My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I should like to begin my remarks by expressing my appreciation to those noble Lords who have turned out on a Friday morning to speak on this Bill.

This Bill arises out of the consideration of the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill which went through its various stages in the latter part of last year and is now being considered in another place. That Bill deals with the collection of the levy as provided for by Section 33 of the Electricity Act 1989. At the Committee stage of the Bill on 16th October I sought to move an amendment which would have widened the scope of the use of the levy as provided for by Section 32 of the Electricity Act. However, that was ruled out of order by the Public Bill Office because of the limited scope of the Bill, but I was able to raise the issue on a Motion stand part.

In that Motion, in which some noble Lords present today took part, there was support for the purpose of my proposed amendment. I was also glad to note that there was support from the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, speaking from the Government Front Bench, who unfortunately cannot be with us today. He said that, while he naturally respected the decision of the House authorities that the amendment was out of order, he was nevertheless "disappointed by that decision." He went on to say that,

"The Government are very sympathetic to the intentions underlying the proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, explained to the Committee today."—(0fficia Report, 16/12/97; col. 565.]

Later on in the debate at col. 567 he said,

"If we must legislate early, we shall do so as early as parliamentary time permits".

The Bill before the House today provides the Government with the opportunity for early legislation on this important matter.

I am well aware that the Government are conducting a wide-ranging review of energy policy in all its aspects. As I understand it, this would cover the use of the non-fossil fuel obligation funds. However, the review is still likely to take some time and I feel that early action on this particular issue is required. This should in no way prejudice other measures which the Government might decide to take in the light of the review. In the Standing Committee on the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill in another place on 24th February, much interest was expressed in the Bill before your Lordships today which has the object of extending the range of uses to which the levy could be put. That was seen as complementary to the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill.

The matter was also raised at a meeting of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 3rd December 1997. The Chairman of the Committee then asked Mr. John Battle, Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, whether, if,

"Lord Ezra would be able to introduce a fossil fuel levy support system for clean coal technology",

the Minister would give it,

"the appropriate support".

Mr. Battle's answer was "yes". I hope that will be confirmed when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, responds later on.

It is against that background of very positive responses that I have pleasure in moving the Second Reading of the Electricity Generation Bill. In widening the range of uses of the levy funds, I have in mind in particular further support for combined heat and power (CHP) schemes and for clean coal technology to which I have already made reference. I know that the Government strongly favour both those ways of improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution and I therefore consider that this Bill specifically supports their frequently stated intentions.

I need hardly remind your Lordships of the substantial energy savings and emission reductions brought about by the application of the CHP process. Not only is the conversion of primary to secondary energy increased from something like 50 per cent. to 80 per cent., but the use of the resultant steam or hot water, when distributed, brings further benefits through consumers not having to use other forms of energy which would themselves add to pollution. There is thus a double benefit in the extension of CHP. This Bill would enable levy support to be extended to all forms of CHP which is entirely justified in view of the substantial emission reductions which could thereby be achieved.

In the case of clean coal technology the Government are urgently reviewing the situation of the sadly diminished coal industry. I believe that the Government recognise that coal produced within the United Kingdom must continue to make a noticeable contribution to energy supplies. However, in order for this to be achieved in the long term, the environmental disadvantages of using coal under present technology must be diminished. So a further impetus needs urgently to be given to the development of clean coal technology. I should stress that this is not only important with regard to the United Kingdom market, but the development of an effective technology could bring substantial benefits in the export market, particularly in countries where the economies are developing fast, such as China and India.

The Bill is a simple one. Basically it amends Section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989 with a consequential amendment to Section 33 and in the process amends Section 39 of the Environment Act 1995 which itself amended the Electricity Act. By this mechanism, the Government would be provided with a much wider range of options in making use of the proceeds of the levy to include projects based on fossil as well as non-fossil fuels. This could be one of the means of achieving the Government's objective to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by the year 2010. Unless action is taken soon, it would be very difficult to achieve this target. The present Bill should be seen in that context.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Ezra.)

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, both for his speech and for the Bill. He did not take a very long time and I propose to be relatively brief myself. I am sorry that the noble Lord's previous attempt to amend the earlier Bill was not constitutionally proper and I certainly hope that this one will receive a fair wind.

A few weeks ago I attended a meeting of the All-Party Energy Studies Group, of which I was secretary for quite a long time before the last election, and heard a presentation from distinguished people offering their view of the world energy scene. They took the view that in the short term the world and the United Kingdom would depend for their energy resources largely on oil and gas and that, as oil and gas ceased to be available, they would be replaced by nuclear power and renewables. They took a very dismissive view of the contribution which coal could make. They perceived decline as inevitable and continuing and they appeared to convince quite a few of the people present.

I was not convinced, for this reason. Oil will shrink and disappear before gas, but both of them will inevitably become more expensive in real terms as the years pass and we will be burning gas rather recklessly or fecklessly when it ought to be seen as an important source of feedstock. The real concern was about the longer-term view—nuclear power.

I spoke in the House in an energy debate in January and I pointed out that last July I stood beside the sarcophagus at Chernobyl. The person I was with had a device to measure radiation and it was showing very high levels indeed. I was very pleased to leave. I worry about that because I take the view that for mankind at this stage to imagine that we should be spreading nuclear power at the fastest possible speed in areas of the world which do not have the technological resources, the administrative capacity or the political stability to manage that industry is very foolish. It is unwise for us to assume that, in half the world at least, coal-burning can be replaced by nuclear power.

I am as green as the next man, and probably greener than most. But I think we ought to be a little more cautious than some are about the expectation that renewables will provide a huge part of the energy requirement at modest cost. Some years ago I spoke at an energy conference in Europe and heard a Dutch expert proclaim that Britain could meet the whole of its energy requirements from windmills. I am not sure that our environment would be particularly attractive if we developed on that scale. That is not to say that we should not have wind power or solar power—we have to take what opportunities nature can provide—but nature has provided considerable opportunities from coal. For us to see the coal industry disappear would not be wise.

I take the view which the noble Lord expressed, and which I have advanced for many years since I was quite young, that we should be burning coal cleanly. I lived and still live in a coal-mining area and I recognise fully that we should be burning it as cleanly as possible. But I think it entirely unwise for Britain to be proclaiming that it is doing far more than anyone else in caring for the global environment by closing down the coal industry, and closing it down at enormous public cost. For that reason, therefore, I entirely endorse the noble Lord's view that we should be using resources to burn coal as cleanly as possible.

I say that because those parts of the world with large coal reserves will continue to mine that coal, will continue to burn that coal, and will burn it in primitive ways without very much regard for Kyoto or anything else. We cannot really blame them because they do not have vast resources. But what we can do is to set an example and at the same time provide the industrial opportunity to which the noble Lord referred by developing in this country, and building on research that has already taken place, methods by which we can burn coal far more cleanly and selling the expertise, technology and equipment which the world should be using.

We may obliterate the mining industry; we may cease to burn coal at all or to any significant extent, but the rest of the world will not follow that pattern. I believe that we can serve not merely the British coal industry, but the engineering industry as well, besides providing opportunities for British industry. At the same time I believe that we could make a magnificent contribution to the cleaning of the world environment, which deserves priority.

My Lords, we do not need to say very much this morning because we discussed this matter last October on an amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to a previous Bill. I welcome the fact that he has produced his own private Bill today. When we discussed this matter last year, I believe that we received a somewhat sympathetic reception from the Government Front Bench. I sincerely hope that it has not changed its minds.

My support for the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was based on the fact that to my mind the levy was always far too narrowly conceived. It seemed to me then—and it still does—to be intent on promoting some of the more glamorous renewables. I should say in passing that I am more keen on nuclear power than my noble friend Lord Hardy, but I understand his point of view.

The levy seemed to glamorise some of the non-renewables. In the course of our debate last year the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, went to some length to demonstrate the desirability of wind energy. That has substantial attractions. The fuel is free, which is a kind of Aberdonian dream come true and we would all like to see that. But there are disadvantages. It is not a very fruitful source of energy. I know that the heavens are filled with storms rampaging all over the place and if one could harness them it would be wonderful, but one cannot.

Perhaps I may illustrate my attitude by giving one simple example. Pembroke power station on the far side of Wales produces 2,000 megawatts of electricity. The biggest windmill today is about 100 metres high and has a wingspan of about 75 metres. It produces about 500 kilowatts, which is half a megawatt. That means that if one were to think in terms of wind power on an industrial scale and thought it wise to replace Pembroke power station and find its 2,000 megawatts from wind energy, one would require 4,000 of these windmills. So there would be 4,000 windmills, 100 metres high with a wingspan of 75 metres. It may be that they would be gathered in what one would call a plantation rather than a windfarm, but it would be five miles square. In fact, it would be rather bigger because if the 4,000 windmills were set in square they would get in each other's way and one would not get 500 kilowatts out of each of them at all, but rather less. So one would need more than 4,000 windmills. One would have a plantation of windmills at least five miles square.

Alternatively, if one did not like that idea—and I do not believe that anyone would—they could be put in a straight line which would stretch from Pembroke to somewhere in the middle of the North Sea. I cannot really see that idea as a runner. I am all in favour of cheap energy and of the research and development which is involved in windmills. But the problem is not that simple. What is really needed is the windmill on a domestic scale, situated at the bottom of the garden, producing one's own two to three kilowatts in remote areas of the country where they are out of sight and probably screened by one of the high hedges that people are getting excited about nowadays.

I believe that the levy is misconceived. It should be widened in the direction in which this Bill is pointed and especially in the direction of combined heat and power. I very strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in his attempt to get this Bill on the statute book. I sincerely hope that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip will merely say, "What a good idea: let's do it!"

My Lords, I am delighted to support the Electricity Generation Bill and my noble friend Lord Ezra. We have already heard this morning from the noble Lords, Lord Hardy of Wath and Lord Howie of Troon, about some of the problems that we have had as regards consistency of policy and energy in this country. That is the important matter. It is vital that we have consistency in all our legislation when we consider saving energy, cutting pollution and preserving our precious fossil fuels.

My noble friend has explained very clearly how the Bill will improve on the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill. I intend to spend a few minutes in telling the House of my experiences over 30 years in the field of energy conservation and alternative energy production, not using fossil fuels. I first became aware of energy efficiency issues over 25 years ago when my husband and I had the opportunity to live in Stockholm, Sweden. We left behind in this country a small box of a house with a very large single-glazed window on the front of it. It was very difficult to keep warm in the winter. The bills were pretty high and we were not earning very much. I had just started teaching.

We lived in Stockholm for three years in a flat that remained at the same temperature from floor to ceiling all the year round, whether the temperature was plus 25 degrees or minus 25 degrees centigrade. The fuel bills were negligible. The first winter we were there was very cold. There had also been very dry weather. There were problems in producing enough electricity through hydrogeneration at that time. The profligate use of energy was brought home to me by Sweden's very efficient scheme to persuade people to save energy that winter. We were told exactly how much energy we would waste every time we opened the fridge door. There was a competition among the payers of electricity bills in the different areas to discover who could save the most electricity. From that time on I realised how important energy efficiency and conservation would be in future.

We returned to this country at the time of the oil crisis. It is very disappointing, after that experience, that now, so many years on, we have made disappointing progress under all governments in this country. We have heard many warm words from all governments at home and abroad, but the financial assistance to pursue the intention has not been met. There has been inconsistency of policy.

I was a city councillor in Southampton from 1984 until I was elected to the other place. During that time we had a thermal energy bore under the city. The government of the day had given us money, as a local authority, to investigate the matter. But then it was decided that it was not a very good idea and the money supply was cut off. I am pleased to say that there was all-party consensus on the council to ensure that we carried the matter forward despite the setback. We were forced to go out of this country and into partnership with a French company to make the most of the borehole and to combine it with a combined heat and power unit as well. We ended up with the city having in effect a district heating scheme that could make the best of whatever energy we could get in the city and from outside. Supermarkets, educational institutions and hospitals all used that system.

Having had those experiences, when I became a Member of the other place and had the extraordinary good fortune to get first place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills, it is not surprising that the subject of energy conservation was high in my mind. I was successful in helping to pilot the Home Energy Conservation Act through both Houses of Parliament, which was an enabling measure. I believe that in all such measures we must have consistency, and that is why I am happy to support this Bill which tries to ensure consistency in our aims and our legislation.

The deregulation of energy supplies gives us the opportunity to build in the support and finance for further energy efficiency measures, and particularly to take advantage of new technology. My noble friend has already told the House that the opportunities for our businesses in Britain and abroad are enormous. Not only does energy efficiency make sense for the future of our environment, but it also makes good economic sense.

I hope that my experiences over recent years have shown just how inconsistent we have been as a nation in our attitude to energy efficiency and what we intend to do about it. I believe that that has left our nation some way behind other countries, particularly those in Western Europe in terms of energy-efficient buildings and power stations and in making the best use of the energy available to us.

We have made worldwide commitments to reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions and, so far, we have done reasonably well, we are told. However, we must not be complacent because the first and biggest reduction in recent years has been due mainly to the switch to natural gas. I believe that this Bill will help us to have consistent policies and legislation. I am sure that it will contribute greatly towards achieving the aims which I am sure are shared by all noble Lords present in the Chamber.

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this Bill so clearly. It is undoubtedly a worthy cause. I shall not detain the House for long because the support of these Benches for the principle of the Bill has already been outlined by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie when the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, effectively spoke to his Bill in the clause stand part debate on the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill last October.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, explained, the Bill focuses on two main themes—clean coal technology and combined heat and power. I was interested to hear what noble Lords said on both issues. There is no doubt that coal burning, without clean technology, is very polluting and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, said, whether we like it or not countries elsewhere in the world such as China and India will no doubt continue to burn coal, polluting the atmosphere for many years to come. Therefore, if we can encourage clean coal technology not only for the benefit of our own industry, but also for the export opportunities of making that technology available to countries such as China and India, we shall be doing a very good thing.

There is also no doubt that combined heat and power, of which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has been a formidable champion for many years, can offer considerable advantages in terms of efficiency. I understand that a number of proposals are currently in the pipeline, but that some have been delayed as a result of the Government's review of energy policy. I join other noble Lords in wondering why that should be. Surely the advantages of CHP stand alone and decisions could be taken now.

I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, one question. If the Bill were enacted, would there be a cost to electricity consumers, industrial or domestic, and, if so, has the noble Lord any idea what that cost might be? I suspect that the answer will be that it would be negligible.

I am sure that the Minister will say that we must await the outcome of the review for an answer to the questions that the Bill poses. I hope that today's debate shows that there is all-round support for the principle of the Bill and the type of proposals that it offers us.

My Lords, I would like to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the enthusiasm he has shown in bringing forward this Bill. It is a short Bill of only two clauses, but it is a Bill which bestows enormous powers. The Government have great sympathy with the intentions underlying this Bill. The aims of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and all who have spoken, to encourage new and renewable sources of generation, including combined heat and power (CHP) and clean coal, are ones which we share.

I believe, however, that we must look extremely closely at what is being proposed in this Bill. The resources which are available to us to support new and renewable technologies are limited. We must use them carefully if we are to achieve the testing targets that this Government have set both for new and renewable generation and for the environment.

The Government propose to undertake a new and strong drive to develop new and renewable energy sources in line with their manifesto commitment. To this end, Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry have commissioned a review of policy, including considerations of what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of UK electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010 and how renewable energy can make an effective contribution to meeting requirements for future greenhouse gas reduction commitments.

As we all know, one key element of the Government's policy has been the non-fossil fuel obligation, which has the handy acronym NFFO. The NFFO mechanism has been highly successful in creating an initial market for electricity from renewable sources. Noble Lords will be interested to know that at the end of December 1997—the latest date for which figures are available—221 schemes were operating throughout the UK with a capacity of 506MW. Many of these new schemes have been developed by new companies, a number of which are small or medium-sized enterprises. More widely, overall annual turnover for UK renewable energy companies is now estimated to be in excess of £150 million, with exports accounting for between £50 million and £75 million a year.

I turn now to points made by my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. The Government are sympathetic to the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, further to promote combined heat and power using fossil fuels. However, at present we are far from sure that this Bill is the right way to achieve those aims.

Waste-fired CHP has already been supported under NFFO. It is not clear from our experience to date that such support has been helpful to the developers of CHP schemes. To develop a successful CHP scheme, a developer needs to secure a market for the heat load generated by the scheme as well as for the electricity generated. Crucially, NFFO-type arrangements are only able to provide the developer with a guaranteed contract for the electricity generated but not for the heat output of the station.

I can also assure my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord. Lord Brabazon, that the Government attach considerable importance to the development of clean coal technologies. We are undertaking a review of policy towards clean coal technologies, for which there is a substantial export market, particularly in developing countries, as has been mentioned. We plan to continue to support clean coal and will publish an energy paper later this year, setting out our new policy. Provision for clean coal research and development in 1998–99 will be £3.7 million.

Over the last few years the way we generate our electricity, and the mix of fuels we use have changed, and are likely to change yet further. This is a reflection of a number of factors: the liberalisation of markets enabling new generators to start up; the favourable economics of gas-fired generation plant, which is relatively cheap and quick to build; and the availability of the gas to fire that plant.

It is also relevant that the previous administration effectively approved power station consents on the nod, without any substantive consideration of whether there was a need for new plant. They approved 44 stations, with a combined capacity of around 23 Gigawatts (equivalent to about a third of total generating capacity in England and Wales); and about 40 per cent. or 9GW of that capacity is still to come on stream or to begin construction. That is why further change will come regardless of anything that this Government may decide to do.

The changing shape of the electricity market has led to concerns about the long-term security of electricity supply. My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath referred to this matter. In the short term, we must consider the implications for the security of the electricity system if it should rely heavily on gas. Demand for both tends to peak at the same time, and interruption of gas to power stations feeds back to the gas system. There are also technical issues concerned with the flexibility of the system quickly to meet changing demand. In the medium term we must give serious consideration to whether there is a strategic security/diversity case for maintaining the UK deep mining industry, which is threatened with major contraction by the growth in gas generation. Obviously, there are also social implications to this. In the longer term we need to know whether the increasing use of gas for generation will bring forward—and by how much—the time when we will need to start importing gas and whether that, too, is of strategic importance.

We believe it is entirely reasonable that the Government need time to think through these things. That is why we are having a review of energy sources for power generation so that the detail of our energy policy for the future will be based on a coherent and robust strategy. The terms of reference for the review were announced just before Christmas. The review is expected to reach conclusions by the end of June. While the review is in hand we propose to defer decisions on consents for new power stations. About 30 applications are in hand, nearly all for new gas-fired plant.

The noble Lord's Bill would allow support to be given from the proceeds of the levy to encourage generation from coal. It is far from certain that we would be able to give such support within the obligations of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty. The problems that face the deep mined coal industry are largely the product of disastrous short-term decisions taken by our predecessors. In contrast, we are determined to give coal a fair chance. The Government are working intensively to establish a level playing field in the UK market and in Europe. Within this framework, and taking into account our important environmental objectives, we are doing everything we can to help the UK coal industry. Our strategy for energy is based on the need for secure, diverse and sustainable energy supplies at competitive prices, not on an ill-considered, short-term dash to get out of coal. We believe that UK coal can make an important contribution to this strategy provided it continues to improve its competitiveness.

We have taken eight key actions, which we believe are more than the warm words to which the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred. We are challenging subsidies paid to German and Spanish coal industries. We are determined to stop German anthracite being dumped in the UK and to get UK power station coal into German and Spanish markets. We are reviewing the operation of the Electricity Pool to ensure that coal is not discriminated against and we want to see the outcome of this work by mid-1998. We are encouraging the electricity regulator to ensure that generators offer coal-fired power stations to other operators, including coal producers, if the generators no longer require them.

We are backing the effort of the regulator to prevent regional electricity companies from passing on excessive costs under early take-or-pay gas contracts to consumers. We are removing, through the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill, the advantage that nuclear energy would enjoy by exemption from the levy. We are seeking ways to support the development and exploitation of clean coal technology. We are asking the gas regulator to examine urgently the resale provisions of the early take-or-pay gas contracts to establish if they are anti-competitive and distort the market against coal. Finally, we are examining how security of supply issues, including fuel diversity, should be taken into account when the Government consider applications for consent for power station developments. This reflects the view, in particular that of the National Grid Company, that increased dependence on gas in power generation raises issues concerning the security of supply of our electricity system. While this review is carried out we propose to defer decisions on outstanding applications for power station consents.

These wide-ranging actions take place against the background of arrangements agreed last month between electricity generators and RJB for coal to be delivered to generators up to the end of June 1998.

My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath said he believed that the expansion of nuclear power was unwise. He was not enthusiastic about nuclear power. Some 25 per cent. of the electricity that we consume in this country comes from nuclear power. There are no plans to build any more nuclear stations but today we depend heavily on nuclear power for our energy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that we should be doing more in the area of energy efficiency. The Government promote the efficiency of energy use through standards of performance set by the electricity regulator. This encouragement of private investment has proved effective.

It is the promotion of CHP and clean coal technologies that has motivated the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to introduce this Bill. For the reasons I have explained, we believe that it would be premature to proceed with a Bill that seeks to implement any one particular approach to promoting these technologies without having considered fully all the options which may arise from the wider examination of energy policy currently being undertaken. The right approach is to determine what programme of support is needed and then ask Parliament for the authority to undertake that programme. This Bill appears to ask Parliament for enormous powers but without a clear explanation of how they will be used or whether they are the right powers. We need to consider whether the powers in this Bill will be used in support of electricity generation, whether what is proposed is the best approach and, crucially, how much they will cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, pointed out. Those are difficult questions which, through our review, we are in the process of answering. Any costs which arise out of the measures outlined in this Bill must be paid for from the fossil fuel levy on electricity supplies. That is not free money; it is a cost which must be borne by electricity consumers, and it is something of which the Government are well aware.

I have explained that the Government are considering ways in which they can support generation from new and renewable sources and clean coal technology and the steps they are taking to ensure that coal is able to continue to play a part in providing for our energy needs. I have explained the work that we have in hand to ensure that we have an energy policy which is well founded and enables us to meet our objective of secure, diverse and sustainable energy at competitive prices. It is on the firm foundations that this work will provide that we should consider what additional powers we may need to meet our objective. We support the underlying intentions of the Bill, but we are not sure that it is the right way forward. However, as a Private Member's Bill we shall not resist it having a Second Reading in this House.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I note that the Bill received cross-party support. The noble Lords, Lord Hardy of Wath and Lord Howie of Troon, supported it from the Labour Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, supported it from the Conservative Benches, and my noble friend Lady Maddock supported it from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I was a little disappointed by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. In spite of the list of actions that the Government are taking I believe that they have had a change of mind in relation to the intentions of this Bill since it last came before your Lordships when they debated the other related Bill. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was very positive, and subsequently in December Mr. John Battle, the responsible Minister, also responded positively to a Question about this Bill in another place.

I am surprised that the Government do not want to take this opportunity to secure increased powers to deal with these urgent matters in advance of the wide-ranging review that they are carrying out. That review could take quite a long time. If anything is to be done it requires legislation that would probably have to be introduced in the Queen's Speech. Therefore, we are talking about one or two years ahead. At the same time, the Government have themselves set an enormous target for the diminution in emissions by the year 2010.

I find that a bit of a disappointment. I hope that the Government will be able to reflect on those matters. I do not know whether they are now going to proceed to stimulate the creation of a development project for clean coal technology. Such projects are well under way in France, for example, where they have a 300 megawatt plant near Marseilles, in Spain and in other countries. We are the one country which, despite our substantial reserves of coal—the biggest in Western Europe—nonetheless has lagged behind in this. Are the Government going to think of another way in which such a project could go ahead, or are they going to leave it for several more months or years until we proceed along the path that other countries are already pursuing?

Those are a number of the questions that arise in connection with the deferment of this action. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, asked about the cost. I do not agree that the cost will be substantial, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, appeared to suggest. On the contrary, he referred to standards of performance in the electricity industry. The standard of performance which creates a fairly large sum arises from one pound per consumer of electricity per year. That is the order of which we are talking. Even a few pence per week would not be over much, but the electricity scheme to which he referred is based on one pound per year per consumer. We are not talking about large sums, but they could be used effectively. I hope that on reconsideration, the Government will give this Bill, when it reaches another place, more support than they are at the moment. I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

My Lords, the Bill is a simple one. It comes, not out of any thought about the present or any previous incumbent of the noble office of Lord Chancellor, but out of my own experience in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships may sometimes find it difficult to understand how the historic religious divisions which occupied the whole of Europe and much further afield some centuries ago still provide the basis for fundamental and profound disagreement, division and even, as your Lordships are sadly aware, violence and destruction in Northern Ireland—a destruction which has extended far beyond the boundaries of our benighted province.

At this time considerable efforts are being made on all sorts of fronts to resolve the matter. I pay tribute not just to previous governments here and in Dublin but not least to the current Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, for his untiring efforts to bring peace in Northern Ireland. Every day seems to bring more developments and more evidence of his commitment.

One important component of that effort to produce peace and stability in Northern Ireland is to persuade the people that this United Kingdom is a place which does not accept religious difference as an appropriate badge or distinction for public office at any level. Armed with that appreciation, and a commitment to fairness for all our people, I have brought forward a small package of measures whose purpose is to remove religious distinctions as a necessary component of any political office.

There are few such positions left, but those that are left suggest to many outside this Chamber, and perhaps even outside the bounds of the UK, that there are some elements of historic sectarianism still around in the British constitution. That does no justice to the people of the UK or, indeed, to the constitution of the UK.

There seem to be some bars in respect of the office of Lord Chancellor. The position of course goes back a long time. The Lord Chancellor was regarded as the keeper of the monarch's conscience. There are a few ecclesiastical and other occupations that remain in the Lord Chancellor's gift. There seems to me and to higher authorities than me to be a little bit of a problem here.

In the 1840s the problem arose in respect of a possible Jewish Lord Chancellor. The Religious Disabilities Act was passed to ensure that Jews, in respect of all matters, might be treated on the same basis as Protestant subjects. That continued for some time. In 1974 another religious disability was attended to—that of Roman Catholics. The Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act was passed. Its purpose was to clarify the law. There were those past and current Lord Chancellors of the time who maintained that being a Roman Catholic was not a bar to serving as Lord Chancellor.

However, there was sufficient uncertainty and confusion about the matter that it was deemed appropriate not just to bring forward a Bill but for it to pass into legislation in order to make it clear that a Roman Catholic could hold the office. Indeed, it clarified how certain religious functions might be carried out if a Roman Catholic were appointed to the office of Lord Chancellor. The mechanism was a simple one. It was that the Prime Minister or another Minister might be appointed to fulfil those necessary functions. It was a simple matter.

Further confusion entered in 1989 when the Statute Law (Repeals) Act was passed, repealing, among other things—as I understand it—the relief given to Jews in respect of the position of Lord Chancellor, so that the relief that had been offered by previous legislation was inadvertently repealed. Those are complicated constitutional matters. I profess no expertise in relation to them at all.

My concern is a much more simple one. It is to do all that I can to ensure not just that all badges of religious division are removed from our constitution as a distinction which is relevant to public office where appropriate, but to go further and to make it clear to the public that that is the case.

When this small Bill was read a first time, the editorial in one of the main nationalist newspapers in Northern Ireland hailed it as a commitment to ensure that all elements of sectarianism were removed from the British constitution. I need hardly emphasise how important such a perception is. If there are those who by reason of higher judgment than mine indicate that they are of the opinion that there is not the problem that I think and not the problem that Halsbury's Laws of England believes, because that is the authority from which I have taken my advice, I will understand that but the public will not understand it.

People in Northern Ireland who attend more acutely to these matters than people in the rest of the United Kingdom will not understand that. They will say that it is those who want to maintain the status quo, which, however under the surface, retains a degree of religious division that is inappropriate in this day and age.

Therefore for the purpose at the very least of clarification of the fact that the noble office of Lord Chancellor is not one where any form of religious test is relevant and for actual purpose in law, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he referred to a penumbra of doubt and various authorities. I applaud his Bill. Does he accept, on the highest authority, that there is no bar to a Roman Catholic being Lord Chancellor of this country? That was a popular canard.

My Lords, I entirely accept that and apologise if I did not make it clear that the 1974 Act clarifies the issue referred to by the noble Lord. However, that is not the case should it be a Jew, Buddhist, a Moslem or a non-believer. It is for that purpose that I wish to make clear that there is no religious bar or test. If at some long future date there should be a Lord Chancellor of another religious faith entirely there would be no bar and the proper procedures would already be in place. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Alderdice.)

My Lords, the whole House regards the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, with respect and affection. He has a most telling way of putting his point of view which is hard to resist. Advanced age and innumerable imperfections will make it clear to your Lordships that I have no interest to declare in this matter. However, in view of the noble Lord's attractive speech, it is appropriate to pay tribute to religious tolerance and the way that religions now move together in this country. One should reflect on the fact that we in Parliament and the majority of the public can be proud of our record of religious tolerance during the past 150 years in particular.

I turn to the Bill. I respectfully suggest that the first proposed amendment to the 1974 Act is not necessary and that the second proposed amendment is inappropriate. Perhaps I might read to your Lordships what would be the 1974 Act as amended in regard to Clause 1. It would state:

"For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the office of Lord Chancellor is and shall be tenable by a person who is not a member of the Church of England".

On Second Reading of the 1974 Bill, the main contributors to the debate were the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, a greatly honoured man, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who brought forward the Private Member's Bill. Perhaps in parenthesis I might say how much we miss the noble and learned Lord in our deliberations and carry the happy news that soon he will be back to his old mischief.

When the Second Reading debate took place, it was made abundantly clear that the law even at that time did not bar a Roman Catholic, but—and lawyers usually use the phrase with excruciating accent, which I hope not to imitate—it was done ex abundanti cautela; it was done out of an abundance of caution so that it was made absolutely clear.

In regard to other creeds, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, made the following contribution:

"The reason why I have only dealt with Roman Catholics is that it is only with regard to Roman Catholics that a bar is alleged to exist, and if there is a bar, a legal incapacity. I must tell your Lordships that it is almost certainly due not to any conscious act of policy but to inadvertence on the part of the 19th century draftsman who drafted the Act of 1867 in that particular way.

I will, therefore, give my reasons for saying this, in as short a compass as I can. There was, of course, at Common law no bar to any Christian holding the office of Lord Chancellor, and at Common law there is no difference between a Roman Catholic and a Protestant. The bar came to exist, if it did, or when it did, in the aftermath of the Reformation, and in particular after the attempt by James II to infiltrate the Church of England by appointing open or covert Roman Catholics to high office in the Church and State".— [Official Report, 11/6/74; col. 417.]

That is why there is no other reference in the 1974 Act to any other sect, member of a religious faith or member of no sect or religious faith at all. It was completely unnecessary and it is unnecessary now.

I turn to the second proposed amendment, which I and I am sure all noble Lords recognise has been brought to the House with the utmost good faith and with a spirit which we all admire. The amendment would lead the Act to read as follows:

"In the event of the office of Lord Chancellor being held by a person who is not a member of the Church of England it shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council to make provision for the exercise of any or all the visitational or the ecclesiastical functions normally performed by the Lord Chancellor, and any patronage to livings normally in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, to be performed by the Prime Minister or any other Minister of the Crown".

That, too, was dealt with on Second Reading of the 1974 Bill. Lord Gardiner, the then Lord Chancellor, stated (I must read this, although it is not relevant):

"There has never been any qualification for the office. You do not have to be a Bishop or a lawyer. You do not have to be able to read. You do not need to be a man, because we have already had one woman Lord Chancellor".

Then, more relevantly to the Bill, he stated:

"My difficulty arises over Clause 2; that is, the exercise of the ecclesiastical functions. These functions consist of the appointment to about 500 very small livings, and being the visitor to St. George's Chapel, Windsor. What happens in practice—and I think that this is of some importance—is that the main work falls into the hands of two members, who used to be in the Lord Chancellor's staff and are now in the General Patronage staff, a Brigadier and a Colonel, both of whom are devout members of the Church of England and are extremely conscientious. They interview everybody on the register, and obtain such references or other information about them as they desire. When a living falls vacant they take an enormous amount of trouble to go through the register and find the best possible man, taking care not to appoint a High Churchman to a Low Church parish, or vice versa".

He goes on to say:

"It works extremely well, and I am certain that if I had been a Catholic I should have made exactly the same appointments as I did".—[Official Report, 11/6/74; col. 422.]

And so one gets the point of view that even the second amendment is rather unnecessary. But I venture to submit that it is also a little difficult to interpret into law.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. However, I wished to intervene before he leaves the point about patronage. This is a point which greatly supports what he is saving. I had the honour to be Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for, unfortunately, a rather short time under my noble friend Lady Thatcher. I followed exactly that practice although I was advised that I was entitled to appoint to ecclesiastical livings and indeed longed to do so. But I was told that it was wiser to leave that to stalwarts of the established Church in the office.

They did it very well. And I found a similar practice because I appointed them mentally and there would have been the same result.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John.

I turn speedily to why I believe that it is rather difficult to interpret the amended Clause 2. In the purpose or object of this Bill, the word "appointment" of Lord Chancellor is not used. Rather, it refers to the "tenure of office" of the Lord Chancellor. I presume that would mean that, if an agnostic happened to be appointed Lord Chancellor but, sitting so near the Bishops' Bench, in the course of his tenure became converted to the beliefs of the Church of England, some notice had to be given of his change of mind and some changed procedure would evolve through the Bill.

I suppose that the alternative to that is even more unpalatable; that is somebody who, when appointed Lord Chancellor, was a member of the Church of England but, beset with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, decided to become an agnostic. Immediately there would arise a need to make a declaration so that something happened under the provisions of the second amendment to the Bill.

I raise those points not because I differ in any way at all from what the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill had to say about Northern Ireland. I say only that, with the approach of the millennium, we all pray that the almost limitless efforts of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State will achieve the very object that I know he has so much at heart; namely, a durable peace in Northern Ireland.

My Lords, I intervene very briefly to say that from these Benches, we are very much in sympathy with the ideas and thoughts behind the Bill. We have no difficulties or problems with it, apart from those which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon identified.

However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, of our understanding and sensitivity to his concerns. Our position within the Church of England would be to wish to work in any way to discern what is the right way ahead. We sympathise and identify with his concerns. However, I am not too sure that there is a necessity for such a Bill to be brought forward.

My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for intervening in the gap and thank the House for giving me the opportunity to do so.

It was deliberate that on these Benches we did not put down anybody to speak in the debate. However, on further consideration, it was felt better that we should at least make an appearance but, according to the convention in these cases, I shall be very brief.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, touched at one moment on a problem which is facing all of us who must take an interest in the constitutional matters of this country. He said that this Bill was being welcomed because it removed all elements of sectarianism. That sectarianism could be otherwise described as the Established Church and removing it, could be considered to be part of the disestablishment of the established Church, although that may be a very small point.

I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, absolutely fascinating. I was glad to hear many of the things that he said which I had not discovered from the 1974 Act. However the position that we take is that we are worried about this Bill. Therefore, I should prefer to listen to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We always listen to debates in this House before making up our minds as to how we should vote. On this occasion, we shall do that having listened to the noble and learned Lord and having found out where he stands with regard to the Bill.

My Lords, the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974 was promoted by my noble and learned predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in 1974 when the late Lord Elwyn-Jones, whom your Lordships' House remembers with such affection, sat on the Woolsack. In fact—I hope my noble friend Lord Mishcon will forgive me—in 1974, Lord Elwyn-Jones had assumed the Woolsack but mercifully Lord Gardiner, who had been Lord Chancellor from 1964 to 1974, remained an active Member of your Lordships' House and participated in the debate as my noble friend indicated.

My Lords, may heaven, who guards all religions and sects, forgive me for interrupting my noble and learned friend, but I have the Second Reading debate in my possession and Lord Gardiner is cited in that debate as being the Lord Chancellor.

My Lords, I shall verify that but your Lordships will see from Hansard that Lord Gardiner is named as Lord Gardiner and the Lord Chancellor speaks at the end. However, I may be wrong and I shall check that.

Section 1 of that Act provided:

"For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the office of Lord Chancellor is and shall be tenable by an adherent of the Roman Catholic faith".

Section 2 provided:

"In the event of the office of Lord Chancellor being held by an adherent of the Roman Catholic faith it shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council to make provision for the exercise of any or all the visitational or ecclesiastical functions normally performed by the Lord Chancellor, and any patronage to livings normally in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, to be performed by the Prime Minister or any other Minister of the Crown".

The Act had one basic purpose: to remove a doubt whether Roman Catholics lacked the capacity to hold the office of Lord Chancellor. It did so and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, that it did so unequivocally. I do not see how there can be any continuing doubt on the subject, whether in Northern Ireland or anywhere else.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, thought that apart from the Bill which he was promoting, Roman Catholics did not suffer from that incapacity. His own view, expressed at col. 416 of Hansard, was that there was nothing to bar anyone of any religious persuasion from conscientiously discharging the duties of Lord Chancellor. That is why he said that his Bill was cast in a form to remove a doubt.

Certainly, however, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, recognised, there was a doubt. No less an authority than Lord Simon, the Lord Chancellor in 1943, expressed the view,

"that the doubt was sufficiently real … to stop a Prime Minister, in practice, from recommending the appointment of an otherwise suitable candidate".

There had been a diversity of views on the subject. The contrary view had apparently been expressed by Lord Haldane, a former Lord Chancellor, before he assumed the Woolsack and when he was in private practice in 1900. His opinion, quoted in Hansard at cols. 418 to 419, was that,

"there was no legal incapacity in a Roman Catholic from holding the office of Lord Chancellor".

However, again at col. 419 of Hansard, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, accepted that the contrary view was that,

"the peculiar wording of the Act of 1867 imposed a new disability which had not previously existed".

I assume that he was referring to the Test Abolition Act 1867. Hence his Bill was declaratory only and to remove that doubt. On that occasion, the noble and learned Lord. Lord Hailsham, explained that the Bill did not deal with Jews, Moslems, Christian Scientists, Bhuddists or atheists because there was no doubt that persons in those categories did have the capacity to become Lord Chancellor. Lord Gardiner agreed, saying at col. 422 of Hansard:

"There is no disqualification except this doubt"—

which he described as "substantial"—

"as to whether a Catholic could be Chancellor".

Then, as I believe, from the Woolsack—although we will have to verify whether it was Lord Elwyn-Jones or Lord Gardiner—

My Lords, perhaps I may make an apology to the noble and learned Lord. I have referred back to the Second Reading debate and have found that he is right and I am wrong.

My Lords, it is, therefore, with greater confidence that I can proceed. Not only do we have a multiplicity of opinions on the subject of whether Catholics were disqualified from being Lord Chancellor from a miscellany of Lord Chancellors, but we also have confusion as to who was sitting on the Woolsack on that particular day. But, mercifully, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I are now in agreement that it was indeed Lord Elwyn-Jones.

As I was saying, from the Woolsack, Lord Elwyn-Jones said at col. 429 of Hansard, that everyone would regard it,

"as an indefensible anachronism that a person should be debarred from … this public office of Lord Chancellor … because of a doubt as to whether Parliament intended that his religious beliefs should disqualify him".

I, too, am of the view that there is no doubt in relation to any other faiths and, therefore, there is no need for this Bill. But I go further. As regards standing Section 2 of the 1974 Act, I am of the view that to amend it as the Bill proposes and replace within that section the words,

"being held by an adherent of the Roman Catholic faith".

with the words,

"a person who is not a member of the Church of England",

would make a Moslem, a Christian Scientist, a Buddhist or an atheist liable to have removed from him,

"the exercise of any or all the visitational or the ecclesiastical functions normally performed by the Lord Chancellor, and any patronage to livings normally in the gift of the Lord Chancellor".

The only reason for Section 2 of the 1974 Act was, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, explained at col. 419 of Hansard that,

"there is a general statutory bar to the exercise of ecclesiastical patronage by a Roman Catholic".

No doubt the noble and learned Lord was referring to Section 17 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. There is no such bar on a Lord Chancellor who is a Moslem, a Christian Scientist, a Buddhist or an atheist.

In short, I am of the view that the noble Lord's Bill, although well intentioned and designed to ensure equality among those of different faiths or none in ensuring that all have capacity to become Lord Chancellor, is both not required for non-Catholics; and, if the 1974 Act were to be amended as proposed by the Bill, it would make a Lord Chancellor of the faiths to which I have referred liable to have removed from him the functions listed in Section 2 of the 1974 Act when, in law, there is no bar on him discharging those functions. Therefore, as at present advised, the Government cannot support the Bill.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and done so in such a thoughtful, sensitive and, indeed, well-informed way. I certainly do not bring forward the Bill with any sense that I am particularly well informed on the matter. In particular, perhaps I may mention the courteous and eloquent comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which I deeply appreciate, especially those references to myself and my small efforts.

There are, however, a couple of issues to which I feel I must return. The first is the question of whether it was ever necessary to clarify the position with the 1974 Act. I am trying to clarify something that is apparently a little unclear. I submit that it is hardly persuasive to suggest that the 1974 Act was also unnecessary, if in truth it were the case that a Roman Catholic could perform these functions.

Secondly, we must look at the historical background. In truth, for a long time after the Reformation there were only two possibilities: either you were a Protestant or you were a Catholic. It is the case now in Northern Ireland that you can be a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew or, indeed, a Protestant Moslem or a Catholic Moslem; but the crucial issue is whether or not you are a Protestant or a Catholic. In a sense that was the case in this country for a long time, except perhaps for the long-standing and extraordinary contribution of the Jewish community.

There is an interesting question which has not been touched upon at all; namely, the notion not that someone might be barred by others from being Lord Chancellor because of his religious convictions or his conviction against any religious view, but that someone might be of sufficient conscience that he might feel himself barred. Is it extraordinary to take the view that someone who is an atheist, and one of conviction, might well say, "I think that it is entirely improper for me to take the position of Lord Chancellor if it means that I have to make decisions upon the functioning of the Church"?

Indeed, if I were a Jew, a Moslem or a Buddhist—or perhaps even a Non-Conformist—I might feel strongly enough in my conscience that I would say, "I think that this is an entirely improper way to go about things". There may be others who would be happy to say, "Well, I do not think that it is sufficiently important that I'll bother doing anything about it; I shall just go ahead and rubber-stamp the proposals that come up from civil servants below". Is it unreasonable to assume that there are those who have such real convictions on matters of conscience that they would not want to be put in such a position and that, therefore, they would resile from it?

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord and thank him for giving way. Perhaps I may remind him of the position of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the former Lord Chancellor—a man of deep religious principles and not a member of the Church of England about whom, in the early stages of his appointment, there was a great deal of discussion—and, I believe, in his own mind—as regards his fitness to act as Lord Chancellor. However, he ultimately decided that it was perfectly proper for him so to do.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention because, of course, he makes my point for me. The noble Lord indicated that it was a matter of great discussion and, indeed, one perhaps of great personal wrestling as to whether or not the appointment was appropriate—and this in someone who is a member of a Church which is in communion with the Church of England. However, that is not the case in respect of the Catholic Church and would not be the case in respect of someone who did not hold religious convictions or who held convictions which were opposed to the notion of the Christian faith.

As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, one of the difficulties at times is that, in this part of the world, the notion of those of religious convictions of various kinds coming together is a powerful one. But I have to tell your Lordships that it is one which is wildly out of kilter with other parts of the United Kingdom where there is no indication whatever of a coming together on these matters; indeed, quite the contrary.

This is an interesting matter. It is interesting to note the strength of feeling that emerges when we begin to scratch at it. I believe that this matter needs to be addressed. I confess myself a little surprised and disappointed that the Government do not feel that this matter should be addressed in this way, despite the debate that has occurred. I trust that subsequent to this debate the Government will consider the matter and will consider some of the points that have been made. I hope that the Government will then be more agreeably disposed to the matter and, if necessary, will bring forward some amendments to this small Bill in order that the problems which they believe it contains may be resolved. I hope the message will go out that those who take the Woolsack do not have to perform religious functions for which they do not have conviction, and that someone's religious conviction is a purely personal matter which should not be tied up with the matter we are discussing.

The purpose of the second component of the Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have referred, is to enable someone to be appointed—this is not obligatory—to fulfil necessary ecclesiastical and other functions, but that that requirement should not be imposed by others but could come from within the conscience of the Lord Chancellor. I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st January be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I intend to speak also to the second Motion and to move it formally later.

The two orders before the House both relate to the wind up of the remaining eight urban development corporations in England. Twelve statutory orders in total are required to achieve this, but only these two are subject to an affirmative procedure.

One of these two orders revokes earlier ones which set up the UDCs, and which designated the areas in which they operate. The other transfers certain powers from the London Docklands Development Corporation to suitable successor bodies. These are primarily powers to make by-laws and to control navigation within Docklands. Other orders have been laid before the House which will help to ensure that satisfactory succession arrangements are in place. I should like to mention two in particular.

One order provides for the UDCs' planning functions to return to the relevant local authorities. Another order transfers any assets and liabilities remaining with the UDCs on 1st April to the Commission for the New Towns. The UDCs have now disposed of most of their assets and liabilities, mainly to the private sector, to local authorities and to English Partnerships. But it is necessary to have a residuary body for what remains. The Commission for the New Towns has been designated as this residuary body.

Wind up of the UDCs has been taking place in piecemeal fashion since 1995. Not only did the previous government create the UDCs, but they also began the programme for dissolving them. When this Government took office, four UDCs had gone; and preparations for winding up the remaining eight in England by April 1998 were well-advanced. To remove any uncertainty, the Government confirmed early on that this process would continue. These orders represent the conclusion of the process.

The UDCs were always intended to be time-limited bodies. They were established in run-down areas in and around some of our major cities—areas where the private sector was no longer willing to invest. Armed with wide powers, their task was to remove the decay and dereliction, and revive the economic fortunes of their areas. The idea was that, once these areas had been given a much-needed "shot in the arm", and the regeneration process was well under way, the corporations could then be wound up.

Many such areas have been transformed as a result of the UDCs being there. New commercial and industrial development has taken place on neglected sites, creating nearly a quarter of a million jobs. Forty thousand new homes have been built. New roads and airports have been developed. Much has been done to create a better environment. All this has led to an uplift in investor confidence. For every £1 of public money that has been invested in the UDCs, nearly £4 of private money has been attracted to these areas.

These are impressive achievements, although we should not overlook the fact that nearly £4 billion of public funds have gone into the UDCs over the past 17 years. Whether good value has been achieved for this huge sum of money is open to question. A key test will be how sustainable these improvements prove to be over time.

The Government believe that the way forward for tackling regeneration lies in an approach based more directly on partnership, community involvement and local accountability, an approach which ensures that physical and social regeneration are carried out hand-in-hand. We shall be looking to the new regional development agencies to bring this about.

Therefore, while we should acknowledge the achievements of the UDCs, and give them credit for overcoming the initial hostility, we believe the time has come to bring this programme to a close and move on.

These orders are an essential part of that process, and I commend them to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st January be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hayman.)

My Lords, I support the orders that the noble Baroness has explained so carefully to the House. I am glad that she acknowledges that the urban development corporations have on the whole been a success. As she said, they were, of course, time limited and their time is now up.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 27th January be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th January be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction of the order. It must be something of an historic order, going back, as the noble Baroness said, 22 years since it was originally drafted. At least the noble Baroness cannot blame the previous government for anything in it because I believe that she was sitting on the Government Front Benches in the House of Commons at that time.

I have one considerable criticism to make of the order. In my opinion the Explanatory Note is indecipherable. When considering such orders, one starts with the Explanatory Note. This note does not give a great deal of assistance. The following regulation with which we shall deal has a good, clear and helpful Explanatory Note. On the other hand it is helpful to have Part B of the order. As the noble Baroness said, it gives the text of the order as it will stand after the amendments have been made.

Perhaps I might draw attention to Article 22 on page 10 of the order which deals with the liability aspect. As the noble Baroness said, it inserts the sum of 8,300 special drawing rights as the liability for each passenger. Eight thousand three hundred special drawing rights is equivalent approximately to £6,900, or just over 11,000 dollars. I am not sure whether that amount was appropriate even in 1975 or 1976. It certainly is very much on the low side now. I suggest that the aviation industry, insurers—and here I should declare an interest as a member of Lloyd's—courts and others would be thinking in terms of a figure probably 50 to 100 times that amount, in particular in the United States.

Paragraph (4) of Article 22 has the equivalent amount for those states which are not members of the International Monetary Fund. That amount is fixed at a sum of 125,000 monetary units per passenger. A monetary unit is 65.5 milligrammes of gold. According to my calculations—I am willing to be proved wrong—that amounts to 286.5 ounces of gold. The noble Baroness will be aware—I hope that she has not suffered personally from it—that gold has been a disastrous area over the past few years. It is now trading at approximately 294 dollars an ounce. Therefore the compensation in that section would he the equivalent of about 84,000 dollars. Presumably when this paragraph was first written both sums were meant to be the same. But the sum is now approximately 84,000 dollars. About 15 to 20 years ago, gold reached 850 dollars an ounce. It would have been worth 243,000 dollars as opposed to 11,000 dollars, so there would have been a considerable difference in the amounts.

I suspect that the article was written on the old basis when gold was fixed by the United States Government at 35 dollars an ounce. If one uses that figure, the sum comes out at about 10,000 dollars, which is not far different from the 11,000 dollars special drawing rights. However, what is curious is that I believe the United States went off that standard of 35 dollars an ounce in 1971. That is five years before the article was written. I cannot think what was going on at that time.

However, I do not ask the noble Baroness to be able to answer my questions at this time, nor even to write to me. I have made my points. One does not want to go through another 22-year gap. However, if there is another opportunity to look again at the convention, I hope that something might be done to make the liability figures somewhat more realistic in the modern world. From this side of the House, perhaps I may say that if the noble Baroness has an opportunity in legislation to transfer this type of order from the affirmative to negative resolution, I would support her fully in that.

My Lords, on the technical matter to which the Minister referred, we have nothing further to add. However, the instrument also restates provisions on baggage checks. I wonder whether it is possible to ask a couple of questions of the Minister in that regard.

Five years ago the department introduced statutory requirements on airlines to improve baggage screening and handling by two new automated technologies: the baggage reconciliation system (BRS) and the hold baggage system (HBS). The purpose of the first system is largely to ensure that passengers and baggage meet with each other in the same part of the world at the end of the trip. We all have enough experience of travel to be familiar with the old adage, breakfast in London, dinner in Los Angeles, baggage in Lagos. There has been an attempt to try to rectify that by the introduction of the new baggage reconciliation system.

The second system, the hold baggage system, relates to an even more serious problem—the problem of baggage containing items which are a threat to security. HBS was to be introduced to provide 100 per cent. automated baggage screening up to level 3 security, at which point more intensive screening would be necessary. The target was that some 95 per cent. of bags would be screened automatically in that way. The remaining 5 per cent. would be automatically shunted to a new area to have more intensive screening.

It appears that progress on the introduction of BRS and HBS has been rather slow, not least at London Heathrow, where something approaching 60 million passengers a year pass through. While any delays in introducing the baggage reconciliation system are an inconvenience to passengers, the HBS delay prevents higher levels of security being attained. I understand that the DETR has issued a directive to the effect that HBS, dealing with security, should be up and running by the end of May this year. Can the Minister indicate whether she is happy with the progress on both of those systems, in particular the security system? Is the noble Baroness confident that HBS will be in place at Heathrow by the deadline of the end of May? Are her colleagues taking any action with Heathrow Airport or any other airport authorities which do not act as quickly as they might in implementing these matters? Are they ensuring that other security deadlines are also achieved at the time we wish to see them achieved? I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness will answer, in writing if it is not possible to give an answer today.

My Lords, in raising points on paragraph (4) of Article 22, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has inadvertently answered some questions that I wanted to ask. I am somewhat pleased. He has clarified my mind. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify "in round figures" in paragraph (4). How many noughts does that represent in sterling terms?

My Lords, I shall attempt to reply to the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, raises important issues about security and baggage handling. If he will accept it, I prefer to write to him about that. They are important points and I do not have the details at my fingertips with which I wish to reply.

I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, about the structure of the Explanatory Note. I understand that it follows well established guidelines laid down for the drafting of explanatory notes. However, it has already been said in your Lordships' House that that is a dangerous phrase for Ministers to use. The note is not as clear as perhaps it might have been and does not elaborate all the points. However, I am assured that the substance is there.

On the point about the order being subject to affirmative resolution, that goes back again to the form of the Warsaw Convention and the way in which it was brought into British law. I am assured that there was no opportunity to do it other than by affirmative resolution.

I turn to the issue of liability limits. I can perhaps help the noble Lord. The draft order implementing Montreal Protocol No. 1 is an amendment to the 1929 Warsaw Convention. It relates only to the unit of account; it does not change the limits of liability. So those limits are indeed, as the noble Lord pointed out, within this text as set in the convention. However, there have separately been several subsequent amendments to the convention which have themselves increased the passenger liability limit. For all airlines registered in the United Kingdom the applicable limit of liability is now 100,000 SDRs per passenger, which is approximately £82,000. From October this year, under the terms of Council Regulation 2027/97 there will be no upper limit for passenger liability for all community airlines. So the sums involved have been uprated separately from this issue of changing the unit of account in which they are to be calculated.

That leads me to the other point made; namely, that references to monetary units in paragraph 4 are not in fact relevant to the UK or to any other state being a member of the IMF. That also answers the point made by my noble friend Lord Simon. The references to round figures do not apply to the United Kingdom since it is a member of the International Monetary Fund. The applicable limits of liability are those that I described previously. They would in this country be converted into the sterling equivalent according to the published rate of exchange against the SDR on the day in question. So the issue of rounding up would not apply in country.

I hope that that covers some of the technical issues raised. With the caveat that I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th February be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the order with her usual clarity and for the helpful explanatory note to the order, which makes things fairly clear. I wish to raise a couple of points. The noble Baroness has already largely covered one of the points I had intended to raise.

The first is with regard to item 1 of Table 1, which deals with the deposit of skips on highways. Living, as I do, in London within a controlled parking zone area, I was under the impression that local authorities already charged for skip licences, but perhaps I am wrong. If the deposit of a skip also requires the suspension of a parking place under item 2 of Table 2, will the householder or the builder be liable to a double charge?

Similarly, in regard to item 2 of Table 2, suspension of parking places, the Minister in another place (col. 5, 4th March, 3rd Standing Committee on delegated legislation) said that it would allow local authorities to recover the administrative costs of suspending parking places from commercial organisations. If one were moving house, for example, and asked for parking to be suspended, would one be liable, as a private householder, to pay the cost of that? One would obviously not be a commercial organisation. It might be wise for those moving house to make the application themselves rather than allow the removal company to do so.

The noble Baroness dealt at some length with item 10, the charge for removal of debris following an accident. This is possibly the most controversial part of the order and I am glad that it will not come into effect for another year. I believe work still needs to be done between local authorities, the Government and insurance companies in regard to how this charge will be collected and how the blame will be attached. Occasionally one has an accident when the other driver agrees that it was entirely his or her fault. However, some time later one finds, when the insurance companies get together, that they have decided to share the costs. Will the local authority accept the insurance companies' interpretation of what happened and their apportionment of costs in collecting the sum for the removal of debris?

A slightly curious matter, on which the noble Baroness may be able to help me, is that this measure appears to refer only to local highway authorities. The Government's trunk roads are not covered by this order. Is there any proposal to extend this measure to them? Perhaps a power already exists to do that.

The other item which causes me a little concern is paragraph 4 of the order relating to the amount of charge. Some local authorities sometimes complain about their lack of resources. I hope that this will not present an opportunity for them to raise money by charging more than they should do. I appreciate that the order says that they should have regard to the cost to them of dealing with matters of the description in question. I hope that that is strong enough to prevent this kind of practice.

Apart from those matters, we support the order.

My Lords, I am not certain whether I heard my noble friend correctly or whether it was a figment of my imagination, but I thought she said that the police will be able to recover some of their costs in relation to road traffic accidents. If it was a figment of my imagination, is it intended to make that possible some time in the future?

My Lords, I do not believe that I talked about the police recovering costs. This regulation deals specifically with local authorities. That also applies to an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, about highway authorities. As he correctly pointed out, trunk roads are not local authority roads. The relevant highway authority is the Highways Agency, which does not have the powers described in these regulations under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989; nor would local authorities acting as agents of the Highways Agency, as they sometimes do, have those powers, although a very small proportion of motorways are owned by local authorities and therefore would be covered by the regulations. There are no immediate plans for legislation in this area, but obviously we shall look to see whether there is a read-across with regard to this provision.

Skips are paid for in terms of their hire. The issue of whether local authorities can charge for the granting of a licence for the skip is a matter over which there has been some dispute when some local authorities have considered that they had these powers. The purpose of this set of regulations is to clarify that they do have such powers.

It is correct that a householder could have to pay both for the application to deposit a skip and for the application to suspend a parking place in which to put it. We do not believe that parking bay suspensions are likely to be generally necessary in residential areas. However, the presence of such parking spaces implies that parking space is severely limited and so, if a skip were blocking a space, that would impose inconvenience on the community—for example, by builders in a busy high street. It is therefore right that the cost of the application for suspension of the parking place as well as that for the deposit of the skip should be borne by the beneficiary.

With reference to the issue raised in another place with regard to the distinction between commercial activities and domestic activities, the Minister was giving an example when she mentioned commercial reasons for the suspension. As I understand it, there is no distinction in the regulation and it would thus apply to householders as well.

I note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, about the need for further clarification with regard to who would be responsible for the costs for the deposit of debris on the highway. The order enables authorities to recover the costs involved from the person responsible for the deposit. The Government are satisfied that in practice that will be the person eventually found liable for the accident, because without the accident, the debris would not have been deposited. Obviously, it is important that insurance companies are clear about this and that in the circumstances which the noble Lord described the provisions are well understood. Part of the reason for delaying the implementation is so that there can be clarity as regards that matter.

Finally, I note the noble Lord's concerns about local authority charging policies. I return to the point that there is a very clear obligation that the charges should have regard to the actual costs incurred. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to review the evidence and rationale behind the current policy banning insulin-dependent diabetics from driving large vehicles.

My Lords, there is very little more to say following the presentation of the problem by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in his usual eloquent manner. However, I thought it might be useful for a Member from these Benches who is also medically qualified to back up the noble Lord's arguments which are fully endorsed by the British Diabetic Association, which has both medical and lay membership. Of course it could be argued that the British Diabetic Association has an axe to grind and that it would take the side of diabetic drivers, would it not? But the noble Lord has shown that the BDA case is logically strong as well as being humanitarian. In fact the Government have said that there is no evidence that medical conditions play a significant role in road accidents.

As a practising doctor with five years' experience as a clinical assistant in a diabetes clinic at UCH and working in a group practice which, as my noble friend knows, ran its own diabetic clinic, I know that there are a small proportion of insulin-dependent diabetics whose diabetes is very difficult to control. They are rather quaintly known as "brittle" or "fragile" diabetics. It is possible that a high proportion of the small number of these collapses at the wheel—I think 27 is the figure for last year—where the diagnosis of insulin-dependent diabetes was present, according to government statistics, were in that category.

I suggest that it is possible to identify those who are more liable to hypoglycaemic attacks. It is worth mentioning that very few insulin-dependent diabetics collapse with hypoglycaemia without warning. Yes, it happens sometimes, but there are nearly always premonitory symptoms—hunger, sweating, tremor or faintness. Sudden collapse is rare, although it is not unknown and has to be reckoned with.

I back the noble Lord's suggestion, although I know it is not my noble friend's area, that it would help very much if the pen method of injecting was available on prescription on the National Health Service. That would not only help the heavy vehicle drivers we are discussing but could, at least theoretically, result in fewer episodes of sudden hypoglycaemia in all insulin-dependent diabetics, many of whom are car drivers and are now perfectly free to drive.

In conclusion, I ask my noble friend to consider carefully the case and the evidence which will be given next month by the British Diabetic Association's working group to her honorary advisory panel. This is not incompatible with proper management of insulin-dependent diabetes. Patients with this condition should attend their doctor at least annually and preferably every six months. So it will not be difficult for them to get a medical signature as to whether or not they are liable to have these sudden attacks and therefore should be precluded from having a licence.

I am fully aware that the Government have to consider the safety of the wider public, whether they be drivers, passengers or pedestrians. But I would suggest that, as a listening and caring government, they should also carefully consider the employment rights of this minority of otherwise perfectly fit and able citizens who have the misfortune to suffer from insulin-dependent diabetes.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for giving me an opportunity to speak today. I have held an HGV 1 licence for 10 years. I have used it for categories C1 and limited use in DI, which is largely PSV.

I have lived with a diabetic in the family, diagnosed insulin-dependent age seven. Indeed, he has travelled often with me in various vehicles. I have always carried with me biscuits, largely left unused and crumbling in my pocket. Now 23, extremely healthy and leading a balanced and normal life, most people would not know about his medical condition. But most important, I have become aware that, under a ban introduced by the Government which came into force on 1st January 1998, my son and other insulin-dependent diabetics may not now take a test to allow them to drive categories C1 and D2.

Others will speak in more detail than I about the EC directive that brought about the ban. Suffice it to say that I have read Hansard of another place of 4th March 1998 which deals with the issues in great detail. I would ask the Minister to note that other countries have interpreted, or appear to have interpreted, the EC directive rather differently and are allowing group 2 licences to be issued subject to the usual stringent medical requirements.

The debate in another place was detailed and raised a number of points. I should like to read a few lines of what the Member for Torbay said:

"The self-regulatory system has worked until now, with conditions being imposed on diabetic drivers of certain categories of vehicle, subject to medical tests. That regular assessment has undoubtedly led to poorly controlled diabetics being taken off the road".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/98; col. 1027.]

The Minister will note that I have left out mention of what amounts to, dare I say, civil disobedience. They would be breaking the law and would almost certainly be uninsured. That is not acceptable. I would also refer the Minister to the decisions taken by a panel largely made up of departmental officials, with little advice from organisations such as the British Diabetic Association and motoring organisations. Were the discussions based on statistical evidence, as the statistics, such as they are, show that there is little evidence that insulin dependent diabetics are causing more accidents than any other category of drivers?

I support any important measures that improve road safety but I cannot support this measure as I believe it sends a message to the public that diabetics have an incurable disease that makes them a danger to the public. I do not believe for one moment that the Minister or the department accept that diabetics should be discriminated against in this way. Too many short cuts have been taken. Can the Minister give me any hope, as the Minister for Transport in London in another place did in her closing remarks in the last paragraph of her reply?

I am very worried that the Government have shut the door rather firmly on a minority, with very little benefit for the majority in terms of safety but with a devastating effect on the former in terms of low future prospects and the loss of jobs.

My Lords, I was attracted to this debate for the simple reason that it deals with a blanket ban on a group of people in society, and for reasons which are no fault of theirs. There is nothing that they can react to. The ban strikes at someone who has a disability caused by disease. I therefore looked rather askance at a policy which means that, because of a disability, one falls into a category which restricts one from a certain area of activity.

When we deal with disability legislation across the board, generally speaking, we try to resist this type of approach. We try to remove such barriers that are put in front of people. All forms of discrimination tend to reflect the idea, "You are in a group which cannot do something or which is restricted in its activities". I thought that we were busily hacking away at that type of approach. Looking at this issue, I see that we are returning to it.

The matter becomes increasingly difficult because we are dealing with safety and the general public. If insulin-dependent diabetics were so dangerous behind the wheel of a car, I would suggest that this is a rather pathetic half measure. If one drives an ordinary car with three passengers and has a blackout, one could quite easily kill everyone in the car and also career into another vehicle. If one is that dangerous then we should ban everyone in that condition from driving. Evidently, the Government do not think so. They believe that there are greater risks involved with larger vehicles. That is probably the case, because greater skills are required.

The vast majority of those affected by this illness seem to have been handling the responsibility quite well. They certainly do not seem to be providing a very high death toll on the roads. It seems to be a small group with immense variation within it. I suggest that the Government's path should be to take a little bit of flexibility into account. Regular testing and individual licensing would seem to be the way forward because one is taking a very broad brush to very fine, detailed work. Very few of the people in this category will be a risk. Indeed, I have read some of the briefing. If one wants to take a broad brush approach, it would be much better to remove from the road males under the age of 25 because they are far more likely to have road accidents.

We are not proposing that approach. We are dealing with certain people who have one specific type of problem, which is controllable, and the risk can be assessed. The people involved should be treated as individuals. They should be tested individually. One would then probably end up with a group which is statistically safer than the general public. The use of a broad brush approach here simply catches far too many people and does not allow for the flexibility which would allow individuals to carry on law-abiding and commercial activities which they have been carrying out safely until this point.

My Lords, like other noble Lords I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Alderdice, for having raised this Question in the House today. I am also grateful to the British Diabetic Association for the briefing material that it kindly sent to me on the issue. I gather that the issue has caused considerable interest in another place and a large volume of correspondence for the responsible Minister whom, I am glad to say, we have in this House and who is to answer the debate today. I also heard her on the "Today" programme this morning, so it is obviously an issue of great national concern.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice and Lord Rea, in particular, put the issue very clearly, as have other noble Lords, so there is not an enormous amount left for me to say. As has been said, the issue arises from the Government's requirement to bring into force EU Directive 91/439. I have become concerned over recent years about the issue known as "gold plating", whereby the Government have used the excuse of bringing in EU legislation to add measures that they wanted to introduce themselves but which actually went beyond the requirements of the directive. I hope that I never did that when I was in the noble Baroness's position, but one cannot always be certain.

My first question to the Minister is this: do the regulations implemented on 1st January this year go further than the EC directive? If they go only as far as the directive requires, then I shall be happy. I also believe that member states should also be allowed to use their own discretion as to whether to use any permitted exceptions. My second question, therefore, is whether the Government were right not to use the "only in very exceptional cases" provision allowed for in the directive, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. The Minister has no doubt taken expert medical advice and I look forward to her setting out the reasons for the Government's decision not to use that exception.

Reference has also been made to the granting of grandfather rights, as was done in the case of eyesight and epilepsy in the 1996 regulations. My final question, therefore, is this: are such grandfather rights available in this case?

The issue of road safety is a very important one. Our record in this country is second to none, I believe, in Europe. I pay tribute to some of the noble Baroness's predecessors, particularly my noble friend Lady Chalker and my honourable friend Mr. Peter Bottomley, who achieved an enormous amount during their time in office, particularly in the fields of seatbelts and drink-driving. I also pay tribute to vehicle manufacturers. I cannot let the opportunity go by without reminding the Minister that new roads and bypasses also make a considerable improvement to road safety. Therefore, I hope that the road programme is not going to be lost entirely next Tuesday. However, that is perhaps another matter.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and in particular to what she has to say about reviewing the evidence available to her. No one wants to take away someone's livelihood or to see it taken away. Therefore, the Government must have a very good reason if they choose so to do.

My Lords, like others, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for having raised this important Question in the House today and to other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate with a great deal of individual personal or professional knowledge besides a great deal of concern. It is a concern which has been echoed nationally and of that I am extremely aware. There has been an enormous amount of correspondence on the subject. It means that I have not only listened to the points which have been made today with great care, but I have obviously spent a great deal of time over the past weeks studying this issue and looking at whether we have got the balance right between individual's rights and their livelihoods in some cases and the needs of the community as a whole in terms of road safety.

I am particularly well aware of how much concern the change in the law affecting the entitlement of those with certain medical conditions, particularly those with insulin-dependent diabetes, is causing to drivers and their families. I am, therefore, very glad to have the opportunity today to explain the Government's position. It may be helpful if I set out something of the background to the new requirements and exactly how the issue has arisen.

The Second Driving Licence Directive was adopted by EU governments in 1991, to come into effect across the EU in 1996. It was intended to take further the process of harmonisation begun by the first directive in 1980. It introduced, among other things, driving licence sub-categories for lorries between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes (C1) and vehicles with nine to 16 passenger seats (D1). It required entitlements to these vehicles to be subject to separate driving tests and the more stringent medical requirements which in the UK already applied to drivers of large lorries over 7.5 tonnes, buses and coaches. In doing so, those higher health standards and higher driving test competences take into account not only the individual risk of an individual driver having an accident, but also the consequences of accidents involving such vehicles.

I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that serious issues arise because of the effect of accidents involving heavier vans or lorries as well as because of the number of people who might be involved if there was an accident involving the driver of a minibus which had, say, 10 or 12 passengers on board. It is because the consequences of accidents involving such larger vehicles are likely to be much more serious in terms of death and serious injury than accidents involving cars that it has been recognised across Europe that it is appropriate to impose higher standards on the drivers of such vehicles.

I am obviously aware of the concerns, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred, that those higher health standards might be extended to the driving of cars. I can assure noble Lords that there are no such plans either in Europe or in this country. There is always a question about where to draw the line, but it is agreed throughout Europe that there is an intermediate category between the heavy goods vehicles, buses and coaches (about which I do not think that there is a great deal of debate now although there was earlier) which have been subject to higher health regulations since 1991, and, at the other end of the spectrum, cars.

The application of the higher health standards to drivers of C1 and D1 vehicles had particular implications for the UK. Until the beginning of 1997 in this country those who passed a driving test in an ordinary car were automatically given entitlement to these vehicles—in the case of the passenger vehicles (D1) limited to not for hire or reward. This was a long-standing arrangement, and one which British drivers had come to expect and accept. It was out of step with the practice in the rest of Europe: most other member states already required higher health standards for driving lorries over 3.5 tonnes and vehicles with more than eight passenger seats. Unlike those member states, the UK had to consider how drivers holding C1 and D1 entitlements were to be brought within the requirements of the directive. We had to grapple with a situation which was different from those in other member states, and where we were dealing with the possibility of taking away entitlements from people as opposed to not giving them opportunities. That difference has to be borne in mind when international comparisons are made.

A consultation was undertaken in 1996 on implementation of the directive. This included the proposal that the drivers who already held C1 and D1 entitlements should have to meet the higher health standards when their licence expired if they wished to retain those entitlements. There was general agreement that the higher standards were appropriate for the driving of vehicles over 3.5 tonnes or with more than nine seats. There has not been a great deal of dispute about those standards applying to new drivers. For most drivers, the new requirement would come into force at the age of 70 when their driving licence expired.

However, drivers with medical conditions, who had for that reason been issued with short-period licences, valid for periods of up to three years and renewable only subject to satisfactory health checks, would necessarily become subject to the proposed regime at an earlier age. It was recognised that this could inconvenience many licence holders, and it was decided that the application of the new health requirements to these existing drivers should come into effect one year after it applied to new drivers, to give drivers affected some extra time to adjust to the change. The regulations implementing the directive, which were introduced on 1st January 1997, therefore provided that the new requirements would apply only to licences expiring from 1st January 1998.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, asked whether we were being inconsistent in our treatment of diabetic drivers as against others. Out of over 30 million drivers, there are some 300,000 with short-term licences, only approximately 110,000 of whom are diabetics treated by insulin. It is not difficult to understand, however, how the change in the law must seem like discrimination to those drivers who have lost, or will lose, an entitlement to drive these vehicles because of a health condition. However, I hope that noble Lords will accept the assurance that the new requirement is not specifically targeted at diabetics or at any particular groups; there are another 200,000 drivers with various medical conditions—for example, epilepsy and heart conditions—who are also affected.

Reference has been made to a blanket ban. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, suggested that if we are looking at individual assessment for insulin-dependent diabetics, we should look at individual assessment also for those other categories of higher health risk. That is not possible within the terms of the directive. There is not even the very limited potential provision and exception which exists for insulin-dependent diabetics available for the others in those health risk groups. For them, the directive leaves no possibility of an exemption.

The point has been made that given that many of those affected have been driving safely for many years, it might be appropriate to provide "grandfather rights", to which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, referred. The directive does not provide for such rights. As I have said, it provides for no exceptions for the other categories but, in the case of diabetes, it states:

"Only in very exceptional cases may driving licences be issued to or renewed for applicants or drivers … suffering from diabetes … and requiring insulin treatment".

I know that many of those who are concerned about the new requirements attach particular importance to the possibility of providing exceptions, as allowed for in that provision. Several noble Lords have made that point. It has been suggested that failure to do so on the part of the Government indicates an over-zealous approach to implementing the directive, or even "goldplating", to which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, referred. It has been suggested that as other member states permit exemptions and their insulin-treated licence holders may drive goods and passenger vehicles, our drivers are being discriminated against.

I turn now to the crucial points raised in this debate. On the question of exceptional cases, the Government had to consider whether it would be proper for the possibility allowed by the directive to be adopted in this country—that is, not to have the blanket ban to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred. That decision must be based on informed medical opinion. We would be rightly criticised if we reacted to representations from a patient-based organisation or to the weight of correspondence that we receive simply because of the passion engendered rather than if we acted on objective medical advice.

As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, pointed out, our road safety record is an extremely good one—and that is partly attributable to the fact that we have a highly developed system of obtaining expert medical advice in relation to driver licensing. I refer to the Honorary Advisory Panels. It was to enable the Government to have access to the best possible advice on the road safety risk of certain medical conditions that the Secretary of State's Honorary Advisory Panels comprising experts in their fields were set up many years ago.

Perhaps I may reply to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord HolmPatrick, which I know was raised in another place, about the membership of such panels and the advice given by them on this point. Membership is limited to medical specialists who are independent advisers to government in this area. It is not a matter of any officials being involved in the decision-making process or being responsible for the advice. The only people to participate are the independent members of the panel. Separate panels cover the main areas of health affecting fitness to drive: cardiac conditions, neurological diseases, alcohol abuse as well as diabetes. We are about to set up a panel on eyesight issues. The panels have a specific road safety remit that takes account of the interests of road users as a whole as well as their specialist knowledge of the conditions involved. Nominations for the panel chairmen are on the recommendation of the Royal College of Physicians and, for members of the panels, on recommendation through inquiry or by the Royal Colleges.

The Diabetes Panel has been for some time of the considered view that those who are insulin treated should not be allowed to drive the larger and heavier vehicles. There has been a ban on drivers of lorries of over 7.5 tonnes, buses and coaches since 1991. Nevertheless, in the light of the claim that modern treatment methods reduce the risks of hypoglycaemic attacks, the panel was specifically invited to advise the Government on whether there was scope when implementing this directive for exceptional cases. However, its view remains that despite improvements in modern methods of treating diabetes there are no individual cases that can be regarded as sufficiently exceptional for concessions to be allowed. That is the background to the legislation that has come into force.

I am aware that some member states apply the "very exceptional cases" provision. We do not know exactly what expert medical advice these members took before making such arrangements, although we understand that in most cases—obviously, the exception is not taken into account in all cases—those whom they treat separately as very exceptional drivers are not those who drive vehicles professionally for a living, which is the group that has occasioned most concern in this country because of the possibility of such individuals losing their livelihood. I believe that that analogy gives rise to a particular problem.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. My information is that Finland and Sweden protect existing licence holders who use their licences as part of their employment. Denmark grants group 2 licences when a proper medical certificate is available provided that regular medical examination is carried out. That is the kind of procedure that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and I have advocated for this country.

My Lords, I understand what my noble friend has said. It is difficult to obtain some of the detail, although I have asked for it. It appears that the majority of states who make exceptions do not do so for professional drivers. It is because I am concerned to understand what takes place in the rest of Europe that I have asked that when the expert group on the second directive, which the EU Commission chairs, next meets it should place the topic of diabetes on the agenda so that with other member states we can explore the question of their implementation of the directive and see how we are doing in comparison with them. I believe that some of the difficulties arise from the fact that we are dealing here with a group of people who already have an ability that may be taken away from them rather than simply setting in train a tighter definition for potential new drivers.

I return to the crucial issue of whether insulin-treated diabetics pose a danger on the road. It is viewed by some that improved treatment regimes have minimised the danger on the road, certainly that posed by the non-brittle diabetic. I heard the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, about the possibility of improving NHS facilities for diabetics. I shall pass those comments to the Department of Health. We turned to the expert panel on the question of exceptional cases and asked whether with modern methods people who might well not have experienced hypoglycaemia could be categorised in a particular way that would effectively provide reassurance that they were not a risk on the road. The advice of the panel is that with modern methods the risks of hypoglycaemia are not eliminated and may even be increased rather than reduced.

I emphasise that the assessment of risk for those who suffer from medical conditions affecting fitness to drive is a medical matter. It is accepted that in medicine, as in any other field, there will be differences of opinion among experts. There is nevertheless a considerable body of literature on the effect of insulin treatment. It can lead to hypoglycaemia which in turn can result in a loss of consciousness without warning. Obviously, it is the latter that poses the greatest risk on the road. A number of studies have made clear that there is a link between road accidents and collapses at the wheel as a result of insulin treatment. I understand that for some years it has been the practice of certain employers, on the advice of their occupational health services, not to allow those treated by insulin to undertake driving duties even in vans and other small vehicles.

I very well understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the desire to treat people with disabilities as individuals and not to over-categorise them and be too broad brush. However, in drawing up regulations and looking at fitness to drive, whether it is about eyesight or a whole number of other conditions, we must have standards and definitions into which people either fit or do not fit in order to administer the licensing process.

I hope that I can assure noble Lords that the Government have not been insensitive to the concerns of those who are worried about the effects of the directive. I have been ready to listen to those concerns. Recently, I met representatives of the British Diabetic Association together with the Chairman of the Commons All-Party Group on Diabetes. The association left with me written representations and an evidence review. The issue of assessment of risk and whether there is a way in which we can introduce an individual assessment programme is crucial to the Government's view.

I suggested that it would be sensible to have a special meeting of the advisory panel so that full consideration could be given to all of the arguments put forward. That meeting is to take place at the end of next month. It is part of the remit of the panel to keep scientific and medical advice under review and advise the department of any change to that advice which becomes necessary as a result.

One concern of the BDA and others has been the absence of evidence of the occurrence of accidents to support the new requirements. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency receives reports from the police and others about accidents and road traffic incidents which may involve medical conditions. For example, over the past three months 40 accidents involving collapses at the wheel by insulin-treated diabetics have been identified. I informed the BDA that I wanted a more thorough examination of those records to see what statistics could be produced to supplement the assessment of risk provided by the medical experts. I also asked to meet, and met, the chairman of the advisory panel to learn at first hand the basis of the risk assessment that the panel had made. In addition to telling me his own experience of treating patients—the members of the panel are all practising physicians who deal with diabetic patients—he informed me that in the view of the panel there was a one in 10 chance per year of an insulin-treated diabetic having a severe hypoglycaemic attack.

In addition to speaking to the chairman of the panel, I have discussed this matter extensively both with the Chief Medical Adviser of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Senior Medical Adviser of the DVLA. A question was raised as to whether the department had been over-cautious in its attitude.

Faced with the clear advice that I have received from the professionals with the responsibility for providing objective advice to Ministers, it is difficult to see how the Government could responsibly have rejected that advice. Having said that, I say to my noble friend Lord Rea that I want to go back to the Commission and to the expert group, and to understand what is happening in the rest of Europe, and indeed whether there is a system of individual assessment that minimises risk that the expert panel would consider to be viable in this country.

I have no illusions about the strength of feeling among drivers who believe that their own condition is under control and that they do not represent a road safety danger. I understand their concerns. I have taken the opportunity to check and double check the medical advice that I have received. I have met those who have argued strongly against the Government's position. I shall ensure that the points that they make are considered fully by our expert advisers. I have to make it clear that at the moment the medical advice upon which current policies are based is clear and unequivocal. In those circumstances, I have to go back to test the medical advice again. It would not be correct for a lay Minister to intervene with his or her own assessment in those circumstances.

House adjourned at one minute past two o'clock.