and prevented us from straying into so many of these areas which clearly a full report on integrated transport has to address. There are 112 recommendations in the Royal Commission report. Noble Lords may or may not be pleased to know that the Royal Commission, of which I am still a member, is returning to the subject once more. We shall be producing a discussion document updating our previous report because so much has happened.
One of the things which has happened has been the sub-committee report. I am very relieved to say, having been a party to both, that they are compatible. The sub-committee report tries to limit itself very firmly to accepting that the internal combustion engine is here to stay for a very long time. It gives great benefit to the quality of life, the economy and to mobility. I do not think that we have to apologise. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell does not seriously expect the most fervent environmental protester to walk everywhere. He should surely be allowed public transport and a taxi. I suggest that he should certainly be allowed a car as well. Let us not apologise for the fact that we all need cars and that we enjoy using them. What we are simply trying to do is to reduce the adverse impacts. If 10 years ago we had accepted the adverse impacts, which we now know have been greatly reduced thanks to the catalytic converter, then we would have been misguiding ourselves into believing that such consequences were inevitable. Is it inevitable that the impacts that are made on society at the moment should continue? I do not have to reiterate the impacts that we have heard about in this debate, but they can be divided in three categories—that is to say, noise, greenhouse gases and emissions which are toxic. Noise is beyond the very narrow remit which we set ourselves. All that one can say on that is that while we continue to build roads—and my noble friend Lord Vinson knows that we are still building them although apparently not as many as he would wish—why not make it standard practice, at least in urban areas, to use whispering cement surfaces, which are very much kinder from the point of view of noise? We do not do that as standard practice. If one were to cost out the aggravation and pollution caused to those people who are unfortunate enough to live near these roads, it would be clear that not to do so is a very poor economy. Greenhouse gases were part of our remit. As the noble Lord, Lord Porter, reminded us, there is a very direct correlation between the amount of energy expended and the emission of greenhouse gases. There is nothing that one can do about it. If one is going to burn energy, then inevitably one is going to cause the emission of a greenhouse gas. However, there are incentives that society can introduce in order to change the culture which insists on ever larger cars and cars which consume ever more energy. Our modest recommendation for a cut-off of the vehicle excise duty attempted in a perhaps rather naïve way to suggest the kind of direction in which people might change their expectations of what the car should do. We all now tend to drive larger cars than we did 20 or 30 years ago. Most of us now believe it to be inevitable that we should have power steering and air conditioning, both of which increase energy consumption. What can we do to reverse this ethos and make it rather more socially acceptable to drive a smaller car? We can put in economic instruments to achieve that. One can perhaps have priority parking slots for the small car. One can certainly do something about the company car. It still seems to be the expectation that the grander one becomes the larger one's car. That is still very much a part of our society although I believe that many companies greatly regret that they got on to that treadmill. Certainly, central and local government could do more to demonstrate that they really are trying to achieve mobility with lower energy consumption—in other words, they could put into their fleets cars which use less energy. There are drawbacks to some of the alternative fuels, although in an urban situation liquid petroleum gas is in many ways more desirable. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, hoped that the committee would not reject that fuel too quickly because of its safety limitations. The report gives it qualified approval in certain circumstances. But it has to be recognised that the constraints of weight, cost and storage space—despite the fact that the golf clubs of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, fit into the trunk of his car—represent something of an obstacle to wider use. Natural gas is another alternative but again methane emissions have to be noted as a rather more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell reminded us that only 22 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions come from transport. To put it the other way round, as much as 22 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions come from transport. If the targets which the Prime Minister bravely and correctly set us in New York are to be achieved, there is no escaping the fact that transport will simply have to take its share of responsibility. It is no good saying that there are other sources which can more easily be hit. If transport is responsible for over one-fifth of carbon dioxide emissions, then we have to recognize that we have a real problem on our hands. We recognise that we are going to have more cars. We have to reduce their fuel consumption. There are already cars which can travel 70 miles to the gallon, although I suspect that very few of us drive them. I believe that there are many ways in which we can make the car more attractive to the consumer.My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving way. One should not attack one particular source of pollution. If one is to apply sensible economics, one should attack equally the other producers of that pollution. We need to have an equal attack on all the sources and not disproportionately load one source.
My Lords. I do not believe that there is any danger of the motorist hearing disproportionate cost at the moment. As regards motor freight in particular, if one were to calculate the external cost and the adverse impacts on society which the report tries to address, it would be very difficult to justify the present level of tax. The private motorist certainly pays much nearer the external costs which fall on society, though I suspect that one could argue that the costs could and should go up if the external costs are to be captured.
It is the toxic emissions that the report has to address most seriously. A technical fix is coming. We know at the moment that, were it not for the particulates, diesel would in many ways be a greener fuel. The problem is that they are an extreme hazard, particularly in urban areas. It is not yet possible to use a catalytic converter effectively on diesel engines. But that may well change. There may be catalysts within five to 10 years which will be able to remove or reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from a diesel engine. However, if we continue to use fuel with a high sulphur content the benefits will be negated. Here is an immediate and obvious technical measure which can and should be imposed as the European Parliament and the committee suggest. One should start planning now to bring in petrol and diesel which contain smaller amounts of sulphur. Indeed, the European Parliament went rather further than our committee, which suggested that the European standard should be 15 parts per million for both petrol and diesel. That proposal has created great anger and consternation in the petroleum industry, which says, like everyone else, "You should hit at a different target. It is most unfair that you should expect us to spend a large amount of capital in Europe on improving our refining procedures." The European Parliament employed consultants to find out what it was likely to cost a typical motorist if the levels were reduced to 50 parts per million. The consultants worked out that for a typical motorist—whatever that might be; but, for these purposes, the figure was deemed to be 12,600 kilometres of motoring per year—the cost worked out at a modest £5.60 per year. That figure was not accepted by the oil industry, and I am not in a position to say whether it is anywhere near accurate. However, even if it is not accurate, I should still be interested to see the Government conduct a definitive study into precisely what the cost might be. I accept entirely that there will be a cost. The report suggested that it might cost somewhere between £28 billion and £32 billion to upgrade refining in this country. However, it is already happening because the companies concerned are having to spend that capital elsewhere. The question is not whether they will spend that capital around the world on producing low-sulphur fuels, but whether it will be the United Kingdom population which will benefit from it; or, if we do not protest loudly enough, whether we shall go to the bottom of the capital expenditure programme. If pressure is exerted in equal measure all around the world, there will be great demands on the oil industry's capital. Members of the committee should not be repentant about saying that we in Britain should lead the demand that Europe should improve petrol and diesel standards with regard to sulphur. There is no problem in technical terms. Indeed, parts of Scandinavia have already imposed low sulphur standards, and we should do the same. The auto-oil programme was deeply unambitious and seemed simply to perpetuate the status quo. The United Kingdom should certainly benefit from the higher standards.6.51 p.m.
My Lords, I start by thanking the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for doing the difficult job of keeping the report to its set remit of considering low emissions. Many of us who served on the committee felt somewhat frustrated that we could not go off on flights of fancy or up the many other avenues that we could have considered. Although the resulting report may be naïve in terms of some of its recommendations—the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, pointed this out—those recommendations are almost achievable. Indeed, the committee was careful to consider what is achievable over the short-term because the problem of emissions is with us all now.
That was brought home to me in a news story on local radio about somebody who tried to achieve the world crawling record. He collapsed after two miles and was taken to hospital with a suspected heart attack. However, it turned out that he was suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning from following the exhaust of his support vehicle which was in front of him. He almost died of the experience. Although that is an amusing event—but not for him—the incidence of asthma among children is increasing in this country. Indeed, my two year-old nephew suffers extremely badly with asthma and, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, pointed out, the seriousness of the problem cannot be underestimated. One of the depressing issues raised in the report is the fact that our dependence on the car and on the internal combustion engine is here to stay for the next two or three decades. That position will not easily be changed. However, there are alternatives to the car and we saw many interesting and diverse examples, mainly relating to the engine and the fuel supply because there seem to be very few real alternatives in terms of turning a large lump of steel into something other than a car. We looked carefully at what is available in the market at the moment. First, we considered gas-powered vehicles, to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred. They have certain benefits. Their NOx contribution is much lower and they are a pleasure to drive, as we discovered when we visited a local authority and drove the gas-powered vehicles that it uses at the moment. The committee looked carefully at the overall energy consumption of each fuel. One of the hidden costs of using natural gas is the cost of compressing the gas into the fuel tank. Unfortunately, that detracts from the attractions of that source of fuel. We also considered the use of electric vehicles. Indeed, the great joys of electric vehicles were impressed upon me almost physically just around the corner from here when I was almost hit by the silent electric vehicle which is used within the Palace of Westminster. There are major disadvantages with such vehicles, however, and I do not believe that they are the vehicles of the future. They are expensive in terms of pollution. They need large batteries which then have to be disposed of. When we visited Germany, I was interested to learn that the Germans actively discourage electric vehicles because although the vehicles themselves do not produce emissions in the immediate locality, they cause vast quantities of emissions from power stations. There is an advance net deficit if one tries to recharge an electric vehicle from a coal-fired power station. The Germans provided the interesting statistic that Britain has by far the largest fleet of electric vehicles of any country in Europe. I believe that we have about 28,000 such vehicles, which is more than all the other European countries put together. The humble milk float is one of the major contributors. The gyroscope was also considered as a form of propulsion. Although it would work well on a public transport system, especially a train system, I found slightly worrying the thought that if a gyroscope that could drive a vehicle ran away it would have the same force as an explosion of TNT. The committee concluded that hydrogen is the only fuel that is realistic in the long term. However, it will take us 20 or 30 years to get there. Vehicles will have to be developed so that they are cost-efficient. As was shown, we are getting there in terms of bus transport, but it will still take some time and the infrastructure will have to be put in place. Indeed, the only problem with hydrogen is that electricity has to be used to produce it in the first place. Unless we use electric sources from rivers in Canada, we shall have to look at the nuclear option. I was interested to read about the work being carried out at Cern which might give us a nuclear source in the future which could use highly radioactive components and break them down into low radiation-emitting waste. That is still on the drawing board, however, and until we develop it, we shall be left with a short-term energy source which has a long-term pollution consequence. Over the long term, technology is important in terms of the petrol and diesel engine. One of the aspects that must be looked at carefully is mentioned on page 15 of the report. I refer to the graph which shows the cost benefits of making fuel more efficient as against the costs and benefits derived from eking out extra value from the petrol. In one respect one is reaching the very limit of what technologically can be done. Obviously, there will be improvements but, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, points out, the next great leap forward must lie with the removal of sulphur from fuel. Everyone speaks about the cost of removing sulphur from fuel. It is incredible that one even considers cost and that the oil companies can use it as an argument, because it is the consumer who pays the cost in the long run—even the short run. One of the great benefits of removing sulphur at source is that, although one has to do something with it, it is a better solution than having the sulphur released by car engines onto the streets of Britain. Another area to look at is taxation. Although my own party speaks about green taxes, I do not believe that a tax can have a colour. Sulphur would be a great form of taxation. I should be interested if the Minister could confirm that in the next Budget vast amounts of money would be spent by reducing taxation on low sulphur fuel. Obviously, that is something that the Minister cannot deal with this afternoon but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that that was one option that the Government were considering. Taxation can be used if it gives the consumer a net benefit. If so, it is then a green tax. As to switching to large cars from small cars, if taxation is heavily weighted on the former and the advantage goes to those who run the latter it will have a net benefit. I do not speak from personal interest. I own a Ford Fiesta 1.25 which would easily fit within the 1.5 limit. I would be quite prepared to accept taxation on vehicles beyond that limit. At the moment we are caught in a trap. It is regarded as socially acceptable—indeed, it is a social icon—to have a larger, more comfortable car. I believe that my Ford Fiesta has done more off-road work than most of the very large off-road vehicles with bull bars that drive round London at the moment. We are caught in a trap because the big cars that cause congestion are designed to be more comfortable. To have a big car which is more comfortable gives one a psychological advantage. One has air-conditioning which costs a vast amount of money and one is cooled while sitting in a traffic jam. One has all of the electrical appliances that make sitting in a traffic jam that much more comfortable. Perhaps one should try to change the moral impetus to make people go for smaller cars. One interesting figure is that 80 per cent. of the energy consumed by a car is used to move the car itself, not the occupants; only 20 per cent. of fuel is used to move the occupants. That leads one to public transport. If one is to remove the car one must replace it with something else. If there are to be green taxes they should be used to promote public transport. To say that cars must be banned from the centre of London or other places may be electorally dangerous. As this Government have such a large majority, perhaps with the option of another term in government, they may use that long timespan and ban cars now so that the shock does not arrive just before an election and it becomes totally unacceptable. We have transport systems that work. The London Underground, which is underfunded, is one of the greatest examples. A large amount of money must be pumped into the underground, especially the Northern Line. It is an absolute disgrace that the Northern Line should be allowed to carry on in its present form. As I use the Northern Line every day I express an interest here. However, the Northern Line is not referred to as the misery line for nothing. There are other examples around the country. The Newcastle metro system is a very clean and efficient form of transport. It is also one that combines two forms of transport. Often one drives to the metro or uses a park and ride scheme. Therefore, cars are kept out of the centre of town. One uses one's car to get to the station but the vast amount of energy that one would otherwise use to fight one's way to the centre of town is saved. Another area that should be looked at is driving standards. I speak as a council member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. That body has done a good deal of work in looking at fuel efficiency resulting from improved driving standards. One can save a vast amount of fuel just by driving correctly. I turn to the subject of scrappage. One of the issues brought up was the removal of older vehicles from the roads and their replacement with newer vehicles. Britain has a very good record in this respect, mainly because the vehicles that are removed from its roads end up in scrap yards. One interesting fact is that in Germany scrapped vehicles head east and replace the fleets that are in use in Eastern Europe. In the rest of Europe there is a move to scrap vehicles, but those scrapped vehicles do not leave the road. One issue upon which the report focuses is the removal of emissions in order to help the environment, not only from the point of view of health but from the point of view of the removal of CO2 and global warming. One interesting idea was raised recently by a Formula 1 team; that is, planting trees to the same tonnage as it emits in carbon. That may be an interesting idea. Perhaps the Minister can give thought to the introduction of a green tax to be applied to the purchase of new cars. Instead of going to the Treasury that tax could be used for other necessary purposes. Perhaps it could be directed to a body such as English Nature or the National Forest for the planting of trees.7.7 p.m.
My Lords, for the second time this week I find that I have the pleasure and privilege to come to the Dispatch Box in debate with the noble Baroness the Minister. Yet again I expect that we will be to a large extent singing off the same songsheet. That happy situation may not last for ever. However, there is no doubt that we have a problem with emissions both locally and internationally. The question is: how can we best solve it?
I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and his committee, advisers and witnesses for all their hard work and for the very readable report that we are debating this evening. I looked forward to this debate even before the last election, because I knew that the speakers would he excellent. I certainly have not been disappointed. Before I make any substantive points, I should declare an interest, as I am president of the Heavy Transport Association. I have drawn three broad conclusions from the report and today's debate. First, we need to ensure that our current liquid-fuelled road vehicles comply with the regulations and that future vehicles are made to even better standards. Secondly, we need to do much more to encourage a dash for gas in road transport. This particularly applies to vehicles that are used largely in urban areas. Thirdly, and looking to the much longer term, we need to move away from fossil fuels, which by definition must emit CO2, and we look towards hydrogen. Hydrogen can be used either in a combustion engine or a fuel cell. The hydrogen requires power to extract it from other common compounds such as water, and we need to ensure that the electricity used does not itself have an emission penalty from fossil fuels. Many noble Lords have suggested that emission limits should be tightened still further. Indeed, the report advocates the adoption of stages III and IV EU limits which will come into operation in the years 2000 and 2005 respectively. Perhaps the year 2000 is now a little optimistic. As the report indicates, the progressive tightening of limits in part reflects advances in technology but it is also designed to stimulate technological advances. It is gratifying that manufacturers, particularly of commercial vehicles, are able to meet the new limits while at the same time delivering greater productivity and reliability. It is pointless, having demanding type approval emission standards for new vehicles when the standards are not relevant to normal use. The report referred at paragraph 3.6 to tests being carried out at 25°C, which is hardly usual for a temperate European climate for most of the year. The Minister will have to apply pressure in the EU to seek an improvement in the way emission performance is measured for type approval purposes. It is also imperative that vehicles continue to meet the standards for which they were originally designed and built. The report explores this situation and the related difficulty of older vehicles not meeting modern standards. I have a particular aversion to retrospective regulation. I am glad that the committee rejected the submission of the vehicle manufacturers that vehicles should be scrapped after 10 years, and I do not say that just because I have a collection of historic vehicles. If this policy were adopted, the cost of a new vehicle would have to be depreciated over a relatively short period, thus reducing the residual value and significantly increasing whole life costs to the first owner, which may be between £500 to £1,000 for a family car. I believe that this cost could be better put to making the new vehicle even more environmentally friendly. Such an expense would also seriously disadvantage those from lower income groups, who in any event tend to cover less mileage. Clearly, the Government would not want to pay for a scrapping scheme because there simply are no funds available to do so. I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Porter, but I do not support tightening the standards required for the existing fleet for similar reasons and also because the suggestion in paragraph 4.11 smacked of bureaucracy in its outline and would almost certainly be so in its detailed implementation. I feel that our annual emission test procedure is rather weak, and I would single out the free acceleration test for diesel engines. It can easily be subverted by simple adjustments being made to the engine just for the test. On a goods vehicle test the examiner is not able to check for tampering with the fuel equipment. After the test. the controls can be set back to their original position or to one that can even increase performance and probably to the detriment of emissions. Unfortunately, the report did not explore the use of rolling roads which can measure the power developed, emissions and, most importantly, fuel economy under a variety of conditions. It is quite clear from the report that fossil fuel economy is vital to minimise CO2 emissions. The noble Lord, Lord Porter, pointed out that fossil fuels will be with us for a long time to come. Looking into the near future we see the development of "full authority digital engine control systems". The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, touched on this subject. There is the possibility of tapping into the diagnostic socket and obtaining some sort of "confession" from the engine, including its state of wear, emissions and fuel consumption. Some systems will already automatically shut the engine down after a prolonged period of idling. It is clear that for many applications we are restricted to using liquid fuels for the foreseeable future. Other fuels and technologies will simply not provide the range or payload required for long distance heavy goods vehicles. For this reason many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, have advocated low or very low sulphur fuels, not only to reduce sulphur pollution but also to allow the use of catalysts without their being poisoned by the sulphur. The difficulty is that a capital investment of at least £28 billion across the EU would be required, and this would have to be reflected in the cost of the fuel. The issue here is the extra cost of production balanced against the environmental benefits available. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made some interesting points in that connection. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's view on the adoption of low sulphur fuel. Does she think that it is worth the extra cost of production for the UK and EU plc? The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others spoke about the limited production possibilities of bio-diesel. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Porter, offered us hope in the form of production possibilities arising from genetic engineering. It is early days yet but there are many possibilities. Many noble Lords have drawn attention to fuel cell technology. Provided the hydrogen is produced without resorting to fossil fuels, this technology will provide practically zero emissions. There are limits as to what can be done with renewable sources of energy, and this subject was covered by many noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Porter, made some interesting comments about production problems and opportunities for using hydrogen. The holy Grail in all of this is nuclear fusion, as identified by the noble Lords, Lord Vinson and Lord Redesdale. I do not know exactly where this project stands, but clearly that is a long way off. The report raised the issue of fuel additives. I have little knowledge of chemistry, but just the names of some of the chemicals involved makes one think of carcinogenic and other risks. I am sure that the note of caution in paragraph 4.7 should be heeded. Can the Minister say whether it is an EU responsibility or a national responsibility to ensure that fuel additives are safe? Having read the report and listened to your Lordships, it seems to me that CNG, or possibly LNG, offer the most promising, largely proven technology for reduction of emissions in urban areas. The previous Chancellor recognised this fact by reducing the duty on that fuel. I fully support the suggestion that the duty should be reduced to the EU minimum. Natural gas is particularly suitable for buses and taxis, especially when they are depot based. Diesel engines are rather poor for particulate emissions, especially when long periods at low power outputs are involved. I notice that in a Written Question yesterday the Minister's right honourable friend, Dr. Strang, stated that the review would look at the use of buses to reduce pollution, but he did not say that the review would examine ways of making the buses themselves less polluting. I am sure that that was an oversight and that the point will be included in the review. Many well informed noble Lords have pointed out the problem of old buses. There should be a way of providing strong encouragement to build most new black cabs with CNG or LPG fuel systems. This close to the Budget we do not expect the Minister to say very much about fuel duty or VED. However, after the Prime Minister's contribution at the Denver Summit it seems likely that taxes on motoring will rise considerably in real terms in order to combat CO2 emissions. This follows on from the previous government's policy of real increases in the cost of fuel. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that if the Minister desired to encourage a particular fuel or technology she could do so by offering the Chancellor a package that is neutral in terms of tax take. If the Chancellor decided to increase fuel prices, the transport industry would complain that it was unable to pass the increases on to its customers. However, the transport industry is so competitive that any increase in operating cost rarely immediately transfers to an increase in rates. One difficulty relates to cowboy operators who have no interest in pollution control or even general compliance. That is clearly a matter for another day, but it is high on my agenda and I am sure that it will be high on the Minister's too. We do not often have debates on technical matters, but the previous speakers have shown that when we do the result is always interesting. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.7.20 p.m.
My Lords, I am pleased to respond on the behalf of the Government to an interesting and informative debate. The Government welcome the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, Towards Zero Emissions from Road Transport. It makes a valuable contribution on what is a central issue for ourselves, our children and future generations. I should like to thank the committee for its work and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for both chairing the committee and the admirably clear way in which he introduced today's debate.
The Government have already demonstrated their commitment to putting environment concerns at the heart of the decision making process. This was reflected in the Prime Minister's decision to bring together the environment, transport and the regions in one department headed by the Deputy Prime Minister. To further co-ordinate consideration of environmental issues within government, the Deputy Prime Minister will chair a new Cabinet Committee on the environment on which Ministers from all key departments will sit. Noble Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, who called for British leadership in this field, will have been heartened by the Prime Minister's international leadership on environmental issues at the second Earth Summit in New York. The Government regard air which is fit to breathe as a right of every citizen. Transport is a major source of pollution, particularly in urban areas, where it is the dominant source of NOx—oxides of nitrogen and particulate emissions—for which the health risks are of most concern. That was graphically illustrated in the tale told by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I am pleased that over the next 10 years we are expecting air pollution in urban areas to improve significantly to less than half 1995 levels largely as a result of tougher standards for vehicle emissions and fuel quality. Nevertheless, these gains could be partly offset by predicted road traffic growth, with air quality set to deteriorate after 2010 or so. Moreover, meeting air quality objectives in the most polluted urban sites will undoubtedly require further action. We must recognise that air quality is as much a local issue as a national and an international one. In many cases, local measures may be the most cost-effective. A national air quality strategy was published by the previous government in March 1997. We are committed to taking this strategy forward and to look for more rapid improvements in air quality wherever this is feasible. I can tell the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that we will be looking at setting air quality objectives for small particulates in taking that work forward. Climate change has perhaps been a less obvious and manifest threat than air pollution. But it is a perilous long-term risk and, in all likelihood, we are already experiencing its effects. We need to act now to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. We have set ourselves a challenging domestic target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. This will require significant reductions from all sectors of the economy, including transport. Indeed, it was interesting that we discussed combined heat and power in your Lordships' House early this week and the contribution that that can make in limiting CO2 emissions. Climate change is a shared problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Porter, and others pointed out. The UK has taken a lead internationally and, together with our EU partners, will continue pressing for significant reductions from other developed countries at the UN Climate Change Convention in Kyoto this December. But it was the field of transport that the Select Committee covered in its report and which we have dealt with in today's debate to which I would like to turn. As the committee recognised, reducing emissions from road transport can not be the whole story. We need to reduce our reliance on the car and encourage a shift towards more sustainable modes of transport. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that perhaps the carrot of improved public transport will prove more effective than he suggested the stick of taxation had been. To take that forward, we are undertaking a fundamental review of transport policy and aim to produce a White Paper next spring. I am sure that the possibilities for rail freight, raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, those raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, of telematics, which is a fascinating and potentially important area, and the possibility of "clean" buses making a high contribution in terms of public transport improvements will be included in the White Paper. I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, in discussion about the roads review, in which I have a personal interest, but I should be diverted too far from the topic that we are properly covering tonight. I should make two general remarks relating to today's debate. First, the Government have not yet formally responded to the committee's report. We welcome the opportunity to have this debate. I hope that I will be able to cover many of the issues raised, but that noble Lords will understand that we have not finalised our thinking on all the detailed aspects of the report. Secondly, with regard to fiscal measures, I have been tempted by noble Lords to go beyond the correct behaviour for a Minister and discuss what the Chancellor might say next week. I shall not do so; we must all contain ourselves for a little while longer. However, I am able to comment on some of the fiscal measures introduced after the committee's report and included in the 1996 Budget to improve air quality. I refer, for instance, to the proposed cut in tax on ultra low sulphur diesel, for which we are awaiting the derogation, and the 25 per cent. reduction in tax on road fuel gases. I turn to the issue of alternative fuels, which was raised by several noble Lords. Road gas fuels, and in cases electric power, can have a valuable role to play in reducing pollution, particularly in urban areas. We have been impressed by the number of studies and trials being undertaken in this field. The Government are also sponsoring its own trials of alternative fuels, including bio-diesel. The possibilities outlined by the noble Lords, Lord Porter and Lord Walton of Detchant, must be investigated properly because of the potentials that exist. We will be publishing the results later this year. A problem for local authorities and operators is to keep track of all the information that is available. To fill this gap my department has published a booklet, now available on the Internet, providing information on trials of alternative fuels and technologies. This will be regularly updated. We will need to consider what further liaison arrangements might be useful. As regards the cleaning up of buses and the potential of gas powered buses, for example, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the Government are also supporting the Energy Saving Trust's Powershift programme with funding of more than £6 million. This is establishing partnerships with local authorities, businesses, fleet operators and trade associations to develop procurement groups for purchasing gas and electric vehicles and to support complementary fuelling infrastructure. I am happy to be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that the Government Car Distribution Agency has recently introduced several gas-fuelled cars and an electric car. It was possibly that car which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, encountered. Perhaps wearing another hat, I should ensure that it is fitted with a bicycle bell so that it warns him in future when it is coming. We are also exploring the scope for Ministers to make greater use of alternative fuelled cars. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Walton, asked about the area of enforcement of emission standards in the existing fleet. That is crucial to improving air quality. Almost all vehicles are now subject to an emissions inspection at their annual roadworthiness test. In addition, enforcement checks carried out by the department's vehicle inspectorate have helped to ensure that commercial vehicles and buses do not emit excessive smoke levels. Those checks have been expanded over the past few years. The Government are also intending to introduce regulations which give local authorities the power to issue fixed penalty notices for vehicles failing road side emission checks. We are aiming to consult on draft regulations during the summer months, with a view to setting up the scheme on a 12-month trial basis by the end of the year. Emphasis was rightly placed in the Select Committee's report and in the debate tonight on longer term technological developments. The Government are keen to see our industry continue to build a strong, competitive position in new markets for environmental technology. That can achieve both economic and environmental benefits for this country. It is important that we share some of the developments that are made in that regard throughout the world, given the international nature of the problem. We agree that cost and efficiency are critical issues for the development of commercially viable fuel cell systems. The Government, in collaboration with industry, have been supporting research on fuel cell technology through the DTI's advanced fuel cell programme, part of the new and renewable energy programme. My colleague at the DTI, John Battle, recently announced a wide ranging review of policy in this area. Among other things, it will need to consider fuel cell technology. I am pleased that the review will now be able to draw upon your Lordships' deliberations this afternoon as well as the committee's conclusions, and I will ensure that the debate is drawn to my honourable friend's attention. Perhaps I may turn now to vehicle emission and fuel standards and the auto-oils issue. A number of the recommendations and points today cover emission standards for new vehicles and fuel quality. These are being considered under the European Commission's auto-oils programme. We have sought standards that give us a high degree of environmental protection, without imposing excessive or unjustified costs on our vehicle or oil industries. I am pleased to be able to relay to your Lordships a successful outcome to the most recent negotiations. As noble Lords have said today, it is important not to discount the ongoing developments in conventional petrol and diesel technology. In 1993 emission standards were introduced which resulted in catalytic converters being fitted to all new petrol cars. This had a major impact in reducing the main pollutants—carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and Nox—typically by over 75 per cent. The 1993 standards have already been tightened in a second phase during 1996–1997. A third and fourth phase is planned for 2000 and 2005 under the auto-oils programme. The first part of this programme, dealing with emission standards for new cars and fuel quality, was given a first reading at last week's Environment Council. By unanimous decision, the Commission's proposals were amended in a number of key areas, especially on the sulphur level in petrol and diesel, an area highlighted this evening by many noble Lords but in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. Noble Lords will be well aware that I am no technical expert, and I can reassure the House that I have no intention of attempting a chemistry lecture particularly in the distinguished company of the noble Lord, Lord Porter. However, it is important for all of us to recognise that sulphur does have an adverse effect on catalyst efficiency. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that the reductions agreed in Luxembourg will bring an immediate benefit by reducing all the main pollutants from existing vehicles as well as helping manufacturers to meet tighter standards for new vehicles. We very much supported that amendment to the Commission's proposals. It provides a signal to the oil industry on the need to reduce sulphur in both petrol and diesel from today's level of 500 parts per million to not more than 50 parts per million in 2005. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked whether the costs of low sulphur fuel were justified by the benefits. It is important to note that as well as the immediate effects that I have described, demanding standards on sulphur will give the motor industry the confidence that the right fuel quality will be available. That is what is required for the new technology being developed to meet the indicative 2005 vehicle standards. The two issues are inter-related and sulphur levels in fuel are absolutely central. The standards agreed in Luxembourg last week will improve emissions from new cars by 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. from 2000, with a further 50 per cent. improvement from 2005, if the 2005 standards come into force. I say "if' because the petrol and diesel technology does not yet exist that can meet these standards, so the 2005 standards are subject to confirmation following a further auto-oil review in 1999. Hydrocarbon and Nox and diesel particulate emissions will have been cut by over 80 per cent. since the introduction of the catalyst standards in 1993. This would bring us major air quality benefits, and petrol and diesel vehicles will be able to compete effectively with other near-zero emissions technology. The Committee recommended that the EU vehicle emissions testing cycle be amended to more accurately reflect average European ambient temperatures. That point was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that this view was endorsed unanimously at last week's Environment Council. As a result, from 2002, new cars will be required to undergo an extra test carried out at minus seven degrees Celsius. It should ensure that catalysts are much more effective at limiting emissions especially on short journeys. I think this is a very positive step forward. To conclude, I should like to repeat my welcome call for the report and the extremely valuable contributions by noble Lords today. Reducing the emissions from road transport—both in terms of pollution and carbon dioxide emissions—is a challenging and crucial task. New vehicle emission standards and new technology offer us the prospect of air that is clean and safe to breathe and sustainable road transport as well. We need to take full account of the costs of those measures; but equally it is clear that we cannot afford not to act.7.37 p.m.
My Lords, it would be very tempting to respond in detail to this debate but I do not believe that Members of the House would thank me for doing so. It is interesting that in many ways the debate has reflected the discussions which we held in the sub-committee as we were attempting to draft our report.
The report was of course tightly focused and we thought that it had to be that, otherwise we might have produced rather diffuse results instead of something which I hope, in the light of this debate, will be seen as positive and helpful. I am most grateful to all who have contributed to the debate, in particular members of the committee but interestingly, of course, the non-members of the committee who have widened our perspective. Indeed, for those of us who are interested in the subject, we should be wise to pin the Hansard record of the debate to our copy of the report. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for responding on behalf of the Government. As the Minister said, we have not had a formal response, but without the benefit of that formal response she has gone as far as she possibly can in answering many of the points which the committee raised and she has defined those areas which I am well aware—as I am certain everybody else is aware—cannot be answered at this point. It has been a most successful debate. I commend the Motion to the House.On Question, Motion agreed to.
Asbestos
7.40 p.m.
rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to end the use of asbestos-based products in the United Kingdom construction industry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will be well aware of my longstanding connection with the construction industry, although in recent years I have been more of a commentator and journalist than a participant on the building site. I hope that after this debate we shall see the end of the use of asbestos materials in the construction industry.
However, I must begin with a confession. Many years ago when I was a young structural engineer in the late 1940s, designing and seeing built industrial buildings of various kinds, we used a great deal of asbestos as cladding material on the roofs and sides of buildings. We thought then that it was a useful construction material. Because we thought it was useful we used it. We did not then realise that it was not only useful but lethal. We now realise how dangerous it is and we wish to see its use brought to an end.
The term "asbestos" refers to a group of fibrous materials which have useful construction qualities. They have high tensile strength; they conduct heat poorly and they are highly fireproof. There are three main forms of asbestos: chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite. These are popularly known as white, blue and brown asbestos respectively. Because of the well-known dangers which they pose, blue and brown asbestos have been banned in the United Kingdom and throughout western Europe for some time. White asbestos, however, is also regarded as a killer by the Health and Safety Executive. The following point is the important part of my
submission tonight. Nevertheless in 1994, 71,200 tonnes of asbestos cement products were imported to this country, mainly from Canada and South Africa although some came from elsewhere. Those products are used in the construction of new buildings and in the maintenance of existing ones. I am not talking here about asbestos that, historically, is found in situ; I am talking about new asbestos which is being imported to this country and used in the construction industry.
There are four main diseases connected with asbestos. They are not invariably fatal although some of them are, but they are always debilitating. The Health and Safety Executive maintains that asbestos can never be regarded as absolutely safe. The Construction Safety Campaign calculates that 3,500 people are killed by asbestos each year and that those in most danger are in the construction industry. The Institute of Cancer Research has estimated that deaths from asbestos inhalation will triple by the end of the century and might reach 10,000 a year by then. Therefore a clear danger exists. What can be done about it?
Last September the Health and Safety Commission recommended that the Government should extend the European Union's existing ban on asbestos to cover the use of white asbestos as well as blue and brown asbestos, except for a small number of applications where no satisfactory alternative is readily available. Unfortunately that recommendation was not taken up by the Government at the time. In a debate in another place last year the then Government recognised that there was a problem, but they were more concerned with the management of asbestos already in place and in increasing awareness of the danger among construction workers and in the industry. The Minister at the time, James Clappison, said,
"it is Government policy that asbestos materials that are undamaged and are not releasing fibres should be managed in situ. Materials that are slightly damaged should be repaired and sealed or encapsulated. Only materials that are badly damaged or are likely to be disturbed or damaged should be removed".
No one would argue with that, as far as it goes, but it fails to deal with imported materials. In fact it rather implies that imported materials are safe to be used in schools, other public buildings and private homes, whether they contain asbestos or not. However, these building materials—roof tiles, for example—are easily damaged during transit or installation or in case of fire. Continuing to use them only adds to the problems of management which concerned Mr. Clappison.
There is, however, a management problem in identifying asbestos material imports. On 18th June the rapporteur of a Council of Europe report on asbestos, Tom Cox, MP, stated in another place that his committee was deeply concerned about the inadequate labelling of materials. In the same debate another Member said that the materials coming in from Poland were poorly labelled and that many construction companies were using roofing slates and other materials imported from Poland unaware that they contained asbestos.
The obvious solution is to ban the importation of asbestos materials where suitable alternatives exist. As regards housebuilding, there are suitable alternatives, the most obvious of which is slate. It is not only suitable but it is also a much better material for roofing, as anyone with eyes in his head can see. It is more environmentally friendly, as we tend to say nowadays. Of course there are environmental enthusiasts who would quibble at the creation or extension of slate quarries. However, slate quarries are a minor blemish on the environment and their extension is preferable to continued disabilities and deaths.
However, it has been argued in the industry that it would be impractical to impose a ban except over a lengthy period. However, France announced a ban on white asbestos last July which came into effect on 1st January this year. The manufacturers of asbestos products were able to shift to other materials without great difficulty. If it can be done in France I rather imagine that it can probably be done here too.
Of course asbestos imports cannot be stopped entirely. They are needed, for example, in the motor industry for brake linings and other such things. However, I am talking tonight about the construction industry where the materials are still used. But asbestos is not needed in construction. I wonder whether the new Government will bring a ray of light to this matter. I notice that last October Frank Dobson, who was then an environment spokesman, demanded a ban on hazardous asbestos products such as roof slates. He also wanted tougher penalties on businesses which expose workers to dangerous asbestos, and more activity by the Health and Safety Executive in identifying and eradicating dangerous asbestos. Those are brave and bold words. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the time has now come to deliver.
7.50 p.m.
My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon for introducing the debate on this most important subject. As he described, asbestos is dangerous. It has been a known danger for many years. We recognise that responsible people have tackled the problem in a number of different ways. I give one example from Manchester City Council. As early as 1983 it adopted a policy to deal with asbestos in council premises. In 1984 it set up a dedicated asbestos removal unit within the direct works department which provides a service for all council buildings in which asbestos is a problem.
At its annual conference recently, the MSF Union unanimously passed a resolution calling for the total banning of asbestos. The motion was moved eloquently by a member of the union whose branch is involved in the construction industry. He told us harrowing tales of numbers of his branch members dying as a result of asbestosis. In preparing for the debate, I was absolutely shocked to discover that asbestos roof tiles are still being marketed and sold in this country. We need to recognise the vulnerability of people who suffer ill health and death from asbestos. That does not extend only to building workers but to people in buildings where asbestos is loose. As my noble friend pointed out, asbestos is also used in other areas. I highlight the automotive industry, where it can be used in brake, clutch and gasket linings. I have to advise my noble friend that the requirement for asbestos in the automotive industry is no longer necessary. There are alternatives; and new design techniques can ensure that all new automotive products can he built without the need for asbestos.My Lords, I am happy to agree with my noble friend, as I often do. But he has overlooked the fact that in this country a substantial number of older cars, including my own, require asbestos. He is right regarding new cars, but the problem with older cars exists.
My Lords, I take the point my noble friend makes. I shall come back to it later.
However, if there were a total ban on asbestos I am sure that modern engineering technology could develop alternative products that would fit the older motor cars to which my noble friend refers. I believe that that is now within the technical capability of the industry. We need to recognise the realities of life. My noble friend mentioned that older motor cars have used asbestos for brake and clutch linings. I, too, have had cars of that generation. The position is almost worse than he suggests. I used to do my own maintenance—I still do—on old and decrepit motor cars. In order to keep brake and clutch linings going beyond their normal life, you can knock out with a wire brush the glazing that sometimes occurs. That is probably one of the worst things you can do with an asbestos product. It generates particles. Many years ago a friend of mine was demolishing his garage which had an asbestos tiled roof. He asked me whether I wanted anything from the garage he was demolishing. I thanked him; and we took off all the asbestos tiles. I spent many happy hours brushing off the tiles with a wire brush to make them suitable for reuse. Again, that was probably a horrendous thing to do with asbestos tiles. I give those two examples in order to articulate the realities of people's lives, in particular, if I may so put it, at the bottom end of economic activity. If people are poor they cannot afford new parts and have to make do and mend. There will be practices that experts would frown upon and think are horrendous. We need to realise that these activities go on. Those realities form part of the argument that I put forward for a total ban so that eventually the risk of inhalation of asbestos dust leading to illness is eradicated. My noble friend referred to the fact that France has banned asbestos products. He deployed the argument that we should ban asbestos products in the building industry. I agree with that. I argue that we need a total ban on asbestos in this country. But we need to think in terms of the European dimension. We have supposedly a single market with free movement of products. So we need to recognise that there is a need for a total ban across Europe on asbestos. If we say that such a ban is good for Europe, surely we should argue on the worldwide stage that asbestos should not be used in future. In doing so, we need to recognise the damage that can occur to people involved in mining asbestos and in producing asbestos-based products. People in the supply chain also suffer quite significantly. In arguing that we should stop the production, manufacture and distribution of asbestos worldwide, we must also recognise that alternative employment and economic activity will be required for those involved in the asbestos industry. I hope that my noble friend does not mind my widening the terms of his debate. It is an important subject. I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench who will wind up will not be able to say, "Yes, yes, yes", to all that I have suggested, but I hope that the Government will bear these points in mind.7.58 p.m.
My Lords, I do not intend to take up a great deal of the House's time. I am anxious to listen to the Minister on this subject. However, I believe that the debate has become a little confused about the types of asbestos. I do not pretend to the technical knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Howie. However, my impression is that there are two types of asbestos which one might call unacceptable—the blue and the brown—and the white which merely qualifies as undesirable and which it would be nice to replace. If one had had the sense not to call all three "asbestos", for some earlier convenience, and were to rename the white "Howie-ite", everyone would love it.
My Lords, I am charmed as always by the noble Lord. But he overlooks the fact that the Health and Safety Executive does not like white asbestos. It does not merely think that it is undesirable; it thinks that it is a killer. That is the HSE's word not mine.
My Lords, the Health and Safety Executive recommended that we make efforts to phase it out. In its view, it is clearly not a killer on the scale of blue asbestos on which there is a total ban. There are many risks in this world that one wishes to see reduced and one works towards that end. The Health and Safety Executive has gained a very strong reputation in that regard. It has been a most successful agency and has justifiably built up a reputation in which many people are prepared to place a great deal of faith.
I am sure that, as the Government review all these matters, especially the question as to how the Food Safety Agency will work, they will re-examine the structure of the Health and Safety Executive in order to see whether that also needs some updating—whether it is as open, as independent of scientists, whether it has enough truly independent members, to do as well in the next 20 years as it has in the past. It has a very strong record. We and the Government are entitled to rely on the advice it provides and the balancing of risk and need that it has undertaken in these circumstances, and to respect its independence from government, which is such an important part of its constitution. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether she intends to follow the advice of the agency and to proceed along the lines that it recommended. The Government should always have an ability to differ from the advice given by such agencies. It is an important part of a government's function that they introduce political decision on top of the technical and thoughtful decisions of the Health and Safety Executive. However, in these circumstances, when the advice is so obviously reasonable and well thought out, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to accept it. To turn briefly to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, he has clearly flourished on his time spent scraping away at tiles and brake linings and is in excellent health. So long as they were made of white asbestos, I believe the noble Lord has a very good chance of living to a very ripe old age and keeping us entertained for a great deal longer.My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I would point out that one of the difficulties with asbestosis is that the ill health and death that result from it can have quite a long time delay. That does not make it any better or easier for those who suffer from the affliction.
8.2 p.m.
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Howie for the eloquent and most persuasive arguments that he put forward to support his case for banning new uses of asbestos in the construction industry. I am also grateful for the other two contributions, from my noble friend Lord Monkswell and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Your Lordships need have no fear about this Labour Government's solid determination to do whatever is necessary to safeguard human health against the dangers posed to it by asbestos. People's lives are sacrosanct: we will take all steps necessary to protect them. Indeed, that will be our general approach to health and safety. We will give the subject a high level of ministerial support. The plain fact is that asbestos is a scourge on our society. The death toll from asbestos related diseases, and the misery caused to those who lose their loved ones, are quite unacceptable. As my noble friend Lord Monkswell said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and as my noble friend Lord Howie indicated, all asbestos related diseases have a very long latency period: 15 to 20 years. The deaths that are occurring now are the result of exposure that distance of time away. Projections for the next 20 years are based on past and current exposure. Your Lordships must be horrified to hear of the scale of the toll exacted on human life by asbestos. The figure was given by my noble friend Lord Howie for the numbers of people—3,500, who die each year from asbestos related diseases. Last year, 1,200 people were killed by mesothelioma and nearly double that number died from lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. The most alarming and worrying prospect is that this terrible toll of death is set to continue to rise over the next 20 to 30 years. On top of that, there are many people suffering ill health as well. Exposure to asbestos is causing too much suffering and needless death. This Government are determined to put a stop to that, although we realise that most of today's suffering is due to exposure to asbestos that occurred many years ago. As my noble friend Lord Howie said, one of the difficulties that we face is the sheer scale on which asbestos has been used in the construction of buildings. Large quantities have been used over many years in buildings such as schools, hospitals and office blocks. Workers engaged, for example, in refurbishment or demolition work are at risk if they do not know that asbestos is present. The area of work that has been tackled, referred to by my noble friend Lord Monkswell, is a very important one. That is one problem that must be addressed. But equally worrying is the continued use of asbestos products in the construction industry: the substance is still imported and is therefore readily available for use in new buildings or in the refurbishment of existing ones. We are determined to act on both counts. I commend the work of the Health and Safety Commission in the high priority it has given to controlling work with asbestos. Indeed, I commend all the work that the commission and its executive have done in the field of health and safety. I assure my noble friends, and the House, that the approach of this Labour Government will be strongly to support the work of the Health and Safety Commission and its executive. We shall be positive and proactive in our support to them. I have said that the commission has given priority to controlling work with asbestos. The import and supply of the most dangerous forms of the substance have, as all the speakers said, been banned for many years—that is to say, the so-called "blue" and "brown" asbestos; and there are the Control of Asbestos at Work regulations. But, despite these vital steps, blue and brown asbestos remain in buildings and so present a considerable risk to those working there—often there is no way of knowing that asbestos is present. The commission has acted to address that problem: there has been an extensive publicity campaign to raise awareness of it among building workers, who, as we know from research, are the most vulnerable group. Where it is necessary, the Health and Safety Executive will pursue through the courts those who breach health and safety law relating to asbestos. The courts have already imposed a custodial sentence in a case where the law was not properly observed. I should like to see more sentences of this kind to deter others who may be contemplating breaking the law. Equally, I should like to see stiffer financial penalties imposed by the courts when the HSE is successful in securing a conviction. The average fine secured in the past five years for a breach of those regulations was a mere £.1,120. That is hardly the right sort of deterrent to prevent all those companies working with asbestos from flouting the law. Given the structure of the construction and demolition industries, where sub-contracting and so-called self-employment are commonplace, there needs to be a very strong deterrent to firms which ignore sensible health and safety regulation, as so many appear to do with breath-taking arrogance and tragic results. Woefully inadequate fines by the courts for health and safety offences are a problem that greatly concerns the Government. We are looking into this with the help of the Health and Safety Commission. Bad employers and operators must be hit hard where it hurts so as to force them to take their health and safety responsibilities seriously. People's lives depend upon it. In addition to the strides forward made by the commission over recent years, it has other measures on its agenda that will greatly help to deal with the continuing problems caused by asbestos. It is now considering extending the current licensing scheme on asbestos stripping to include work with asbestos insulation board, an area of high risk, and a new statutory duty on building owners and occupiers to survey for the presence of asbestos, thus making it known where hidden dangers lie. How many other workers have been in the same position as my noble friend Lord Monkswell of working with this deadly product without being fully aware of the consequences? The commission is also considering the circumstances in which a licence to remove asbestos can be revoked, enabling the cowboys in the construction trade to be eliminated; and reinforcing the pressure on Europe to extend existing import prohibitions. The work in Europe is extremely important. There are already stringent EU controls on the most hazardous forms of asbestos, which are fully implemented in the UK. The prohibitions on white asbestos still allow a significant number of uses. We must challenge those uses and question whether they are still needed. We are aware of the important work of the Health and Safety Commission and its executive and the sound, positive action that it wishes to see taken. The Government believe that much more needs to be done, and we have put action in place. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced last week in another place that the commission has been asked for advice on how more urgent action can be taken and for that advice to reach Ministers quickly. We appreciate, as my noble friend Lord Howie said, the need for this consideration to take place as quickly and effectively as possible. As I have indicated, the Government see much merit in the commission's idea of a new duty on those responsible for buildings to survey for the presence of asbestos. If the location of asbestos is known, it can be properly treated and handled. Very important too, a new duty to survey will mean that people are not unaware of the existence of the killer substance. I applaud, as does my noble friend Lord Monkswell, the tireless work of the trades unions in focusing public attention on the continuing need for tough action on asbestos. The Government look forward to receiving soon the commission's advice on this important initiative. But an equally worrying problem which needs to be tackled is, as my noble friend Lord Howie said, the continuing level of imports into this country of chrysotile—that is to say, white asbestos. It comes into the UK as both raw fibre and products, and supplies are finding their way to the construction industry. As has been said, poor labelling could be part of the problem. It is clear that users may still be ignorant of the fact that they are using this product. About half the asbestos used in this country is in asbestos-cement products such as corrugated sheeting and roofing tiles. Here I pay tribute to the work done in the Council of Europe in looking at this problem. There are alternatives. Significant parts of the construction industry are already turning to those alternatives, and that is welcome. Asbestos must not be the first choice because it is cheaper than the alternatives—cheaper financially but much dearer in its costs in human lives and suffering. The construction industry must not put costs before human life. An industry-led drive in favour of the alternatives would result in an expansion of the market in asbestos alternatives, which we hope could lead to a downward pressure on their price. The Government recognise, however, that there are still some very specialised uses of asbestos where alternatives cannot yet be used, either because they provide significantly lower levels of performance in safety-critical applications or because the alternatives themselves pose a risk to human health. But users must not use those arguments as a smokescreen; and certainly those uses must be strictly limited in number and apply only in cases where no viable alternative is available. I have yet to be convinced that there are any uses in the construction industry that need to remain. The need for any derogations will be considered. We must wait for the advice from the Health and Safety Commission before making a decision on which derogations are appropriate. I have said that the most dangerous forms of asbestos, the brown and blue, have already been banned. The Government now believe that the time has come to get rid of the remaining uses of asbestos. It is time to seek to ban white asbestos. For some years now, as noble Lords and my noble friend Lord Howie have said, there has been a proposal on the table in Europe to extend the existing prohibitions on blue and brown asbestos to white asbestos. While, unfortunately, no agreement has been reached on this important proposal and it has lain dormant, it is now, after action by the French last year to prohibit almost all supply of asbestos, possible to give greater urgency to the European proposal. I welcome that news, and we shall play our part as good Europeans. The Health and Safety Executive is to second a senior official to the European Commission to work on the necessary Community legislation. Irrespective of these important developments in Europe, however, the Government have concluded that there is a need for us to consider taking steps in this country now to address the problem of white asbestos. We have taken action on this already. In our first weeks in office we have met the Health and Safety Commission and asked it to advise us urgently on how a domestic ban on the import, supply and use of asbestos can be put in place as soon as possible. We naturally want to see speedy action, but equally, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, we do not want to act irresponsibly. The commission has a statutory duty to consult in formulating proposals for Ministers to consider. We value that consultation so that all the practicalities can be taken into account in formulating proposals for Ministers to consider. This is an important subject and the commission will play an important role. This has been a useful debate on a subject which contains within it many human tragedies and much human suffering. I hope that my noble friend Lord Howie will welcome the positive and constructive response of the Government to his Question.Southampton International Boat Show Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past eight o'clock.