Lords Sitting of 1 April 1993

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Unit Fine System: Application
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to review the banding system for fines in magistrates' courts.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we are monitoring all aspects of the unit fine system which now applies in magistrates' courts.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Has he had representations from the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society? What action does he intend to take on the representations that they have made to him?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we take account of all representations that are made to us. The Act has been in force for only about six months. That is the reason why my right honourable friend is monitoring its effect before deciding whether action should be taken, and, if so, what action.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that proportionate allowance tables in use in my court and over the whole of Hampshire go some way towards relieving some of the inequalities which exist under the unit fine system? Will he accordingly undertake to promote the use of such tables throughout the country until the present exhaustive survey of what is clearly a flawed system has finished and alternative arrangements put in place?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the noble Viscount's anxiety. Certainly we shall take account of what is happening in Hampshire. I believe that my original supplementary reply still applies. The Act has been in force for only about six months. We wish to see how it is working. We shall certainly take into account the Hampshire experience before deciding what to do.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that although the Act has been in existence for only six months, there is plenty of evidence from all parts of the country that discrepancies in fines appear to indicate even at this early stage that something is wrong somewhere?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am aware that that is a view which some of your Lordships and others hold. However, the system places on a statutory basis what the courts have for a long time been required to do in setting a fine which takes the offender's means into account.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many magistrates are extremely distressed by what is happening. Far from having the flexibility that they previously enjoyed, while taking people's means into account, they are now forced into a system which they regard as too rigid. They are being forced to hand out fines which are totally disproportionate to the crime or misdemeanour that has been committed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am aware of the concern of some magistrates. I am aware of the worry that is expressed. I can only say to the noble Lord that while I understand people's anxiety, one has to let the new system run for a while to find out whether it is all that bad and, if so, how it ought to be altered.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that the banding system has many faults. The relevant issue is surely the severity of the crime not how much a person can afford to pay.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is fair to say that it is not right that a person who is well off should be able to afford to break the law while someone who is not well off suffers draconian penalties. The system is that people should pay according to their means. Indeed, that has been the system which courts have applied hitherto.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that when there were low fines for everyone, many of us who sat as magistrates found the fines for some people derisory. Is it not desirable that, although the current system has problems and is not working well, fines should be tailored to people's means?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the system of a list has been in operation for some time. The table applies at level 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. A maximum amount is applicable under those levels. The unit fine system does not alter that. For instance, if one is on level 4, there is a maximum value of £2,500. The maximum number of units that one can be charged is 25. The maximum that one can be charged for a unit is £100. Twenty-five times £100 equals £2,500, which is the maximum under the levels.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, will the Minister accept that although many of us agree that the system of unit fines is good in theory, the problem was exacerbated when the price per unit increased from £20 to £100 at the beginning of the year? It is that factor which has caused so much distress to many magistrates.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is one of the points which we shall take into account when monitoring the Act to see how it is working.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, would it be unkind to suggest that there might be an analogy between this banding system and the new banding system under the council tax which came into effect today? Would it further be unkind to suggest that, although differences in ability to pay are of paramount importance, some banding systems could be a little crude?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it would be unkind; it would also be irrelevant.

Channel Tunnel: Carriers' Liability
11.12 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their reported decision to exempt the Channel Tunnel from fines under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, which applies to airlines, ferries and other carriers.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, people who travel from Calais through the tunnel by shuttle train will have their passports checked on French soil before boarding by United Kingdom immigration officers. On through trains, passports will be checked on board. In neither case is it realistic to apply carriers' liability.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Was not the Channel Tunnel project undertaken on the admirable principle of open competition with other transport systems? If passenger trains are exempted, will it not create a huge gap in our immigration controls which unscrupulous people will surely exploit?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I see my noble friend's anxiety, but different circumstances and different operating procedures apply to the Channel Tunnel. There will be British immigration officers on French soil to check the passports. With ferries and airlines, passports are not checked until the passenger enters the United Kingdom. Under the Channel Tunnel treaty, the protocol and the concession agreement, specific and particular arrangements are made for immigration control which do not apply to airports.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is not the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act grossly unfair to the airlines? Is it not also grossly inefficient in that it enables the cunning and those who pay money to the rogues who supply passports to enter the country, whereas the genuine refugee is often unable to do so?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that this is a question of refugees but of whether people come into the country with improper documents. Under the Channel Tunnel system, as I said, there will be immigration officers on French soil. Therefore, anyone who does not have the appropriate documents can be prevented from boarding the train. That does not apply on ferries or in airports and a person cannot be checked until that person has entered the country. The requirement is, therefore, that those who operate ferries and airlines should ensure that the people whom they carry have the proper documents.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that the estimates which have been made by the operators of the Channel Tunnel are that the system will carry something like half the traffic between this country and the mainland of Europe? Consequently,
1006
if that is right, half of something like 5 million passengers a year in each direction will effectively be altogether exempt from the checks, while the other 5 million carried by airlines and ferries would be subject to the checks under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. Is there not a serious anomaly in the situation which needs to be put right?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has got it wrong. The people who come via the Channel Tunnel will be subjected to checks, but those checks will be in France. Those who come by airlines or ferries will not be subjected to immigration checks until they enter the country.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we are referring to the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act here, not to checks. That Act will not apply to people who are carried through the Tunnel. It will apply, as the Minister said, to airlines and ferry operators. If there are 5 million people being carried by the latter and 5 million via the tunnel, is it not anomalous that one group should be subject to the carriers' liability Act and the other should not?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite see the difficulty. However, in the case of the Channel Tunnel where one's passport can be checked in France by a British immigration officer, there is no carriers' liability to operate because the immigration officer has checked the passport. In the case of ferries and airlines, that is not possible until people arrive in this country and therefore one cannot send them back, short of putting them on another aeroplane. The requirement is that airlines and ferry operators should ensure that they have the right documents.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does not that argument depend on the doctrine of the infallibility of immigration officers? If the Channel Tunnel operators carry someone illicitly, ought they not to have the same financial liability as the airlines?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that the provisions rely upon the infallibility of the immigration officers, who, after all, are only human. However, the provisions mean that they are the people responsible. All that one has to do when being checked by the immigration officer is to show that one has a European Community passport.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am pleased to see the conversion of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who have both been arguing long and hard during the passage of the Asylum Bill that immigration officers are infallible.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought that the one person who had been arguing hard and fast all through the Asylum Bill was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—without any success.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if, as my noble friend said, the through trains will have immigration officers on board and they will not be liable under the

1007
carriers' liability Act, how is it that the ferry companies—some of which also carry immigration officers on board—are liable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if under the carriers' liability Act the operators of the through trains were to be liable, it would not be possible to operate the checks until the train had left its last station on the Continent. In other words, there would be no opportunity for the rail company to discharge any passenger who should not enter the country. That is why on through trains there will be on-board checks after the train has left its last destination in France and before it arrives in the United Kingdom. The on-board checks will be carried out by immigration officers.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in view of my noble friend's replies, will British immigration officers at the French end of the tunnel be certain to check documents and remove intending illegal immigrants before they enter the tunnel? If, nonetheless, an immigrant arrives in London without any of the documents, will the immigration service then be liable to pay the fine?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that the short answer to that is that the Secretary of State does not fine himself. Of course, it is the duty of immigration officers to check that those who come to this country have the proper documents. That is what they spend their whole time doing.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell us who will pay for the juxtaposed immigration officials? Can he also confirm that the necessary moneys will not come from the large pool of fines already levied on the airlines and ferry companies, as that would indeed be grossly unfair?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the employment of immigration officers at Coquelles comes under the same terms as the employment of immigration officers anywhere else. The fines that airlines or ferry companies have paid are fines and have nothing to do with immigration control.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that his answers today confirm what was said during the passage of the asylum Bill; namely, that the airlines and sea carriers are forced to act as immigration officers on an unpaid basis, whereas in the Channel Tunnel immigration officers are employed on a paid basis by the Government?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has (not for the first time) got it wrong. Airline operators are not paid as immigration officers. All they are asked to do is to ensure that those whom they carry have reasonable documents. The operational system with the Channel Tunnel is totally different. It is different because there was a special Channel Tunnel treaty which put those new arrangements into operation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, nevertheless, is it not the case that the immigration controls on the boats and airlines are monitored by the owners of those boats
1008
and airlines, who have to pay for that privilege, whereas the privilege of people coming through the tunnel is paid for by the Government?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not a question of paying for a privilege; it is a question of seeing that immigration controls operate in Coquelles in just the same way as they do in Dover or anywhere else.
Noble Lords: Next Question!

UK: Future Energy Sources
11.21 a.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether by the year 2030 much of the United Kingdom's electricity generating power will have reached the end of its useful life and if so, apart from nuclear power, how they propose to meet this situation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, it is likely that most of the UK's generating power will have reached the end of its useful life by the year 2030, which is why my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade authorised further developments on 25th March. It is the Government's commitment to have diverse sources of energy to ensure there is supply to meet demand.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she appreciate that the reason for asking this Question is that I hope that the public as a whole will become more informed of the issues that will arise, and will not expect to find that all our extra generating power can be obtained from renewables?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure that the amount of discussion which has taken place in the past few weeks will certainly have increased the public's knowledge.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is immensely increased scope for harnessing the tides and winds? To what extent are the Government prepared to support that by providing incentives to those who are prepared to spend some of their own money in doing so?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to reassure my noble friend Lord Renton that the Government are committed to helping technologies in the renewable area to become commercially competitive. That is part of our policy on renewable energy.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in her reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, the Minister said that the Government had a commitment to provide a variety of sources of energy. Will she give an undertaking that the Government will continue or increase their efforts to make sure that when the power stations are replaced they are replaced by a system

1009
which is environmentally friendly, in line with their past statements regarding the environment, and refuse to allow any expansion, even by the elimination of orimulsion as a fuel used to provide power in this country?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that the Government's commitment to their international agreements on environmental matters is absolutely sound.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, referring to the question from my noble friend Lord Renton, will my noble friend the Minister ensure that wave power is also included in the review of renewable energy?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that many experiments have been going on in regard to renewable energy, many for some time. Probably the point could soon be reached where either the breakthrough will be made or it will be decided that that is not the route. We are staying alongside all of them and we shall be very interested in, and supportive of, developments.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the long lead times required for the development of new generating technologies, and for the construction of power stations, would it be helpful if the Government were to suggest to the major generating companies, perhaps in conjunction with the National Grid Company, that they should prepare a report on the power generating options for the early part of the next century; and in that report pay particular regard, in view of our debate yesterday on coal, to the role that power stations using clean coal technologies may play in that development?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it is of course important that people look forward to future needs. Perhaps first I could comment on something which the noble Lord knows. I am pleased to say that building times of generators of all types have much decreased from the days of the sixties. From the decision process and planning permission, the building process takes less time and comes in usually on time and in budget. We expect people to look forward and to bear in mind all the possibilities. The noble Lord draws attention to the fact that technology in this area is changing extremely fast.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, can my noble friend give us any reassurance that by the year 2030 both the Mersey barrage and the Severn barrage will be generating electricity?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend asks a question which it is totally beyond me to answer.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is forecast that by 2030 British Gas will have virtually exhausted its resources and that British oil will be virtually exhausted? Can she tell the House whether the Government assume that by that time we shall carry the burden of our enormous energy consumption on our already shaky balance of
1010
payments? Or does she think that we shall by then be dependent on nuclear power, and possibly desperately digging for British coal?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as we have discussed on many occasions—the noble Lord has been part of that discussion—it is possible to make assumptions about resources in energy areas to which, again, technology brings differences as it develops. There is no reason to believe that economic gas supplies will run out before economic coal supplies.

Pesticides: Misuse
11.28 a.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will institute a legal requirement to report accidental misuse of pesticides.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, where misuse of pesticides is genuinely accidental, those responsible are unlikely to be aware that they have committed an offence. In these circumstances I am not convinced that it would serve any useful purpose to make reporting such incidents a legal requirement.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, that reply is incredible. Does the Minister recall that when responding recently to concern about the use of pesticides the Government said that the people who are employed to use them must be fully trained and competent? The Minister now says something very different. He says that they are unlikely to be aware that they are committing an offence. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either these people are fully trained and would be aware that they are committing an offence, or they are not. Does the Minister agree that because the accidental misuse of pesticides can cause enormous damage to people it should be a legal requirement to report such incidents?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any contradiction at all between the statements to which the noble Lord alludes. The misuse of pesticides, whether accidental or otherwise, is an offence under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. At the same time, all users of pesticides must be competent when using them. In practice, we find that incidents of suspected poisoning by pesticides are reported very often by third parties. Every one of those reports is followed up by the Health and Safety Executive. The noble Lord may be interested to know that the HSE proposes to publish a free leaflet aimed at the general public to encourage reporting of incidents involving pesticides or veterinary medicines. The draft leaflet is presently the subject of wide consultation and should be available by early summer.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Government accept that there is something in what my noble friend argued, in the sense that it is extremely important not only to record penalties but also to act to ensure that people are deterred from

1011
doing something in relation to pesticides which is dangerous to health? Does he agree that just as accidents have to be reported in factories, accidents in relation to pesticides should also be reported?
Earl Howe: My Lords, where accidents are known about, they are already subject to compulsory reporting under the Health and Safety at Work Act. But that is rather different from incidents of misuse, many of which may not be known of at all. The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (known as RIDDOR) require employers, the self-employed and people in control of premises to report to the relevant enforcing authority certain injuries, cases of ill health and dangerous occurrences which happen in the course of work or as a result of work.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that two difficulties would arise if such accidents have to be reported? The first concerns the degree of accident. Does he agree that, for example, one can spill a teaspoonful of pesticide or one can spread gallons of it all over an inappropriate place? The second difficulty is that many farmers are self-employed and work on their own. Does he accept that they may be frightened of being prosecuted if they report an accident which possibly only affects themselves?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Countess raises two interesting points. One of the main disadvantages of instituting a compulsory system of reporting, apart from those I have mentioned, is that the monitoring which is carried out by the Pesticide Usage Survey Group under its rolling programme depends for its effectiveness on voluntary co-operation without fear on the part of the farmer that the surveyor is also an enforcement officer. It is important that the information gained from those surveys should be comprehensive and accurate. That is why I believe that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, would be self-defeating.

Education Bill
11.32 a.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blatch, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 4 to 32,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 33 to 47,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 48 to 52,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clauses 53 to 56,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 57 to 158,

1012

Schedule 8,

Clause 159,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 160 to 172,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 173 to 206,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 207 to 226,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 227 to 229,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 230 to 238,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 239 to 244,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 245 to 276,

Schedules 2 and 16 to 18.—(Viscount St. Davids.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Leeds Supertram Bill
11.33 a.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a Bill promoted by the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and the Leeds City Council. Perhaps I may say at the outset that I am moved by the large attendance in the Chamber this morning. When I introduced the Bill in another place only two people were present. I can only assume that there is a vast interest in the Leeds supertram and the City of Leeds, which shows the great wisdom of this House.
If anyone would like a conducted tour of Hunslet and Middleton, I shall gladly arrange it. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, did the same yesterday and had a good look at the site. That showed great perspicacity because it is a remarkable area, which sustained me in Parliament for 30 years. The fact that one ward voted 93 per cent. and the other ward voted 90 per cent. for me has nothing to do with my interest. The fact that a school has been named after me in that inner city area also has nothing—well, perhaps it does have something—to do with my interest. The fact that that school is not new and deficient in many respects is perhaps irrelevant. I think it was Pope who believed it better to have an acre in Middlesex than a principality in Utopia. I believe it is better to have half an acre in Hunslet and Belle Isle than a large edifice alongside the Thames or in Berkshire. Leeds matters a great deal to me and I know a great many of the people there.
When the tramway is built—I hope it will be done very quickly—it will be of great advantage to the inner city area where over the past 20 years the greater part of the population has disappeared, I am glad to say. People have moved because of clearance. What is left—the process has been hastened in the past 10 years by the de-industrialisation of Great Britain—needs great attention and the new tramway will play a great part in that. It will be of advantage to the people of Morley, which was at one time in the West Riding, when it goes out to a place called Tingley just off the M.62. It will be advantageous to the people of Leeds as a whole

1013
because it is the intention to have a spur in Hunslet which goes out to the M.1. It is intended to build a large car park so that people coming into Leeds will be able to park their cars, leave them and get on the super tramway which will take them into the middle of Leeds. The intention behind the idea of the supertram is to benefit the people of Leeds as a whole. Leeds is a modern and modernising city. Anything that can be done to help in that respect is important.
I should add that just south of the River Aire, which was once a polluted river and still is to some degree but which is greatly improving, is an important area. The Royal Armouries are moving out a substantial part of their stock from the Tower of London. There is to be an Armoury in Clarence Dock. In the course of time, developments alongside the river, aided by the tramway, will be to the advantage of the city of Leeds as it ceases to be an industrial city and becomes more of a commercial city, attracting people into the middle of the city to enjoy themselves, particularly at the weekend. I hope that the view of your Lordships' House will be favourable and that the Bill will be sent to Committee.
I express the hope that some of the statutory undertakings which have objected—they have done so for very good reasons—will withdraw their objections. They have already been withdrawn in another place but for other reasons. I understand the legal side of the argument. I hope that some of the great undertakings which have their buildings in that part of Leeds in Hunslet will remember that those who occupy and run those buildings do not live in Hunslet and South Leeds. They live in salubrious areas elsewhere. I hope that those undertakings will do nothing to hold up the Bill. The people who live in that precise area—or who lived there and who now live nearby—do not have the push or pull of the large institutions. I hope that they will co-operate in the future.
I have with me a list of the objections. Only in one respect do I feel that with a bit of a push from this House the objectors could be moved more quickly and aid the passage of the Bill. As I said, the tramway will come from Tingley by the M.62 into Hunslet through Middleton, which encompasses a vast council estate built in the 1920s and 1930s. It is one of the original council estates, which means that it has problems. It has the lowest car ownership rate in the City of Leeds and the people there have the lowest incomes. The only time anyone is interested in those areas, even in Leeds itself, is at general election time when prominent politicians go there and have photographs of themselves taken astride a dump heap which was once a factory. Then they say, "Inner cities matter to us". At general election times they matter to them, but they do not matter very much to them afterwards.
The tramway will play a part in dealing with those problems, but they will not be the only reason for the tramway by a long chalk. There is one part of the area which concerns me particularly. It is called the Westbury's. I hope that in Committee that area will be looked at. The Passenger Transport Executive and the Leeds City Council have been very helpful. The people there suffered in the past when the M.1 came into
1014
Leeds and the area was cut off like an island. No longer could people go to the shops or their children attend their schools without going over a narrow bridge crossing the M.1. Nobody bothered about those people. If that had been North Leeds, Hampshire or Hampstead, that would not have happened. It happened there. The people in the Westbury's, most of whom are friends of mine, have been concerned about their position in relation to the tramway.
I want to raise one issue in which I believe the Government have to be involved, let alone the Passenger Transport Executive and the Leeds City Council. Those bodies were anxious about their position. They were worried that the tramway would make their position worse. They argued that the tramway should be located on the other side of the Wakefield Road and that their amenity value was threatened.
A Department of Trade witness explained that the issue of whether to cross the sliproad at grade or to go beneath the road under the motorway bridge on virtually the same alignment was a matter for Ministers and not for the committee. I hope that the matter will be considered. It is a matter for Ministers and not for the committee. The committee will not be able to do anything about it, and I hope that by the time we return to your Lordships' Chamber the Government will have formed a view.
The committee in another place decided to allow the tramway to pass between the Westbury's and the Wakefield Road but applied conditions—and that is excellent. The conditions were that the alignment should be moved further away from the houses and that the track and vehicles should be screened by mounds and vegetation. That was to apply whether the track crossed the sliproad at grade or went beneath it. I hope that that matter will be considered by the Government, though not this morning. It is esoteric to some degree, but not to the people who live in the area and expect people like myself—particularly in the past—to do something to help them.
The Explanatory Memorandum at the front of the Bill contains a short explanation of each clause. I wish to refer to two. Clause 18 provides that the Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument, authorise the executive to build the railway so that the supertram vehicles run on ordinary road wheels and are guided by a single slot or cable in the road. This is to enable alternative guidance systems to be used as technology develops.
Clause 7(2) would enable the Secretary of State to give consent to the executive constructing certain lengths of the railway works in accordance with dimensions and descriptions different from those shown on the deposited plans and set out in the Bill. This is to enable adjustments to be made to the intended route where it may be affected by redevelopment proposals for land on or near which the supertram is to pass, such as those for the Royal Armouries —it is exciting that the Royal Armouries are moving to inner city Leeds; that really is

1015
something—so that, within the constraints of the limits of deviation provided in the deposited plans, supertram can fit in with such proposals.
There remain outstanding the petitions of certain public utility companies and it is to one aspect of that that I wish to refer. I understand that it will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who I am glad is speaking today although his name is not on the list. That is not his fault and I understand that he has an interest in the matter.
It has long been established that, where the diversion of public utilities' apparatus in streets is required to facilitate roadworks or other works in streets, the person who is responsible—in this instance, the Passenger Transport Executive—for the works should bear the cost of the diversion of apparatus, subject to rebate for betterment where old apparatus is replaced by new apparatus or other improvements result for the benefit of the public utilities.
That was considered by the Horne Committee, which I believe is the point in which the noble Lord is interested. It recommended the substitution of provision whereby the person responsible for the works in question should bear all the cost of the civil engineering works required for the diversion of the apparatus, such as the excavation of trenches, but the public utilities should bear the cost of installing their diverted apparatus.
The recommendation of the Horne Committee has, however, been varied in regulations made under Part III of the New Roads and Street Works Act which makes provision whereby the person carrying out the works bears 82 per cent.—a strange figure—of the cost of the diversion of apparatus, including any necessary civil engineering works, and the remaining 18 per cent. is borne by the utilities concerned, subject again to something about which I know precious little called betterment.
This sharing of costs is now prescribed in the Street Works (Sharing of Costs of Works) Regulations 1992 which came into force on 1st January 1993. The Minister announced his intention of reviewing those regulations. That is an attractive trait in the Government. It only became law on 1st January 1993 and they are re-doing it. Fair do's if that is the case. But the promoters of the Bill will be bound by whatever is the outcome of the further deliberations. I hope that there will be no proposal for an amendment of our Bill because, on behalf of the promoters, I repeat again that they will carry out whatever is the result of the re-evaluation of the legislation, which is only a matter of a few months old.
I hope that the Bill will go to Committee. I am glad to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon present. His churches are in Hunslet and Middleton but not in Morley, which comes under the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield. I hope that the Church does not have a boundary commission system. I say that because that may make the usual mess of things that it makes in the parliamentary system. However, there is a curious divide. The greater part of the tramway will be in the area of the right reverend Prelate.
1016
I should like to make one point that I should perhaps have made earlier in my 30 years in that area. The works of the Churches—Nonconformist, Catholic and established Church —has been tremendous. I am not suggesting that the tramway will have any great effect on that work, except that it may take people to church quicker on a Sunday. I know that we shall have the support of the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene before the noble Lord sits down. Am I to understand from his speech that he launched this Bill in the other place and is now launching the same Bill on its journey to the statute book in this House? If that is so, is not that unique? It sets a precedent and justifies some of us wishing him well with the Bill.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, who is an old friend of mine. We have buttered each other up over the years on many an occasion. I am quite happy to be unique. I thought it was unique that the Bill was coming here when it had been looked at in the other place and was going to be looked at again. Apparently that is not unique. That I have moved it is unique and I gladly accept the adjective. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Merlyn-Rees.)
11.47 a.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I, too, heartily support the Bill. Traffic congestion is an everyday feature of people's lives—too much so. It adds to their journey time and to the cost of goods we buy. It is predicted to get worse as car ownership and use increases faster than roads are built and modernised. People need to travel but in doing so they add to congestion and cars produce more pollution than public transport, particularly in cities. Much more emphasis needs to be given to public transport.
In North America—the home of the freeway—several cities recently opened new light rapid transit systems to combat congestion and atmospheric pollution. They also recognise that if people cannot reach central areas easily, the health of those centres will decline. In Europe most major cities, unlike those in Great Britain, kept their trams and have regularly upgraded them. Several, such as Grenoble, Toulouse and Lausanne, have opened new systems. Those examples now range from segregated automated systems to street tramways.
Use of public transport has declined more severely in Britain than in most other European countries, for reasons I shall not go into. While commuter rail networks have held on and in some cases expanded their market, road-based systems such as buses have suffered major losses of patronage. People need to be provided with an attractive alternative to the private car, and if they are they will use it.
Experience with Britain's first modern system bears that out. The Manchester Metro link, of which I have personal experience, now carries more passengers than were ever predicted, even though bus companies are competing hard for passengers. It is predicted to make

1017
a significant profit on its operation. So far the only other scheme to obtain funding is in Sheffield, where operation is scheduled to start later this year.
As the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said, I had the pleasure of visiting Leeds only yesterday to view the proposed route of the system. Leeds City Council and the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive examined many alternatives for transport in Leeds and in 1991 published a transport strategy. It included light rapid transit lines on some corridors not served by railways, which are a key part of the strategy. Another key part is Britain's first guided bus scheme on Scott Hall Road, Leeds, which was recently approved by the Secretary of State for Transport. The line will serve south Leeds, which is being regenerated with assistance from Leeds Development Corporation and Leeds City Council.
A key feature will be the relocation of the Royal Armouries Museum to Clarence Dock where it will be served by the new system. In addition, a major park and ride site alongside the M.1 at Stourton is another feature of the scheme. The line is the first part of a small network of lines which, together with other measures in the transport strategy, will help to rejuvenate the inner city and Leeds city centre. Work has already started on other related projects such as the city centre loop, which will remove traffic from the heart of the central area, and the upgrading of the pedestrian areas in the shopping centre.
I once again express my support for the Leeds Supertram Bill and hope that it will obtain the necessary powers in your Lordships' House to enable it to be built. It will modernise public transport in what I found yesterday to be a thriving and bustling city of Leeds and will be a vital part of the city's development process.
11.52 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, in commending the Bill to your Lordships. I speak as one who regularly works in the centre of Leeds and who has to drive frequently through it. I know well the neighbourhoods of Hunslet, Belle Isle and Middleton, although, of course, not nearly as well as the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, who served the neighbourhood with such distinction as its Member of Parliament for so many years.
Let me reassure the noble Lord that I am entirely aware of the existence of the boundary and of the fact that the line will press beyond my own boundary into the diocese of Wakefield. However, the vicar of Morley, who has recently been appointed, is a former member of my clergy, and I am sure that any boundary problems can be easily taken care of.
I am aware of the need for an overall strategy for Leeds which will enable it to continue its economic development, which is so marked a feature of its life at the moment, and which will include provision for meeting its transport needs. Leeds is a developing city, providing a range of services unrivalled in the North of England. Indeed, in some regards Leeds is bidding to be the second city in England after London. The
1018
huge National Health Service building on the old Quarry Bank site is one example only of the development which is drawing large numbers of people to work in the centre of Leeds.
Consultations with the people of Leeds have identified as their priorities the improvement of public transport, the improvement of road safety and the reduction of the impact of transport on the environment. Those priorities will be met by the provision of a light railway or supertram system which the Bill authorises. The Leeds supertram will provide a quality of service which is not available with conventional buses. By attracting some people out of cars it will reduce the number of other vehicles. It will help to ease and calm the flow of traffic, which in its turn will reduce the number of accidents.
Light railway systems are energy efficient and low polluting and they provide a high quality transport system. Their flexibility makes the service convenient to the public. There is one other feature which I find of particular interest. The modern supertram vehicles will have level boarding access which will enable those in wheelchairs to make easy use of them. For those of us who are concerned about those with disabilities, that is an important feature of the provision.
The Bill provides for an initial line from Leeds city centre to Hunslet, Belle Isle and Middleton. The line will, I hope, be the first of a number of lines which will in due course make good provision for access throughout Leeds, particularly to its city centre. I have no hesitation in commending it to your Lordships.
11.56 a.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am sure that I am not alone in being grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, for so eloquently moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I am particularly grateful to him, not least in the saving of considerable expense, for his delightful tour around Leeds. I should like also to make it absolutely clear at the start that I most heartily support the Bill not only because I like Leeds but because I also like trams.
The great town and city planner that I am, I am certain from my experience—one has only to look at The Hague—to see that a good many of the conurbations in the United Kingdom made a great mistake in removing their tram systems when they could have modernised them. What is proposed is a splendid idea. I feel very strongly, however, that the noble Lord was a little unfair in his suggestion regarding the 13 separate interests which have petitioned against the Bill. It is worth remembering that the Bill is going to an Opposed Bill Committee. Those interests do not petition against it lightly. They are not trying to hold it up just to irritate the promoters. No one likes dancing with lawyers, not because lawyers are unattractive or tread on people's toes—indeed they are nothing other than elegant —but because it is an extremely expensive pastime. It is not the role of promoters in Private Bill procedures through Parliament to take unto themselves powers that, either wittingly or unwittingly, ride roughshod

1019
over existing interests. It is for that reason that I put down my name to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill.
It is absolutely essential that the Select Committee considers with very great care those aspects of the Bill which, putting it rather strongly, ride roughshod over certain interests and put them to considerable and unnecessary expense. I say "unnecessary" for this reason. It is a duty at least in equity for promoters of private legislation to consult with great care all those who are affected or might be affected by the legislation and, in so far as they can, to draft it in such a way that any wrong that is done to those interests can be dealt with before the Bill is heard in Parliament. The extent to which that has not happened, and is not reflected in the Bill, is shown by the fact that there are 13 considerable petitioners against the Bill. I might add that they are against the Bill in its detail and not in its substance. That is what the procedure is for.
I am sad that the promoters in their drafting of the Bill did not take more care over alleviating the fears of the petitioners. Four major concerns have yet to be addressed by the promoters. These relate to stray currents, insufficient space within the street to accommodate their apparatus and the supertram, the sterilisation of streets precluding the expansion of telecommunications operators' networks, and the concern that such telecommunications operators will not be properly indemnified against the cost and expense of their being forced to remove and replace their apparatus as a result of the proposed works.
The promoters accept that stray currents arising from the electrical functioning of the supertram may have an adverse effect on the existing apparatus. They have put forward suggestions. Those suggestions have not yet been accepted and there are other various outstanding issues. Indeed, the telecommunications operators are yet to be satisfied that they will be able to re-lay their apparatus and cables in the streets in which the supertram is destined to run. As a result, they are worried that they may not be able to obtain immediate access to their apparatus where the cables run close to the supertram track. They also fear that it may be impossible to service their customers.
Those matters have to be considered. Whether the promoters can give undertakings in Committee which have the same effect in law as undertakings given in the House as a whole, I am not sure. But any relief that the petitioners can get should be given.
I am deeply perturbed that the telecommunications operators will be forced to pay 18 per cent. of the cost of relocating their apparatus in the streets which are used by the supertram. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. But he failed to make one important point. If I remember rightly, the legislation which was passed by your Lordships and another place was to protect the interests of the highways and not necessarily a transport system. That is a major point. I believe that the telecommunications operators should not have to pay any part of the cost to which they are put by the Leeds supertram, not least because Leeds City Council authorised the telecommunications operators to place their apparatus in those streets in the recent past. As the council is one of
1020
the promoters of the Bill, that proposal seems bizarre, to put it mildly. It is wrong that the Bill should empower the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, in conjunction with Leeds City Council, to put telecommunications operators to any expense in that way. The figures could be considerable.
Until the coming into force of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, the statutory undertakers, as they are rather charmingly called nowadays, rather than "public utilities", received full reimbursement of their costs in diverting their apparatus. The new street works Act provides that the cost of street works should be shared between the highway authority and the public utilities on the basis that the highway authority has produced at no cost to the public utilities a common route—that is to say, a street—through which it is convenient for the statutory undertakers or the public utilities to run their water, electricity and gas apparatus.
In July last year regulations were laid providing that the proportion of the cost should be divided as to 82 per cent. payable by the highway authority and 18 per cent. by the public utilities, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. However, because of the way the regulations are worded, that benefits the promoters of transport schemes such as Leeds supertram as well as the highway authorities. In my view that was not the intention of the original legislation and should not accrue as a result of this piece of private legislation. I accept the proposed contribution arrangements benefiting highway authorities, but I do not accept that the arrangements envisaged in relation to highway authority work are appropriate to transport works. Bodies such as the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive have not borne any of the cost of establishing the route and the rationale of cross-sharing does not apply to them. It is indefensible that they should benefit gratuitously, so to speak, from the legislation. Although the Government are at present consulting highway authorities, transport authorities and the public utilities in relation to the regulations, it is my belief that the promoters of the Bill should not benefit from what is in effect a windfall. We are talking about considerable cost.
Another matter I wish to raise causes me considerable concern. It is a clause in the Bill which gives the promoters considerable power. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, will be able to say in his winding-up speech that the promoters have absolutely no intention whatever of using the power that they have by virtue of Clause 66 of the Bill.
I have tried very hard to read the provision in any other way. Within the Bill the promoters have the power to charge anybody—certainly the statutory undertakers—for the use of their conduits and routes along the course of the tramway. Clause 66 clearly states:
"The Executive may demand, take and recover such charges for the use of the tramway system and any services and facilities provided in connection therewith, and may make such use subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit".
It would be of great comfort to the petitioners against the Bill if an undertaking were given that the

1021
promoters of the Bill have no intention of raising ancillary charges by virtue of the power given in that clause. I shall be very grateful if the Committee will look to that point.
I have spoken quite long enough. I reiterate my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, for his presentation of the Bill.
12.6 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate because it is self-evident that this is exactly the kind of project which should be allowed to go ahead in the straitened economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, not only in the North of England but in the South and other parts of the United Kingdom. I should not like it to go unrecorded that I support the views of my noble friend Lord Morris. He and I both heard the remarks about the olive branch on the streetworks legislation which the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, proffered in his opening remarks.
The Street Works (Sharing of Costs of Works) Regulations 1992 are, as we have heard, under review already by the Department of Transport. Should those change, we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, that he will ensure that the promoters take account of such changes as might occur. There is a matter of timing in all this. I do not know how long this Bill will take to go through your Lordships' House, but clearly it may well be that the department will take rather longer to make up its mind. Therefore, I suggest that the Committee considers most seriously whether an amendment to take account of the olive branch proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, would be appropriate in these particular and peculiar circumstances.
12.8 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will notice that it was my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, who should have been speaking at this stage. He has asked me to speak in his place. This has been a most interesting debate so far. Almost all the people who have spoken have intimate local knowledge of the area. It is a long time since I was in Leeds. I used to know it reasonably well. The one memory I have is of lines of shelters where the trams used to line up. One wonders what happened to them.
It has been said by other noble Lords that we were perhaps hasty in getting rid of the tramcars. The real facts were that many of our cities expanded rather quickly. The bus proved to be much more flexible than the tramcar in getting to new areas. Therefore, the passenger bus took over and the tramways gradually died. I come from a city which was probably pre-eminently the tramcar city of the world. I remember very well when, as a schoolboy, one could travel 23.5 miles for an old penny during July and August. I believe that even much later adults were charged 2.5 old pence for a similar journey. So we had a very extensive tramway system. It has all gone now. I hope that with the extension of the railways, using the old railway network in my city, and perhaps the
1022
judicious use of a guided system or a modern tramway system, one will be able to get some of that facility back.
There is a certain nostalgia about trams. I am sure that noble Lords will remember that one of the difficulties associated with them was that when a tram broke down on a high street the hold-up went on for miles, whereas a bus could be pushed away. Such things are more difficult with trams. However, those are problems which the Committee can consider, and many of the speeches which have been made this morning have provided a great deal of substance on which the Committee can hang its questions. I was interested in one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who said that there were about 30 petitions—mainly of detail, not of substance. But one can also kill a Bill in that way if one really wants to.
I hope that the Bill will receive its Second Reading from the House with good will because if the Leeds tram becomes a reality—and, as has already been mentioned, there is also the question of the Manchester metro and a possibility of Sheffield having something similar—we could have the transport system in our big conurbations for which people are now desperately looking. If we are to have civilised cities, we must have better public transport. Obviously, London Underground needs a great deal of money spent on it. Although an underground system may be out of the question for other cities, the tramcar, or some sort of guided form of locomotion, is the right way to go about things.
When the House considers Private Bills, speeches are normally short and major speeches are left for Third Reading when the Committee will have considered the Bill. Although I am passionately interested in the future of the tramcar, I do not intend to speak at great length today. I want the Bill to progress. I do not know who will serve on the Committee, but I hope that they will be able to go into all the points raised this morning. As I said, I believe that the Committee has been given a great deal of guidance this morning by noble Lords who know what they are talking about and who have some experience of the subject. As the Committee will then return the Bill to the House, at this stage I simply wish the Bill "God speed" and hope that we shall get a new transport system for some of our cities.
12.12 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it may be helpful if at this point I gave the House the Government's view on this Bill. We have considered the proposals in the Bill and are broadly content with its purpose. After very careful consideration, the Department of Transport is now content with the principle of a tramway crossing a motorway sliproad by means of an at-grade crossing. I should add that the tram could pass under the junction by a tunnel, albeit at considerable extra expense. The Department of the Environment is also negotiating with the promoters of the Bill on certain matters to protect its interests, but as I have said we are broadly content with the proposals in this Bill.
The Committee is the proper place to consider matters of detail and to hear expert evidence on them.

1023
I hope therefore that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and will be allowed to proceed in the usual way to Committee for this detailed consideration.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I am grateful for the general tone of the discussion and for the Minister saying that the department is content with the principle of the Bill. I hope that the views of my noble friend Lord Carmichael about letting the Bill proceed to Committee will prevail.
I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for leaving the Chamber at one point during his speech, but it was for very necessary reasons relating to a technical part of the Bill. Perhaps I may repeat what I said earlier, that we shall abide by the result of the review that is being led by the Government.
I have had another look at Clause 66. I understand that its wording is standard. When it states,
"The Executive may demand, take and recover … charges",
it is referring to the tram fares. They will not excite many Members of your Lordships' House; they will excite people living in Hunslet and Middleton more than anywhere else. Of course, that matter will be looked at carefully in Committee, but I understand that Clause 66 is a standard clause.
I should have given one piece of information earlier. I am referring to some research which I knew about vaguely but which has now been pointed out to me clearly. The first railway legislation that went through Parliament related to this part of Leeds and was passed in 1757 when Mr. Charles Brandling wanted to carry coal from the Middleton Broom Colliery, which has shut down within the past 20 years. That Bill was passed in 1757, so the Leeds Supertram Bill is not the first tram Bill. Indeed, we cannot go on being the first (as Leeds usually is) but, second or third though we are, I hope that the House will give the Bill its Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
12.15 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 6 [Street Trading]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("3) In section 30(1) of the Act of 1990 (Part III Appeals), the following paragraph shall be inserted after the words "any person aggrieved"—
"(aa) by the refusal of a borough council to grant or renew a licence because they are not satisfied as mentioned in subsection (4)(b) of section 25 (Application for street trading licences)".
(3A) In section 30(1)(d) of the Act of 1990 (Part III Appeals), the words "where that decision is based on any of the grounds mentioned in subsection (1)(d) to (h) of the said section 28;" shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I appear to spend a disproportionate amount of time on the two amendments that I am moving on Third Reading, it is not in any way an indication of any violent opposition to what the Bill seeks to do. However, because the Bill
1024
was dealt with in Select Committee, it has not had an airing in any way comparable to the Second Reading debate that we have just had on the Private Member's Bill relating to the city of Leeds.
I should say at the start that my concern has been engendered by the street traders of London. Although I must make it clear that I am not retained by them, they wanted me to put their case before your Lordships' House. It is a fact that while the Bill was in Committee the promoters went some way towards meeting some of the requests that had been made by the London street traders. Today, I simply want to point out where they could have gone a little further (without any real weakening of the Bill) in establishing rights for people who are a traditional part of the London scene, who ply their trade in all kinds of weather and who in the most part have connections with family businesses that have been handed down over a long period.
I note with pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, is in his place. As recently as Monday, 22nd March, he published an article in The Times, headlined,
"Something rotten on the fruit stall".
Its sub-heading was,
"Officialdom's treatment of a street trader shows our anti-competitive culture in action".
I shall not quote what the noble Lord said, but the case that he made will surely make him sympathetic to what I am trying to do today on behalf of London's street traders.
In moving the first of the amendments, perhaps I should say by way of introduction that Part III of the London Local Authorities Act 1990 introduced a code regulating street trading for adoption by the individual London borough councils. The street traders originally petitioned against the Bill which eventually became the 1990 Act and, in consequence, some amendments were made to the code, although not all of the concerns of the street traders were fully met at that time. It was understood by the promoters and the street traders that the new regulatory code might have teething problems and the street traders were given to understand that the provisions would be amended if difficulties were identified when the new system was brought into force in the various boroughs.
The new system operates in the same way as the old one by providing that street trading may be carried out by a trader on a particular pitch only if he is granted a licence to do so by the relevant London borough. The new system has now been brought into force in several London boroughs, including the City of Westminster and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Since it has been in operation, street traders have identified several shortcomings in the system. The Bill provides an opportunity to remedy those matters. Clause 6 already makes some amendments to the street trading provisions of the 1990 Act to which I referred earlier.
Before the Bill was introduced, on 22nd May 1991 the street traders made written representations to the Bill's promoters explaining their points of concern. They are principally the three points contained in the amendments. They produced a paper of proposed

1025
amendments which would have put right those matters. A meeting was held between the street traders and the promoters and their respective parliamentary agents before the Bill was introduced. At that meeting the promoters undertook to consider the points. However, the three matters in question have not been dealt with in the Bill as prepared by the promoters.
A street trader in London cannot operate his pitch without a licence. That requirement is not being challenged. No street trader may be licensed to operate more than one pitch in the same borough, and many pitches have been run by the same family for several generations. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, wrote in an apposite and topical article headed "Something rotten on the fruit stall", which was published on 22nd March in The Times, of one such family, the Bensons, who work a fruit stall in the Horseferry Road. A decision by the licensing council not to grant or renew a licence, or to revoke a licence, is of the utmost importance to a street trader and his family because in most cases the street trading is their sole livelihood and source of income.
As one would expect, the general theme of the 1990 Act suggests that it was intended that an aggrieved person should always have a right of appeal against decisions of a local authority affecting his or her livelihood, to the Secretary of State where the decision raises broad issues of policy, or to the magistrates' court where the decision affects a particular case. There remain a few gaps where, presumably through inadvertence, there is no right of appeal. That is wrong. There should be a right of appeal, especially if the street trader has a case that his livelihood may be threatened or eliminated.
A street trading licence can be revoked by the council concerned on any one of the eight grounds set out in the 1990 Act. That Act provides a right of appeal to the magistrates' court if a licence is revoked on five of the eight grounds. It does not confer a right of appeal where the licence is revoked on the remaining three grounds. The grounds are that there is insufficient space in the street; that the trader has traded in prohibited goods; or that the trader has failed personally to avail himself fully of his licence.
In discussions between street traders and Westminster City Council, it was recognised on behalf of the promoters that the failure of the 1990 Act to confer rights of appeal on those grounds arose from a drafting error when the 1990 Act was prepared rather than as a deliberate policy. The Bill partly redresses the problem by providing a right of appeal to the magistrates' court for two of the three outstanding grounds. However, the Bill does not confer a right of appeal where a licence is revoked on the ground that, due to circumstances that have arisen since the granting of renewal of a licence, there is insufficient space in the street for the street trader in question. As they have gone seven-eighths of the way, the promoters might consider going a little further. There is no question of me dividing the House today. I am trying to explain the case as seen through the eyes of
1026
the street traders. There is a case for the promoters seriously to consider going a little further to deal with the problem to the satisfaction of the street traders.
In addition, the 1990 Act does not confer a right of appeal where the local authority fails to grant or renew a licence because it is not satisfied that there is sufficient space in this street for the trading in question. That is especially odd as there is a right of appeal to a magistrates' court where the licence is refused on similar grounds under Section 25(6) (a) of the 1990 Act. It is anomalous and wrong in principle that a street trader has no right of appeal against a failure to grant or renew his licence, or against the revocation of his licence, in the circumstances that I have mentioned. There may well be disputes in a particular case as to the facts which should be resolved on appeal to the magistrates' court or to the Secretary of State. It may be that a right of appeal would inconvenience some of the bureaucrats we seem to find from time to time in some, but not all, local authorities. For the street trader, it is his livelihood and that of his family which is at stake. On that basis, a case is made out for looking at the amendment with some sympathy. I beg to move.
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, I support the amendment. The 1990 Act is heavily regulatory. I am glad that the noble Lord has moved the amendment. It will improve the Act slightly. The amendments tabled fall into two important categories. They remedy a series of anomalies as to where there is or is not a right of appeal. I hope that they will be accepted as the legislation proceeds, merely because in natural justice the right of appeal which is widely granted in the 1990 Act should be granted in the other areas where it happens not to have been. I cannot but think that there was a misunderstanding at the time of the passage of the 1990 Bill about where rights of appeal had been created and where they had not.
The amendments contain another rather broader point to which I should like to draw attention. The amendment to Section 36 removes the need, in certain circumstance, for the personal attendance at the stall. The licensing authorities are anxious that stalls are not sub-let. That is a reasonable anxiety. I do not believe that anyone quarrels with that view. The stall holders do not quarrel with it. They do not want a great many sub-let stalls; but they want to be able to have members of their families operating their stall as though the principal was present and they want the people whom they employ to operate the stall as though the principal were present.
Those stores are very much family entities. It is unreasonable that the daughter, the wife or the grandmother is not able to operate the store as though she were the licence holder. There is no justification for that. The stores are also entrepreneurial. We think of them as being friendly relics of a nice London past, as indeed they are, and as a pleasant part of London's shopping. However, one must also remember that firms as substantial as Tesco and Marks & Spencer began as stores of exactly the same character and were family businesses. Therefore, we are talking about an activity which attracted people who have turned out to have great entrepreneurial capacity and have built, on

1027
a slender basis, most substantial businesses. We should not take action which will tend to make it more difficult to operate the stalls on family terms or entrepreneurial terms. We should want to encourage that.
There is a final point which bears some attention. The people who operate fruit and vegetable stalls, which are an important part of the whole, must begin their day extremely early. They get up often as early as three o'clock in the morning in order to buy the fruit and vegetables. By the time the stall is cleared away in the evening, after it has served fruit and vegetables to people who themselves were going home from work, it may well be eight o'clock at night. That is a 17-hour day. It is obviously unreasonable to expect them to work a 17-hour day and be in continuous personal attendance—after all, the stall holders are not junior hospital doctors.
I hope therefore that the amendment to Section 36 of the Act, which will set right the anomaly in the Act, will in due course be accepted and incorporated into legislation.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Dean, wants the House to deal with the first amendment and intends later to speak to the second amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, that is correct.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, at this stage I shall deal only with the first amendment. I too read the article written by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, and found it most entertaining and enjoyable. I thought that a great deal was inaccurate or that he did not understand the situation, but it made good reading. I hope today to correct the few errors in his article. First, the London Local Authorities Act 1990 did not introduce the control of street trading in London. That was governed by the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1947. Under the 1947 Act councils were allowed to control the types of goods sold on the stalls. That control was not introduced by the 1990 Act. The London Local Authorities Act 1990 strengthened the controls in so far as it specifically permitted councils to refuse to grant licences to new applicants on the grounds that a stall would be contiguous with the frontage of a shop; that is, right in front of a shop selling exactly the same goods.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, stated in his article that that should not be a deterrent. However, one must appreciate that the shop owner is paying high non-domestic rates plus rent and has many overheads. It would be unreasonable to allow someone to set up a cut-price operation selling exactly the same goods immediately in front of the shop. Therefore, the council believes that it is fair to have some kind of arrangement whereby the pitch will not be exactly outside—
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but I wish to point out that the Westminster City Council regards the streets
1028
adjoining that in which the stall is pitched as being equally concerned in the question of whether goods can be sold. It is not related merely to immediately in front but also right round the corner.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Of course, every application for a street trading licence is considered carefully by a number of members of the local authority who understand the area and its needs, and there are grounds for appeal. If there really was a case why has an appeal not been brought and why has it not been examined in more detail? I believe that the noble Lord's point is arguable. In his article the noble Lord stated:
"Shops can create their own trade, and win customers by the quality of their service as well as by the prices they charge".
That view overlooks the high rent and rates. However, I do not intend to spend my time dealing with that issue; I merely felt that it should be covered in order to set the record straight.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, in respect of Amendment No. 1. As it stands, the amendment would have the effect of extending the ground in the 1990 Act on which a street trader could appeal against the decision of a London authority to revoke or to vary a street trading licence. Traders would be granted a right of appeal if the decision were based on the authority's opinion that there was not enough space in the street—that is the particular issue about which we are talking—and that it would be causing undue interference or inconvenience to persons or vehicular traffic using the street. At present there is no right of appeal on those grounds but the noble Lord's amendment seeks to introduce such a right.
As the noble Lord said, there has been considerable movement on the part of the London authorities—the Bill is brought on behalf of all the London authorities, apart from the City Corporation—which have agreed to two of the grounds for appeal. The first is that the holder is trading in the class of articles which the authority has resolved under the Act not to allow to be traded in the street in question. That will be a ground for appeal and it is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, in his article. Therefore, the Bill will correct what he considered to be a previous injustice.
Secondly, there will be ground for appeal if the holder has not fully availed himself of a licence without reasonable excuse; that he has absented himself from the pitch for extended periods of time. I emphasise the phrase "extended periods of time" and apologise for debating the second amendment, which has been mentioned. The individual and personal licence does not mean that the individual must be physically and personally present for every moment. Of course, there are periods of illness or holidays to which every consideration is given. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, the licences are personalised and they belong to particular people. In some cases they have been in the family for generations.
When I was a member of Westminster City Council we considered street licences during the latter part of 1978. They related to people in Oxford Street; one

1029
outside Selfridge's and the other outside Bond Street Underground station. To my great disappointment, and after considering the applications carefully, we did not grant the licences although the applicants established that they had been running the businesses for up to 40 years. That appeared to me to be a nonsense and therefore I am pleased to see that now such people are being "legitimised", which perhaps is the only word one can use. I believed that allowing somebody to run a stall for 40 years and then refusing to grant a licence was a nonsense. Now such people are granted licences and that is good.
There is one ground which the London authorities consider they must resist, mainly in the interests of the street traders. There may be a misunderstanding about the matter but it is on the ground of insufficient space. If an authority allowed a stall holder to appeal on that ground there could be a delay in the process of street works. Instead of allowing the trader to continue to trade until the last possible moment before the street works begin the authority might now consider that it must give him immediate notice to cease trading. If the authority allows him to continue to trade until the last moment and then he appeals there will be a delay in the essential street work.
There was a recent example of that on the corner of Carlisle Place and Buckingham Palace Road which required the revocation of the licences. The prospect of the redevelopment was known far in advance but the start date kept being deferred. As there was no right of appeal Westminster City Council was able to delay revoking the licences until the last possible moment. However, if there had been a right of appeal the council would have been forced to revoke the licences much earlier in order to avoid the possibility of public safety being put at risk while the appeal process was pursued.
Therefore, it would not be in the interests of the stall holders if the councils had to give them notice and take away the licences much earlier than necessary.
The councils believe that it is in the traders' interests to be able to carry on their business for the optimum period of time, right up to the moment at which the site is needed for the works, and that the traders should be able to recommence their business almost immediately after the work has been completed. Therefore, I believe that there is a lack of understanding as regards this matter. The London authorities feel, on the grounds of safety, that they cannot agree to that provision. Having heard what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, the purpose of Clause 6 is to remedy certain deficiencies which have become apparent with experience in the the street trading provisions of the London Local Authorities Act 1990. Much of what is in the clause has been agreed with representatives of the street traders. However, as is apparent from the debate on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, there are still matters on which the promoters and the street traders are not wholly in accord. The Government hope that the main
1030
differences can be resolved amicably. However, if that does not prove to be possible, the street traders will have the opportunity to have their case considered and to test the promoters' arguments before the appropriate Committee in another place.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I understand the Minister's noncommittal reply in the circumstances. In moving the amendment, I said that I do not intend to press it. I am merely trying to put to the House the case on behalf of the street traders. I am not totally convinced by the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that the London authorities have it strictly correct. I do not believe that it is impossible for the London local authorities and the street traders to get together to discuss their differences before the Bill proceeds to another place. I believe that legislation could be enacted to meet the situation described by the noble Baroness.
In my opening remarks, I said that the promoters have gone a long way towards meeting the requests of the street traders. I hope that the door is not closed to further discussions.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The point which I failed to make, which is quite important, is that all the other grounds for appeal are related to the individual so that it is a case of an individual having a right of appeal against something affecting the individual. I do not know whether this argument applies more to the next amendment; but if it is a case of appealing against someone else having a right, that would be a different basis.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I realise that the border has become rather blurred as regards both the amendments. I believe that to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, has shot my fox as regards the second amendment. However, I hope that the street traders and local authorities take note of the points raised in the debate. I have no doubt that the points that I have raised will be raised again in another place on behalf of the street traders. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert—
("(6A) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (7) of section 32 of the Act of 1990 (Fees and charges)—
"(7A) A notice under subsection(7)(a) above shall be accompanied by a statement showing how the charges have been computed; and any licence holder or body representative of licence holders may request the borough council to supply such further information or explanation with regard to the proposed charges as the licence holder or body may reasonably require in order to ascertain whether the proposed charges are reasonable and have been computed in accordance with the provisions of this section."
(6B) In section 32(9) of the Act of 1990 (Fees and charges), at the end, there shall be inserted the words "and to comply with any request made under subsection (7A) above".
(6C) The following section shall be inserted under section 36 of the Act of 1990 (Employment of Assistants)—
"Meaning of trading personally
36A.—(1) For the purposes of this Act a person holding a street trading licence shall not be taken to have personally failed fully to avail himself of his licence by reason only of the fact that the street trading authorised by the licence is conducted in his absence if it is conducted on his behalf, and under his supervision and control, by a relative of his or an assistant employed by him in accordance with section 36 (Employment of assistants) of this Act.
(2) In this section a person is a relative of a licence holder if that person is treated as being related to the licence holder for the purposes of section 26 (Succession) of this Act."")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I said in my closing remarks on the previous amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, have somewhat covered the ground of this amendment; but that is understandable because they are interdependent.
The second amendment relates to fees and charges. The 1990 Act enables each London borough council to recover from licensed street traders fees and charges to cover the costs incurred by the council in connection with street trading. Licensed street traders and bodies representing them have a right under the Act to appeal to the Secretary of State if they are aggrieved by the amount of fees charged or levied. However, the Act does not give them the right to obtain from a local authority particulars of the way in which the fees have been calculated. Without that power, the right of appeal is ineffective. The street traders should be entitled to satisfy themselves that the fees and charges are being levied fairly.
It is in the interests of both parties—the local authorities as well as the street traders—that proper information should be provided on fees and charges in order to prevent unnecessary appeals. However, the street traders have found that some London boroughs —and I repeat some but not all London boroughs —are reluctant to provide them with proper information about fees and charges.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, referred briefly to the requirement on street traders to trade personally. Before the 1990 Act was passed, there had been a few cases of persons obtaining a licence for a pitch or sometimes several pitches which they did not operate personally but sub-let to others. That practice was opposed by local authorities and by the bona fide street traders, and it is the agreed policy of the 1990 Act that a street trader can only hold only one licence for one pitch in a borough and that the pitch must be operated by him.
The 1990 Act requires a licensed street trader to trade "personally" and "to avail himself fully of his licence". Failure to do so is a ground for revocation of the licence. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent street traders sub-letting or forming cartels. It was never intended that a street trader should have to perform all the tasks connected with his business on his own. Indeed, the 1990 Act permits him to employ an assistant. Unfortunately, there is confusion about what is meant by the requirement to trade "personally". London boroughs are now suggesting that street traders will be in breach of this requirement if they fail to attend at their stall in person for most (if not all) of each trading day. The noble Lord, Lord
1032
Rees-Mogg, referred to the possibility of a 17-hour day. That could be a reality and is not necessarily a figment of anybody's imagination. Some boroughs have instructed inspectors to make spot checks at stalls and if they find that the licensed trader is not there, but only a member of his family in his place, revocation of the licence is threatened and may well be carried out.
That is oppressive and unreasonable and is not within the spirit of what was intended by the requirement in the 1990 Act that traders should trade personally. Many important and time consuming aspects of a trader's business—for example, purchasing goods and attending to book-keeping—necessitate the licence holder being absent from his stall for considerable periods of time. In practice a responsible trader will make provision during his absence by leaving his wife or other member of his family or an employee in charge of the stall. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, made the point that a stall holder may make a start at 3 o'clock in the morning and not finish his work until early evening. That is an extremely long day. We ask that some of those practices should be discouraged by the insertion of the amendment.
It is of very great importance to licence holders that there should be no further doubt as to the meaning of the requirement to trade "personally" since breach of that requirement renders them liable to have their licence revoked. This amendment would make it clear that a licence holder should not be taken to be in breach of the requirement to trade personally by reason only of the fact that the street trading authorised by the licence is conducted in his absence if it is conducted on his behalf, and under his supervision and control, by a relative of his or by an assistant employed by him in accordance with the 1990 Act.
It is another case where we think that the London boroughs may well wish to take another look at the matter. As I said when speaking to the previous amendment, and before the noble Baroness speaks on behalf of the promoters, I should stress that I have no intention of dividing the House: I am just making the case that we think is reasonable and one that it may well be worth the promoters considering. I am sure that the case will be argued much more strongly, and may well force a Division, in the other place. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the amendment falls within the two categories that I mentioned. The first bit is about information as regards charges. Under Section 32 of the 1990 Act, authorities are given the power to charge fees for the grant or renewal of street trading licences at a level sufficient to cover the reasonable administrative and other costs incurred in the discharge of their functions in relation to street trading.
The amendments would impose a statutory duty on authorities to provide a breakdown of the expenses taken into account in setting the level of fees and,
"to supply such further information or explanation with regard to the proposed charges as the licence holder or body [representative of licence holders] may reasonably require in order to ascertain whether the proposed charges are reasonable".

1033
I am assured that the boroughs do not object to the principle of providing a statement of how charges are computed. In fact, boroughs mostly do that as a matter of course. Further, when the street traders or their associations ask for additional information, no reasonable request would or should be refused. But the difficulty with the amendments is that they would impose a widely-drawn statutory duty on councils to provide information on the breakdown of fees charged. The worry is that if councils were put under such a duty, they might be swamped with requests for information, not only from associations representing street traders but also from hundreds of individual licence holders. That would make for administrative chaos and the cost would ultimately fall on the traders through higher licence fees.
Clearly a balance needs to be struck between the traders' right to information and the administrative efficiency of the system. I am sure that the traders would not want to produce such a powerful, bureaucratic assessment procedure that would greatly increase their costs. The boroughs submit that the present arrangements satisfy the balance, because the boroughs provide street traders with a breakdown of costs and accede to reasonable requests for further information. The imposition of a statutory duty would add an extra layer of bureaucracy and could be administratively chaotic and expensive. For that reason, the promoters seek to resist the amendment. However, it is a matter upon which there could be further discussion and there might be some mutually acceptable resolution; for example, a code of practice for the boroughs might be a way round the issue.
I find the second part of the amendment rather surprising as it comes from the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. I say that because he has told us how very personal it is for someone to have a stall. The whole heart of street trading provisions in the capital relies on the personal trading element. Under the 1990 Act a street trader may have his licence revoked if he:
"has without reasonable excuse personally failed fully to avail himself of his licence".
That is the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. Further, an applicant may have his application for a street trading licence turned down for failure to fully avail himself of a previous street trading licence. In practice, that means that a street trader is expected to trade personally from his or her pitch, except in the case of unavoidable temporary absences—for example, sickness, holidays or purchasing stock. Indeed, there would be many reasons why someone would not have to be there. It is a very fair case to state that no one could be there for the number of hours that we have had quoted. I believe that that is a subject for discussion. After all, in most forms of employment now, people are only expected to work for a limited number of hours. However, the concept ensures that when a breach of the terms of the licence occurs, the person responsible is readily identifiable. That is another reason why it is especially important to have one particular trader and to have him be responsible.
1034
I would be concerned if it became too easy to run multiple stalls. That is the way that the illegal umbrella trade now operates in Oxford Street—under one entrepreneur. That is not to the advantage of any of those people. I understand that street traders value the personal element of the licence and the fact that they have a right to pass it on to a nominated relative. That is a little like the New York taxi drivers: once you have the licence, it can stay in the same line forever.
The amendment would insert a watered-down definition of trading personally into the 1990 Act. It would allow the holder of a licence to be absent for an indefinite period. In effect, it would allow a licence holder to sublet his or her pitch. That is a practice that the concept of personal trading was introduced to eradicate. The promoters are determined to resist the amendment because it would undermine the whole basis of the street trading provisions of the 1990 Act.
Many of the street trading provisions of the 1990 Act would be rendered superfluous if the concept of personal trading were removed. As I understand, the street traders themselves do not wish to remove the element of personal trading; indeed, that is something they value highly. For example, there is no point in having the applicant supply photographs if he is never going to be there. The photograph is to make him identifiable as the licence holder. If the licence holder does not have to be on a pitch, there is no need for the prohibition in the 1990 Act on limited companies or partnerships holding licences.
Finally, if the amendment were passed, there would be no need for the prohibition on holding pitches in different licensed streets. The thinking behind the prohibition is that the licence holder could not personally work pitches in two different markets or two different licensed streets at the same time. However, that is not to say that a member of his family could not have his or her own licence in his or her own right. As regards the earlier debate, and as I would have said in my summing up, this is where the promoters believe that it is right for local authorities to determine who should have the licences. If rights of appeal became standard practice for anyone who did not get a licence because someone else was granted the licence, it could hold up the whole licensing system and keep pitches empty. Ultimately, it would be the magistrates' court rather than the local authority that would determine who should have the licence. Clearly, that is something to be avoided.
Licence holders have a statutory right to pass the pitches on to a nominated relative. The inheritance provisions were widened in the 1990 Act at the request of the traders to permit retirement on age or health grounds rather than only on death, as was the case previously. One of the intentions behind that was to strengthen the personal trading aspect by allowing a sick licence holder to retire and pass on his or her licence rather than being forced to continue working when he or she was unfit to do so.
Section 36 of the 1990 Act makes the position clear. A licence holder can employ someone to assist him but not to replace him. The intention of the Act is abundantly plain in that it refers to the "temporary absence" of the licence holder. The street trading

1035
provisions of the 1990 Act are founded on the concept of personal trading. Therefore, the promoters feel it most important to resist the amendment which would undermine the whole concept of street trading.
1 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness has replied at length on behalf of the promoters. However, I think that she reacted excessively when she more or less intimated that if the amendment were accepted, it would open the floodgates to a multiplicity of traders on sites in London. My points did not concern that issue in particular. I do not think the issue the noble Baroness referred to is a widespread practice. Some local authorities possibly deal with this issue in a different way to others. I am a Mancunian and I know a lot about the markets in Manchester. I have also become familiar with markets in other areas where I have lived throughout my political career. I have shopped on dozens of occasions in the large indoor market in Leeds where the first Mr. Marks of the Marks & Spencer chain pitched his first stall, which was a penny bazaar. The spot is now commemorated by a miniature Big Ben.
I am fully aware that some racketeers have obtained a multiplicity of sites in markets in the inner areas of cities such as Manchester and Leeds and in parts of London. I know of no registered trader who would support such racketeering. The registered traders want individual sites. I am an ex-local government man myself and I am of the opinion that the proper licensing authority in this matter is the local authority.
I have sought through the amendments to allow for further discussions to resolve some points which are capable of being resolved where there is perhaps unnecessary friction at present. There may be excessive officialdom in some areas that does not exist in other areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referred to the point that some traders may be forced out of particular streets earlier than is necessary. I do not think that is on the cards because most of the areas of dispute we have mentioned are not unresolvable. I believe those matters can be reconsidered.
The registered market traders I have known are a credit to the community. They are a longstanding feature of their areas and they add character to their communities. I hope that with the aid of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, I have at least shown there may be room for further thought on this subject. I hope the local authorities which have sponsored the Bill will not turn their backs on further discussions with the street traders of London. I repeat I am talking about the bona fide street traders of London. I express my appreciation once again to the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, for his help in this matter. I also thank those noble Lords who have stayed to listen to this debate. Some may consider this is a small point, but it has great implications for cities such as London, as no one wants street traders to be dumped all over the place with garbage being left all around. Most bona fide street traders obey the law and are a credit to their
1036
areas. I believe the noble Baroness has indicated that the door is not closed to further talks. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
I believe it is important to clarify a couple of points and place them on the record for the benefit of anyone in the other place who wishes to consider this matter further. The promoters of the Bill do not have closed minds but they consider that on some points they have unbeatable arguments. The street traders would be well advised to look carefully at those arguments and that is why I have referred to them in such detail. In particular, it is important that the street traders themselves distinguish between appeals that an individual makes as regards his own rights and appeals that other individuals could make simply because they are trying to jump the queue and take someone else's place.
The street traders would be unwise to allow any measure to be passed into law which could slow the whole process down and which could mean that in the end a less suitable trader obtains a licence after a considerable delay. In the meantime no one has a licence. I am thinking particularly of someone who lodges an appeal against a licence that was refused on safety grounds because there were already too many stalls in a particular spot. The person who is refused the licence could appeal against that refusal on the grounds that he thought he should have the licence rather than the person who obtained it. That could throw the whole licensing process into disarray.
I know that the personal trading element is very important to the promoters of the Bill. My personal view is that the noble Lord made a valid point as regards the hours and conditions of market traders. It would be interesting if the promoters discussed with the boroughs some kind of code of practice. No doubt in some cases no one is being unreasonable but there may be other cases where people are acting unreasonably. A code of practice might be a good measure to establish.
A distinction needs to be made between a complete market and an isolated pitch. The street traders and the promoters are well aware of that distinction. We do not have such street markets in Australia and I think highly of the British street markets. I often visit the street market that is situated near my surgery. The individual traders that I know do a good job and are greatly appreciated by the public. I thank the noble Lord for withdrawing his amendments.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Kosovo: Human Rights
1.7 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek to increase international pressure on Serbia to restore basic human rights

1037
and freedoms to the Albanian speaking majority of the former autonomous Yugoslav Province of Kosovo, illegally occupied by Serbia since 1990.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it seems to have become a tradition for human rights issues to be raised as Unstarred Questions at the end of the day, and in my case this is the second time that I have asked an Unstarred Question that has constituted the final debate of the Session. I am sure that noble Lords have exercised their wit as regards the day of the month this debate falls upon. I wish that the situation I am about to describe were not true and it was just an April Fool's Day fantasy. However, I am sorry to say that it is only too true and unpleasant.
We have heard harrowing accounts in previous Unstarred Questions in recent months. We have heard about people in Nagorno-Karabakh, Southern Sudan, East Timor and Malawi. I understand that in May my noble friend Lord Ennals will raise the issue of Tibet—also as an Unstarred Question. Sadly, that is nowhere near the end of the list. Today we are again discussing a people whose basic rights have been trampled on for centuries. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, will outline in greater detail some of the history of the Serbian domination of the Albanian people of Kosovo, and beyond Kosovo, over the centuries.
The Albanians are descended from the ancient people of Illyria who occupied the Adriatic coast just north of Greece from Bronze Age times, or even earlier, and also in ancient times a wide swathe of mountainous hinterland extending well into what is now Serbia. They managed to withstand the Greeks but not the Romans and they had to give up some of their lands permanently to the Serbs in the Middle Ages. The region around Nis which used to be Albanian is now permanently part of Serbia and is settled by Serbs. Then came the Turks who in 1389 defeated the Serbs in the battle of Kosovo. Because of the bravery of their army in that battle, that date is revered in Serbia, I think rather as we remember the bravery of our troops at Dunkirk. After that, the Turks dominated the whole of the southern Balkans for several centuries until early this century, and they bequeathed their religion, Islam, to the Albanian people.
I am raising the question of the people of Kosovo, 90 per cent. of whom speak Albanian and are ethnically identical to the Albanians of Albania itself, because I was privileged to be asked to join a group of parliamentarians going to that country for three days in mid-February this year by the Congressional Human Rights Foundation, an organisation based in Washington, akin to our parliamentary human rights group —but considerably better funded I may say!
The international arm of that organisation is the Interparliamentary Network for Human Rights, IPN, which has members from 106 countries. Its director is Paul Meek, an American citizen but one with very much a world view. IPN had become concerned over the many reports of human rights abuses in Kosovo by Serbia, and it was felt that a mission consisting of parliamentarians from several countries should hear
1038
eye-witness accounts of these abuses so as to give the situation wider publicity. The group consisted of seven members: myself from the United Kingdom, and MPs from the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, France and Canada.
Since the end of the First World War Kosovo has been part of Yugoslavia despite the fact that there was then a chance for all ethnic Albanians to be united. However, the powers that there were at the time, which included Britain, acquiesced with Serbian demands—Serbia was far the strongest influence at that point in the Balkans—so that Albania was allowed to include only 2 million out of the total of 5 million Albanians who lived in the region. The Kosovars had a very bad time under the Serbs in the inter-war years, with coerced deportation, especially to Turkey.
Under Tito's Yugoslavia they gained a degree of autonomy, particularly after the 1974 constitution when it became a fully autonomous region. However, they were always the poor relation of the rest of Yugoslavia, with the lowest income and the worst health statistics in the federation. The situation got steadily worse after the death of Tito, and finally after the break-up of Yugoslavia the last vestiges of autonomy were removed from them, and Kosovo was illegally annexed by Serbia in 1990. The Parliament of Kosovo was suspended, as were the government (which have now gone into internal exile) as well as the administration, the judiciary and the presidency. There were big demonstrations against this which were put down harshly, with much bloodshed and loss of life.
A year or so after that, elections were held by the Albanian population who voted almost unanimously to declare independence from Serbia. It is not surprising, therefore, that the population boycotted the elections to the Serbian Assembly at the end of last year. Earlier, in alternative elections, under the noses but against the will of the Serbs, the government in exile were re-elected, which the Serbian minority of 10 per cent. boycotted. The president of the government in exile is Dr. Ibrahim Rugova, a mild-mannered and scholarly writer who speaks five languages, two of which are English and French, so we were able to have useful conversations with him as well as with the other members of his government in exile.
The Serbians would now appear to be systematically undermining the economy of Kosovo as well as its social and educational institutions. For instance, all education in the Albanian language has been stopped. School and university teachers who objected to that were all dismissed from their jobs, as were nearly all hospital doctors. These have been replaced by Serbian doctors who are more junior and less well-qualified. The public health system has fallen apart; immunisation levels have plummeted, and we were told that poliomyelitis, which had virtually disappeared, is now beginning to reappear.
We were shown a dramatic example of how the Albanian-speaking population is coping with the shut-down of the schools. In a large private house a secondary school of 1,300 students was being taught in three shifts. Conditions were really basic. All classes

1039
had to sit on the floor but the atmosphere was attentive and good. I think that it would have made any British head teacher very proud. The University of Pristina is still functioning with 23,000 students, although the staff are not being paid and they had no access to the university buildings. Again, the teaching was done in private houses.
Most public enterprises had been closed, with the dismissal of some 100,000 workers. Because families are large this means that nearly half the population is destitute, and if it were not for a widespread network of mutual assistance, greatly helped by remittances from abroad, there would be widespread starvation. Incidentally, all overseas Kosovars are expected to contribute at least 10 per cent. of their earnings, and to remit them to help their countrymen at home to survive.
As if this were not enough, we were given verbatim accounts of frequent beatings and deaths as a result of harassment of the population by the Serbian militia. A common habit of the militia is to demand entry to private houses on the pretext of searching for arms. The inhabitants are treated roughly and severely beaten if they resist. We were told that 700,000 people, nearly half the population, had at some point been interrogated by the police. Our delegation was stopped on two occasions by militia armed with sub-machine guns, and valuable time was lost while they scrutinised passports and questioned us about the purpose of our visit.
There is not enough time to describe all our findings. These are summarised in a mission report which I have circulated to most of the noble Lords who will be speaking, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, who only today I found was on the list of speakers. I hope that the noble Baroness who is to reply had her copy from her right honourable friend Douglas Hogg, to whom I reported shortly after my return.
Before summing up, I should mention that we met members of the CCSE, (Conference for Co-operation and Security in Europe) monitoring team in Kosovo. These are former diplomats or senior military staff officers; the ones we met came from Canada, Greece and Sweden. Their opinion was that, although there were undoubted human rights abuses occurring, there was not an immediate likelihood of escalation to overt conflict since both sides had too much to lose, and we saw nothing to make us disagree with that view, at least for the moment. We felt that the presence of the monitors was probably making the Serbs tread more carefully, and while there is little doubt that Serbia wishes to make Kosovo an integral part of its territory and to get rid of the resident Albanian population, ethnic cleansing was not being carried out on the Bosnian scale. In fact, it has been quite difficult to persuade the Serbs to settle in Kosovo; there has been a net emigration of Serbs from that territory. The policy seemed rather to make Kosovo so unpleasant to live in, through economic measures and terror, that the Albanian population will emigrate. In fact, some 300,000 are now living and working overseas, but
1040
most have the intention of returning when the situation improves. Meanwhile, their remittances home are helping to sustain the resident population.
While there is nothing specific that Her Majesty's Government can do directly, I think it would be very encouraging to the people of Kosovo if the noble Baroness can state in the strongest possible terms that the Government condemn the unconstitutional and arbitrary actions of Serbia in Kosovo. They are well outside the requirements of the Geneva convention on the treatment of the civilian population by an occupying power. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether, as a high contracting party to the Geneva conventions, we can formally indict Yugoslavia, which was also a contracting party, for transgressing the convention. (Yugoslavia of course is now represented by the remaining two federal republics, Serbia and Montenegro.)
On many occasions in your Lordships' House we have discussed the circumstances in which the rule of non-interference in the affairs of another state might no longer be appropriate. In the case of Kosovo that scarcely applies since the Kosovars have never acknowledged that they should become part of Serbia. As I mentioned, 87 per cent. of the Albanian population voted for independence in 1991. I believe that we bear some responsibility historically since we were a party to the several treaties which, I believe mistakenly, fixed the boundaries of Yugoslavia after the First World War so that a majority of Albanians live outside Albania.
In conclusion, I ask the noble Baroness to state on behalf of the Government their opinion of Serbia's behaviour in this part of the former Yugoslavia. Do they agree that those actions are completely at variance with the letter and spirit of the United Nation's Declaration on Human Rights; and will they condemn them as strongly as possible? By making such a statement and linking it with a call for renewed vigilance and strengthening of the sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro—as I understand in reading the papers today that we are attempting to do—we might encourage more moderate policies to prevail in Belgrade not only towards Kosovo but possibly towards Bosnia too.
1.22 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am interested in one philosophy that has emerged and a question that seems forever to be asked of me. Why was it that those who sought to break up communism in Eastern Europe and Asia Minor did not think hard about what they were going to put in its place? In its place is a return almost to the Dark Ages; communism replaced by tribalism. Tribalism with no form of institutional democracy is as dangerous as anything that one can find in the world. We are talking about a part of the world where tribalism has spread. It is rife and dangerous.
A little while ago, not fully understanding the history of that part of the world, I found myself with a creative and highly intelligent young girl, half French and half English, who was having to study the history of the First World War for the GCSE. She

1041
asked me how that war began. I had to admit that I was not sure. I had never studied it in history; it was assumed at my school that one knew all about it automatically because one had been told by one's father or grandfather. She asked me what an entente cordiale was. I came rapidly to the Library of your Lordships' House and that evening was able to give a modest lecture.
However, things began to worry me. I became interested in those parts of the world when I was considering what commercial opportunities might be released for the United Kingdom following what I describe as the widespread break-up. There were many opportunities but information was scarce because communist regimes had denied that information to the outside world. Suddenly I experienced a fear that perhaps the histories of the outbreak of the First World War and the Second World War were evolving, the first due to the break-up of an empire and the second due in part to territorial ambitions and denial of human rights.
I was in Albania recently. I shall refer to the visit later. I was looking for a commercial interest and may well have one. Obviously the Albanians spoke about Kosovo. I did not realise that 90 per cent. of the population were of Albanian origin. Nor did I fully understand its history, not knowing the country or its geography. However, it was explained to me that after the second Balkan war, Russia and France were on the side of Serbia. Having territorial ambitions over Bosnia, Serbia was to some extent appeased by receiving Bosnia. But the area has always been an Albanian territory. One looks to its principal city, Prizren. Noble Lords may remember Aubrey Herbert and Edith Durham better than I do. They wrote that Prizren had had an Albanian population for more than 100 years.
What are the human rights to which we refer? What has happened even in the weeks since I was there? The report to which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred, is true; but the position is even worse. The ratchet is beginning to tighten. First, one admires to some extent the restraint of the Albanian-speaking Kosovars that there they are, suffering oppression and having thrust upon them some form of latter day gauleiter called Mr. Arkan. He is known for having perpetrated "war crimes". He has been accused of the greatest atrocities relating to Bosnia. He is put in charge of a city which historically is Albanian. He has absolute power. I am told that he is wanted by six or seven European police forces for various crimes. That is not likely to make a population feel very secure. If one combines with that the removal from public life of not only members of the education profession and doctors but all Albanian-speaking Kosovars, one thinks back to the 1930s and the Jewish population of Germany, when the academics were gradually and systematically encouraged to move on. When the Albanian Kosovars move out into Skopje or the Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, they are stopped, searched and all their valuables taken away from them. They are sent out destitute.
1042
One recalls further: the knock on the door is there. I believe that there are more police in the streets than in any other part of the Balkans. Those are all worrying signs if no resistance is shown to them. We are talking about territorial ambitions and the potential for gain in the self-interest of Serbia which those like myself, who have only recently studied the history, can understand but cannot respect or support. We would do anything that we could to stop it continuing.
What will happen as tribalism spreads? Suddenly we find the spectre emerging that it is now a Christian-Moslem conflict. People are saying that they are trying to support moves against fascism. Two thousand Afghans who have come down from the mountains—they are great fighters—are joining up unpaid to fight the Serbs. The Hezbollah Iranians are coming down to fight saying that again the Moslem world is being oppressed and fought by Christians. It is not a Christian-Moslem war. But if we are not careful those excuses and reasons come to the fore. There is no doubt that oppression is rife and is greater than many of us have considered.
What can the United Kingdom do? When I go abroad I often think that we are respected and regarded out of all proportion to our economy. We have a position on the Security Council which might not be justified if we were to be re-evaluated today. It is justified in part because of our past, because of our sensitivity and honesty, and because when we impose sanctions we believe that everyone should keep them. Our standards are higher. At present sanctions are being busted by many countries which may follow only in word what the laws and regulations say.
Do we have any interest in the Balkans? We had the first Balkan war and the second Balkan war. Could there be a third Balkan war? From meeting people of all nationalities my assessment is that if nothing is done we shall see matters spread. Kosovo could be a major firing point. The Albanians, whom I have studied, are brave people. They have been some of the greatest soldiers throughout history in that part of the world. I believe that 200 of the leading generals in the Ottoman Empire were Albanian. They have not yet fought because they have had internal oppression.
I learnt that one way in which to unite a country, if one is totally undemocratic, is that one creates a tremendous fear of the regime and one creates an enemy to cause the people to have fear as well. I believe to some extent that has happened in Albania. What the people are looking for now is peace, security and stability; but they see their cousins and friends savagely oppressed. It would not surprise me if, before long, they gave in to the natural desire to retaliate. They are brave, strong people. If we study their history, we find that of those who lived outside the towns, 75 per cent. never died of natural causes because of vendettas and struggles. I would rather have the Albanians as allies than as enemies, for I believe that they are brave, pragmatic people. If they start to move and react, the fire will spread.
When we speak of Kosovo, we are also speaking of Bosnia and the whole of the Balkans, as well as the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. We are speaking of

1043
the Christianity promoted by St. Paul when he said: "Come over to Macedonia and help us". We are speaking of the development of the Moslem religion and all the religions that have been oppressed over time. That is a power keg. It gives everyone who wants it an excuse to do something and they can easily find a reason.
What can the British do? Do we have any interest, other than the prevention of exploitation or the preservation of human rights? I think we do; we have a greater interest in the future of the Balkans than many of us believe. We have to ask why, strategically, it is important, but does it have any commercial opportunity? Ultimately, I believe that most empires were extended because of commercial interests. Thus I come to Albania itself, a country that fascinated me when I went there; remarkable people. I thought that they would appear depressed and oppressed. Yes, the problems of the breakdown of the structure of communism had left infrastructure difficulties, but it is a country which can feed itself and survive the winter and does not have to worry about food, other than organisation. Many of us have not appreciated that it is a country which has considerable mineral wealth. That is something I have been seeking to work with them on and I therefore declare an interest.
Albania also has another asset. Why are we not more enthusiastic about Albania at present? We do not have a big delegation there, only one part-time man. I remind the Minister of something that happened after the first Balkan war when an Albanian delegation came to see Lord Curzon to try to encourage support for an independent Albania. Lord Curzon received the delegation standing up. I believe that means that one does not intend to spend a long time with the visitor. The head of the Albanian delegation—a reasonable and very intelligent man—was asked by Lord Curzon: "What is of significance about Albania?" The leader of the delegation said: "My Lord, Albania has large quantities of oil". "Take a chair, please", said Lord Curzon.
I know that when the Minister for Overseas Development goes to Albania, following the visit of the Pope, she will be offered a friendly welcome and a comfortable chair by a very competent and pragmatic president whom I had the privilege of meeting.
I believe that we should show greater interest in Albania and that part of the world than at present. We should resist any attempt by Serbia in any area to increase its territorial gains, raise issues of great strength, not simply for human rights but for the interests of stability in the region and to prevent that awful nightmare of a major war emerging.
1.35 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for having this timely and important debate. The insane tragedy in the former Yugoslavia is the result of the fusion of two ingredients: first, history, and, secondly, psychiatry. I shall start with a brief look at the contribution that history has made to the present conflict and go on to describe how a
1044
synthesis of dubious psychiatric theories with fascist politics has caused an already difficult situation to erupt into the conflagration we see today.
June 28th 1914 saw the successful culmination of a plan to assassinate the Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz-Ferdinand. One of those who rejoiced at that event was Vasa Cubrilovic, a Serbian nationalist and co-conspirator, even at the age of 17, and later to become a leading exponent of the idea of a Greater Serbia.
Cubrilovic's malevolent contribution to the history of the region included a paper delivered to the Serbian Cultural Club on 7th March 1937. In the memorandum he referred to "the Albanian problem", a chilling parallel with Hitler's concurrent rhetoric about "the Jewish problem". He referred to an area as having been "radically cleared of Albanians". The word "radical" has to do with roots; we can assume that he meant by this at the very least that those Albanians had been uprooted. He further applauded the historical Turkish customs of the Sheriat, according to which victory in war and the occupation of a country confers the right to the lives and properties of the subject inhabitants. In 1937 he said:
"At a time when Germany can expel tens of thousands of Jews and Russia can shift millions of people from one part of the continent to another, the shifting of a few thousand Albanians will not lead to the outbreak of a world war".
Noble Lords may feel that this is all in the past, but Vasa Cubrilovic lived until 1990 and his ideas are reflected in a continuous flow of policy from long before that day in June 1914 until the present day.
That callousness, that utter disregard for the rights that we take for granted are the well spring of the current ethnic cleansing campaign by Serbia and the Serbians in other republics. In fact, I wish that we did not automatically use this media-friendly term, "ethnic cleansing". It has been used so often that it has almost lost all meaning. It would be far more truthful to refer each time to wholesale destruction of cultures, to large-scale rape of female populations, to murder on a vast scale and the forced removal of whole communities to camps where a slow death by starvation and disease is inflicted.
Cubrilovic reappears in 1944 presenting a new project to the newly-emerging regime of President Tito, entitled: The Minority Problem in the New Yugoslavia. One only has to read a little of this and other Serbian nationalist writings to see that the horror and terror of the past three years are only an intensification of a programme that has been in place for well over a hundred years.
The situation in Kosovo at the moment is one of intensifying pressure. The Serbs, while only making up about 8 per cent. of the population of Kosovo, are completely in control. They control just about everything and above all they have guns which the Albanians, the Kosovars, do not.
The Kosovan reaction to the pressure is to adopt a policy of non-violent passive resistance. That is not particularly a national characteristic. Community leaders have been working successfully in recent years to stop the tradition referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, of blood feuds and vendettas, which have in the past been a strong cultural pattern.

1045
The reluctance to retaliate is born of the knowledge that that is exactly what the Serbs want, so they have an excuse for the sort of wholesale butchery that has occurred in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The schools have been closed to all teaching in Albanian, the mother tongue of 90 per cent. of the population. The one university has also been closed. The Kosovars have set up a parallel voluntary state with an administration and an education system which uses private homes and empty buildings for schools. A voluntary income tax of 3 per cent. for Kosovars abroad and 6 per cent. for those in Kosovo pays the teachers' salaries, among other things. I am not sure what the exact figure is, but it is obviously a major contribution of remittances from emigrant Kosovars.
I turn to the other factor in the Yugoslav equation. I should like to describe the role that psychiatrists have played in fomenting and directing the carnage. It takes two forms: first, manipulating the emotions of the Serbian population; and secondly, analysing the non-Serbian cultures in order to develop a psychology of terror. That was very clearly described in a recent article by Linda Grant in the Daily Telegraph. First, the Serb forces overrun an area; they then stage a series of public rapes and other humiliations of the female population. As a result, the community as a whole feels unclean and tainted, so when another officer arrives with the keys to some buses the Moslem population is only too willing to leave the area. Their destination is, of course, a camp some way away from their home area where the rapes and other forms of mistreatment begin again in earnest.
Let us look at recent history to examine the role played by psychiatrists. In the aftermath of the Tito era, Serbian nationalism came to fill the vacuum left by that powerful communist leader and war hero. According to an article in the French magazine L'Express, in 1986 Debrica Cosic, another war hero, and several other academics published what they called the "Memorandum". It was a 20-page booklet which to some extent is comparable to Hitler's Mein Kampf. It is a statement of intention describing how to organise a greater Serbia. Cosic has been president of the Yugoslav Federation (Serbia and Montenegro) since May 1992.
Milosevic, who was one of the leaders of the Communist Party, also decided to play the nationalist card, defending the Serbian minority in Kosovo during incidents with the people there and rose to power on an anti-Albanian platform. The man who lit the fuse was Jovan Raskovic, a friend of Cosic and a politician who worked as a psychiatrist. Boris Zmijanovic, a professional colleague, said of him:
"He was a practising psychiatrist who defended anti-psychiatry in public but used electro-shock and other sadistic psychotherapeutic methods with particular pleasure in the case of Croatians, especially Croatian women".
He used meaningless psychiatric jargon to justify the rousing of the Serbian population of Bosnia. For example, he described the Moslems as anal erotic personalities, who like to amass wealth. About the Serbs, he said that they were the only Oedipal people who had overcome the phase of primary narcissism
1046
and dared to kill their father. He said that the Serbs alone had a feeling for authority and therefore must exercise it over the other Yugoslavian people. It is clearly the psychiatrists who are mad. It is said that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. In this case, mad psychiatrists have incited the people to madness.
The theories developed in Raskovic's book A Mad Country were taken up by the newspapers and television as part of a media campaign in which Raskovic was presented as the great scientist and psychiatrist of his era. As a result, he became the leader of the Serbian people outside Serbia. He formed the Serbian democratic party. The war was started in 1990 by members of his party.
According to Dr. Boris Zmijanovic, the first three senior leaders of the Serbian democratic party were all ex-mental patients of Raskovic. He also said of him:
"Without scruples, Dr. Raskovic used his patients for his political ends. He manipulated them. It is not known whether … [he] turned his patients into political students or whether he turned his political students into patients in order to facilitate their manipulation".
Without question, his rabble rousing speeches at many public meetings did a great deal to inflame the Serbian people.
In the chaos of the Balkans at present it is probably of little import that Radovan Karadzic, who is also a psychiatrist, was banned from the Communist Party for having served time in prison for property fraud and embezzlement. Karadzic was an active participant in Raskovic's campaign to incite the Serbs against other religious and ethnic groups; he is now (since Raskovic's death) the leader of the Bosnian Serbs. It is clear from what I have said that the distortion of an inexact and unsuccessful science to suit the purposes of politicians represents a new development in the progress of fascist terror politics.
So where does all that leave Kosovo? That formerly autonomous region of Serbia had nearly equivalent status as a member of the Yugoslav Federation until that status was revoked by Serbia in 1990. The Kosovars are doubly punished by sanctions. First, they are punished by Serbia; and secondly, the sanctions hit them very hard.
The people of Kosovo want to disassociate themselves from Serbia and form an independent state. As an independent state, Kosovo would be open both to Serbia and to Albania. The Serbs would have full rights of citizenship, with full and free access to all religious and cultural buildings. That would also be the case for Serbs outside Kosovo. The Kosovars did not want to participate in Serbian adventures. They were prepared to be part of Yugoslavia as an equal entity. But since the federation has disintegrated and since other areas are being promoted to the status of sovereign states, they see no reason why that should not apply to Kosovo. What they need and what they want is the immediate arrival of a UN peacekeeping force to prevent the situation in Kosovo breaking out into open warfare. We have done too little, too late, too often. Let us persuade the United Nations to act now and prevent a further tragedy.
My honourable friend Sir Russell Johnston was in Kosovo on 24th May 1992, the day on which the

1047
people there held a fair and well organised election under very difficult circumstances. The result is accepted by the large number and variety of political parties which took part. I feel that further elections would be rather a luxury under the circumstances. The primary need is for the Serbs to stop their campaign of repression. That will take place only with a strong UN presence in Kosovo.
I should like to finish with a few words about Macedonia. What is planned there for the end of the year is a census to establish the balance of ethnic and religious groups in that territory. It must be carried out under international supervision. Decisions about the future of that part of former Yugoslavia can then be reached on the basis of knowledge rather than emotion. It may well be that the best solution for Macedonia is for that state to be divided into semi-autonomous regions along ethnic lines—as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, is trying to establish in Bosnia—but for that to be done before violence erupts.
1.50 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for the way in which he has introduced this short debate. Perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate him on the visit of the international parliamentary delegation.
The present unsatisfactory situation in Kosovo somewhat predates the appalling war in Bosnia. Both flow from the death of Marshal Tito and the break-up of Yugoslavia, which was followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Your Lordships' House debates an enormous range and variety of subjects. I therefore find it just a little extraordinary that the break-up of Yugoslavia has only twice been debated since the 1st July last. The first occasion was my own Unstarred Question about refugees. The second occasion was on 25th September when the House was recalled and debated the United Nations' operations from Iraq to Somalia, including Yugoslavia. The important details of Bosnia and Kosovo were thus submerged under many wider issues.
I shall refer briefly to Bosnia. I wish to state that the war there is not a civil war. It is primarily an international war. If anyone doubts that let him consult the statement of the UN Secretary General made at the London conference last August.
There has been genocide. We all need to acknowledge that with great regret. There has been a deliberate policy of killing the young men, raping the women and expelling the old. That policy has been accompanied by the destruction of mosques and the burning of countless houses. No national group has been blameless but the severest condemnation falls on the Government of Serbia, its airforce and army and upon its allies in Bosnia. Those atrocities outweigh anything seen in Europe since 1945. I believe that an obligation rests on the powers to ensure that such events never recur. There is a similar obligation to prevent the spread of such atrocities to Kosovo. Appropriate measures are needed to restore basic rights and freedoms so that their absence does not provoke an explosion.
1048
It may be helpful to glance at the geography and history of Kosovo, which has some 2 million inhabitants. It is an isolated region which used to make up 4 per cent. of the area of Yugoslavia and some 8 per cent. of its population. Only one major road joins Albania and Kosovo. Two roads link with Macedonia and six roads with Serbia and Montenegro. Kosovo was most important in the medieval Serbian kingdom and, as has been mentioned, was the scene of its defeat by the Ottoman Turks. Pečs and some monasteries are still holy places for the Serbian Orthodox Church.
Between the two world wars about half a million Albanians emigrated and some 40,000 Slays were settled in Kosovo but most of them left again from 1971 onwards. The Albanian birth rate has been consistently higher than anyone else's with the result that now some 50 per cent. of the population is thought to be under 20. The proportion of Albanians in Kosovo used to he reckoned at 90 per cent. Recent visitors put it at about 94 per cent. and one qualified observer has even estimated it at 98 per cent.
In 1968 Kosovo became an autonomous region. The Albanian flag was used. There were newspapers, radio and television in Albanian, which was also the language of the schools and the university. The 1974 constitution gave de facto equality with the other republics. In 1981, following Tito's death there were student and other riots in Kosovo. The security forces killed some 10 people and wounded hundreds. Two thousand people were arrested and many received heavy sentences. An agitation followed for a formal republic. Slays made counter-accusations of Albanian genocide. Some Albanians were evicted from Serbian villages and Serbs were forbidden to sell to Albanians.
The year 1987 saw the rise of Mr. Milosevic and moves to withdraw autonomy. In the following year there was a general strike. In March 1989 autonomy was finally removed. The central army moved in, killing at least 24 people. Two thousand people were jailed and 100,000 or more Albanians were dismissed from state employment. Schools were closed. In September of that year two-thirds of the elected deputies proclaimed their own republic.
The pattern has been clear ever since Mr. Milosevic's speech at Kosovo Polje in April 1987. He has consistently raised the stakes and the Albanian population has responded non-violently. Repression has been and still is severe and is reinforced with beatings. It was that very repression which convinced the Slovenes and the Croats that they could only be safe as independent states.
How do the Albanians of Kosovo survive? Eye witnesses recount that there is great poverty at the moment, which is mitigated by self-help and small amounts of aid. There is an underground education system, unofficial clinics and a voluntary 3 per cent. tax on Albanian businesses, plus some support from overseas remittances.
We need to ask how long that situation can continue. How long will the Albanians tolerate it? What will be the attitude of the Albanian Republic

1049
and the further half million or so Albanians in the adjoining territory? How long will Turkey and the major Moslem powers accept an intolerable situation?
Normal human rights have to be restored. I look forward to hearing from Her Majesty's Government how they foresee that that may be done. It would be good to hear the Government's views on the role of the CSCE and I personally would be very glad if the Minister would say something about the enforcement of the present sanctions, particularly by night. I understand that there is some check on what enters Serbian and Montenegran territory by day but very little check by night.
In my view, both Bosnia and Kosovo present serious threats to world peace. I suggest that they cannot be ignored.
1.57 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for introducing this important subject at this time and for his extremely interesting historical summary. It is now after 12 o'clock and so we are all safe from being made April Fools. I should say that as I am the last speaker in the last debate before the Recess, I shall certainly not detain your Lordships for long.
I was one of the three Members of this House who hosted the visit of the parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Albania to the Inter-Parliamentary Union last month. We had many discussions about the vexed question of Kosovo. The leader of the delegation, Mr. Pieter Arbnori, was the Speaker of the Albanian Parliament and the group included six other Members of that Parliament. I was lucky enough to show them round the Palace of Westminster on the first day of their visit. I have never met anyone more enthusiastic about the working of our Constitution, our freedoms and above all the beautiful place in which we are fortunate enough to work. Mr. Arbnori had been in prison for 281½ years and Mr. Ali Spahiya had also been in prison for four years. He knew by heart the plays "Julius Caesar" and "Hamlet" as well as many of Shakespeare's sonnets and much of Tennyson, Shelley and Keats. He went into raptures about the pictures from the Arthurian romances in the Robing Room.
One of the first things that we learned was that there are more Albanians living outside than inside Albania. It soon became apparent that 80 per cent. of the population of Kosovo were in fact Albanians. On 14th March this year there was a large rally in Bonn of 40,000 Albanians, who came from Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Sweden. Many people, including Dr. Otto von Hapsburg from the European Parliament, sent them telegrams for their success and they sent a petition to various European governments and to the American State Department, pleading for recognition of Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state, and the halting of the Serbian terrorising of the population of Kosovo.
The Serbs in Kosovo are making life extremely difficult for the Albanian majority by closing down Albanian clinics, refusing to allow Albanian doctors
1050
to treat Albanian families or to make health visits in schools to Albanian pupils. Infectious diseases are rife and in some areas there is no medical care at all for Albanians. In the medical centre at Prizren, patients have to provide their own medication, mattresses, sheets and blankets, and hygienic conditions are appalling.
The Serbs are also introducing violent and aggressive house searches, constantly hauling the local Albanians into the police station on the pretext of searching for weapons. When they disclose that they have no weapons, they are told to go and buy them to give to the police. For example, on 10th March at Vushtrri, six Albanian houses were searched and in the home of Halil Hyseni the police broke all the doors and destroyed all the furniture. On 11th March in Gjakova they told a former policeman whose house they searched—Zhelal Hafizademi—that he must give them a firearm if he wished to keep his kidneys.
Every day there are house searches. The occupiers often have their furniture destroyed and are beaten up. On 18th March a large group of Serbian police, backed by armoured personnel carriers, blocked the exits and entrances of an arts and crafts centre in Skanderag. All customers at cafes and restaurants were interrogated and many were beaten. Many young Albanians who are called up into the Serbian forces are so ill-treated during their time there that they return mentally unhinged.
On 17th March the Albanian Foreign Minister, speaking in Vienna, said,
"The Yugoslav crisis is complex. Kosovo is a very delicate element of this complexity, whose solution conditions the outcome of the peace process and determines the security of the region".
Two days later when Manfroed Woerner, the Secretary-General of NATO, visited Albania he said,
"An outbreak of violence in Kosovo would threaten international peace and security".
There is still time to exert all possible economic, diplomatic and moral pressure to prevent the situation in Kosovo erupting into conflagration. Already the Serbian Parliament is making inflammatory speeches against the Albanians in Kosovo. What is needed now is less violence, more mercy and more generosity of spirit—all the values of the Arthurian knights which the Albanians so admired when they were here.
2.3 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I apologise for not having put down my name to speak earlier. I rise now only because I have been to Albania many times. Only once was I escorted and that was as a prisoner of the Italians. Most times I travelled on my own. It is prudent, I believe, to take a calm view of the situation. That is what I urge upon the House.
Nothing is simple in the Balkans. There is no single part which is either racially or culturally homogeneous. I am surprised that after all the talk and, if I may use the term, repetition of Albanian propaganda this afternoon, the most famous Albanian in the world has not even been mentioned. I refer to Mother Teresa.
The picture of Albania as a largely Moslem country is not strictly correct. The north of Albania is to a

1051
considerable degree Catholic; the south is to a considerable degree Orthodox. If anyone queries my credentials for talking on Albania, I was a Times correspondent many years ago in South-East Europe and had occasion to go there more than once. On the one occasion I know of when I escaped assassination —there may have been other times—I did so by hiding in a gentleman's harem in Albania. I did not stay long and do not recommend it as a hiding place.
The picture of Albania, let alone the country stretching east of Albania to Kosovo, as being in any way homogeneous is not true. In the city of Korca in South-East Albania I have not only spoken Greek, but also Kutzovlach. Of that there has been no mention whatever. The Kutzovlachs are to be found all the way across from the Adriatic to the Black Sea and are also on the Aegean. The area is much more complex than any escorted parliamentary delegation will ever be allowed by their escorts to imagine, let alone understand. I rise therefore not to discuss the Serbian behaviour, which at the very least has been ham-handed, but to put another side of the picture.
We are told that Kosovo is 80 or 90 per cent. Albanian. In fact, over the past 25 or 30 years there has been a steady immigration to that area from Albania proper. Secondly, incoming Albanians have terrorised and damaged Serb farms and churches and pillaged them. Thirdly, by pressure of various kinds, which has been a kind of pre-ethnic cleansing exercise, they have helped to push the Serbs out. The present Albanian ethnic strength in Kosovo is largely due to expansion over the past 30 years.
I implore the Government to tread carefully. The whole of South-East and Eastern Europe is a patchwork of minorities. Once one sector starts raping and pillaging the next, others return the fire. There is no monopoly of villainy, nor any monopoly of sainthood. A great many people are trying to work for peace. To widen the subject a little, the fact that Mr. Panic, who can hardly speak the Serb language, managed to obtain 30 per cent. of the votes in a fairly well-rigged recent election, shows that many people do not approve of the operations of the Serbian Government. I do not want to say more than that. I implore Her Majesty's Government—I am sure my noble friend will reciprocate—to tread extremely carefully and never to accept any simple generalisation about that part of the world.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may tell him that I recently had the pleasure of visiting Mother Teresa's sisters both in Tirana and in Korea. May I ask him if he will be so kind as to withdraw his remark about Albanian propaganda?
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I thought that propaganda had rather a noble sound —think of the Vatican Department De Propaganda Fide. Propaganda is propagating the truth. When people try to propagate the truth they sometimes exaggerate.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I should like to add a little about our visit. We repeatedly tried to have discussions with the Serbian
1052
authorities to hear their point of view. This was just as consistently refused or conditions were imposed such as they could see us only on the very morning when we were booked to depart—and they knew it. This tended to confirm our impression that we were being given a fairly balanced account.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I can understand that. That is what happens all over the Balkans all the time.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I rise to express the hope that the aggressors will realise that there will be a moment in time when they will not be able to go on and will know that there are many hearts and spirits who wish for the end of what is happening in those parts.
2.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for giving us his first-hand account of the appalling human rights abuses in Kosovo. I was extremely grateful to him for the way in which he did so and to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate for the calm way in which they have approached a very difficult subject. The final words of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in saying that that is an area of great complexity is, if it could be, an understatement of the situation.
The report on the Interparliamentary Human Rights Network Mission to Kosovo, Slovenia and Macedonia, which the noble Lord chaired, is valuable in drawing attention to the injustices being perpetrated daily by the Belgrade regime. We must treat very carefully all the information that comes in, but from wherever we get the information, it is pointing in a similar direction. I have before me a list of the human rights abuses, to which I shall turn a little later, which shows just how bad things have become in Kosovo.
Her Majesty's Government are deeply concerned by the plight of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo—known as the Kosovars —on two counts. First, it is clear that there is continuing and widespread human rights abuse and that this seems to form part of a deliberate strategy to pressure Kosovars to leave the country. The vile policy of "ethnic cleansing", with which we have become all too familiar in the wars in Croatia and Bosnia, is thus again to be found as the basis of Serbian government policy. Secondly, Her Majesty's Government are deeply concerned at the risks of an outbreak of conflict in Kosovo spilling over into neighbouring countries, particularly Macedonia. As my noble friend Lord Selsdon said, that would risk igniting a wider conflict in the Balkans. Repression of the Kosovars is therefore of particular international concern, not only morally but also strategically.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, my noble friend Lord Selsdon and others have said, Kosovo has a sad and bloody history and has long been contended between the Serbs and Albanians. It has particular emotional significance to Serbs, who see it as the birthplace and heartland of their nation. But as the noble Lord, Lord

1053
Hylton, said, the Kosovars have one of the highest birth rates in Europe and now constitute more than 90 per cent. of the population, a high percentage being young. In recognition of this fact, in 1974 Tito's Yugoslav constitution gave Kosovo considerable political and legislative autonomy. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, in 1988 Milosevic successfully played on the Serbs' deep national feelings about Kosovo, cancelling the province's autonomy and accelerating the destruction of the Kosovars' political rights. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that I am not qualified to comment on psychiatry. However, I must say too that one does see a mental pressure on every Kosovar in that part of Serbia which must be overwhelming. One can imagine that it encroaches on everything that they do.
A number of your Lordships have asked about the CSCE—an observer mission already in Kosovo. It is now up to 10 monitors and soon to be increased to 20, including two from the United Kingdom. That mission reports on human rights abuses and tries to establish dialogue and to build confidence between two communities. It serves a valuable purpose as the eyes and ears of the international community and acting as an independent observer to which the Kosovars can refer complaints of human rights abuse. The mission is also helping to build confidence by its very presence as a visible sign of the concern of the international community. I do not believe that any of your Lordships have made a comment on human rights abuses today which has not already been reported to us by the CSCE observer mission. That shows that they are well in touch with what your Lordships have discovered.
The Government believe that the preventive role of international observers is extremely important, not only in Kosovo but also in Macedonia where we already have observers. We believe that there is a case for deploying United Nations military observers in Kosovo which might help us to further prevent conflict and deter aggression by the Serbian authorities, although that seems, as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said, to be pretty well entrenched. But since Kosovo is part of Serbia, a UN deployment there would require the agreement of the Serbian authorities. That is the problem with sending UN military observers there. It will also need to be reconciled with the very heavy demands for UN observers in many parts of the former Yugoslavia.
Your Lordships may know that the EC presidency has already pressed Milosevic to accept an EC monitor mission presence in Kosovo integrated with the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe observer mission. Needless to say, and not unsurprisingly, I suppose, Milosevic has rejected that request but we may well try again in due time, depending on the discussions going on.
As most noble Lords have said, Kosovars are sacked regularly from official and managerial positions. Their education in the Albanian language has been banned, the university closed, and human rights have been routinely violated by the security forces; and, increasingly, by Serb paramilitary gangs,
1054
including a number controlled by the notorious Serb fascists Arkan and Seselj acting with the connivance of the authorities.
As a direct result, over 100,000 Kosovars have fled abroad. Some 2 million remain, sustained, as was noted earlier, by remittances from abroad and a remarkable sense of solidarity. They have organised what is in effect a parallel society, with their own schools and health system. They have boycotted Serbian elections, but have elected their own Parliament, although they have so far withheld from convening this in order to avoid allowing the Serb authorities an excuse for provoking further violence.
But the authorities' own policies of repression are back-firing. It is becoming steadily clearer that life in Kosovo for ordinary Serbs is increasingly unattractive. Although incidents of violence against the Serb population are very rare, they live with a siege mentality and are heavily armed. Despite official encouragement from the Serbian Government in Belgrade, efforts to encourage Serbs to stay, and to attract new Serbs into the province, appear to be failing.
Obviously, there is a tense and volatile situation; I suppose it is a stalemate. The Serbian policies of ethnic cleansing and repression are driving the whole place into a dead end. The Kosovars, for their part, insist on an independent, neutral state of Kosovo. Any signs of compromise by either party are interpreted by the other as weakness. Neither side seems willing at present to stage a major confrontation. The unarmed Kosovars face a huge and heavily-armed Serbian security presence, and are conscious that any uprising will be rapidly and brutally crushed. Serbian military resources are already stretched by conflicts elsewhere in former Yugoslavia. The Serbs may also be restrained by the calculation that it is not in their interests to provoke the international community on this issue at present.
Nonetheless, there are hotheads and extremists on both sides. They could seek to provoke an incident, which could set off a tide of violence. And there remains a danger that, if Milosevic were to come under severe domestic pressure, in Serbia as a whole, and if things quieten down in Bosnia, he might be tempted to create a diversion by provoking conflict in Kosovo. If conflict breaks out, that will trigger a flood of Albanian refugees into Macedonia because the best road out of Kosovo leads into Macedonia. It will destabilise the area, potentially leading to a much wider conflict.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked me about the proposal for Macedonia to be divided along ethnic lines. Such a break-up could easily spark off another war. It would certainly bring in other countries in the region as they sought to gain advantage or to secure their own borders by enforcing chaos. That is why our policy has been to work for the rapid admission of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia to the United Nations and to promote talks with Greece on the differences between the two states to enable the republic to gain full international recognition and to help it to gain the benefits of the greater stability which that could bring.

1055
What about further international action? The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Rea, asked me about sanctions. The enforcement of sanctions has been greatly tightened since they were first imposed last May. In particular, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe has sent sanctions assistance missions to help the customs authorities of the neighbouring countries. Perhaps I may assure your Lordships that the missions work on a 24-hour basis, as does the Western European Union/NATO joint naval force in the Adriatic. This intercepts ships heading for the Montenegran ports. There are, however, a variety of further means which might be used to tighten sanctions, and they are currently being pursued urgently in the United Nations.
The international community as a whole has consistently pressed the Serbians to end their oppression of the Kosovars and to grant the province autonomous status. That is not just talk. Although the sanctions on the former republic of Yugoslavia, including the new package of tougher measures which, as I have just mentioned, is currently under discussion, are aimed at pressurising the Serbs to make peace in Bosnia, we also hope that they will press the Serbs to co-operate fully in negotiations across the whole range of problems created by the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, including Kosovo. At the same time, we have urged the Kosovars to compromise on their call for full independence and to settle for autonomy.
If there is to be a lasting settlement to the problems in Kosovo, it will have to be arrived at by negotiations under the auspices of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, under the co-chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and Mr. Cyrus Vance. Their predecessor, my noble friend Lord Carrington, elaborated a detailed set of constitutional principles, focused on minority rights, which could be applied to the Kosovars, as well as to the Serbs in Croatia. But such is the polarisation between the two sides that talks on the status of Kosovo have made no progress.
The international conference negotiators have therefore lowered their sights for the time being and begun by concentrating on practical issues such as the Serb ban on education in the Albanian language. But Serbian intransigence has prevented any progress so far.
It is essential that the international community continues to put pressure on the Serbs to restore human rights and political autonomy to the Kosovars. There are some signs that the Serbian authorities may be beginning to look for a way out of what has become for them a hugely expensive dead end. We must sustain the diplomatic pressure and sanctions to ensure that they deliver.
I noted the comments about the number of police and troops that have come down into Kosovo. Obviously, that is one of the reasons for the people there feeling so oppressed. As I said, the police and troops are there in very large numbers and they must be costing the government in Belgrade a very great deal of money.
In a very wise and thoughtful speech my noble friend Lord Selsdon spoke about the danger of Albanian involvement. Albania is deeply concerned
1056
by the plight of its cousins across the border in Kosovo. My noble friend Lady Strange spoke about the delegation that she looked after here and their concern about what is happening to their cousins.
We continue to urge the Albanian Government to take a moderate line. I am pleased to see that at present they are doing so. We do not believe that Albania has the economic or military capacity to intervene in Kosovo, but there is now an EC monitoring mission in Albania to observe the situation on the Kosovo border and to try to lower the tension there. That border is a pretty difficult one to cross, but there is a real danger of a flood of refugees trying to cross into Albania if a conflict were to break out in Kosovo.
I was glad that none of your Lordships suggested that military intervention was the answer for Kosovo. There is already enough conflict in former Yugoslavia without provoking more. Talk of military intervention, as some do, serves only to encourage the Kosovars to be unrealistic in their quest for independence.
Any international military action in Kosovo would also leave all UN operations in the former Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia, open to attack by Serb forces. UNPROFOR and UNHCR would have to suspend their vital humanitarian operations in Bosnia, leaving millions to fend for themselves and hundreds of thousands to die. It could also provoke reprisals by the Serbs against Moslems in Bosnia and Sandjak as well as in Kosovo.
Air strikes alone would be unlikely to release the Serbian grip on Kosovo but might provoke even more bloody repression. Use of military power must have a clearly defined political objective. That is lacking in the case of Kosovo. If ground forces were used, the danger would be of a situation in which Kosovo was eventually wrested, with much bloodshed, from Serbia's grasp. But Kosovo would then be left with a hostile and heavily armed force reforming just beyond its borders and the international community with an endless commitment for protection.
In view of the fact that last night Security Council Resolution 816 was passed at the United Nations requiring that violation of the ban on flights in Bosnian airspace should cease, the response of the British Government, which I believe will be of interest to your Lordships, is that the UK is willing to contribute aircraft for the enforcement task, if so requested by NATO. We are discussing with NATO the nature and scale of that contribution, and that of other countries, and the practical aspects of conducting the operation. The UN is not going beyond that, so there is no question of our intervening militarily in any sense in Kosovo.
As a number of your Lordships have said, the Kosovars are largely unarmed. They face the overwhelming strength of the Serbian military and paramilitary, which many of your Lordships mentioned. The only possible outcome of conflict would be refugees. Those refugees would have a sad time, as do so many hundreds of thousands who have fled from Bosnia and other areas of the former Yugoslavia.

1057
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked whether we could formally indict Serbia and Montenegro under the Geneva conventions. I want to check that point with our legal advisers. I have not seen the idea mentioned in relation to Kosovo, and so obviously I cannot commit myself. The UN Commission for Human Rights has already condemned Serbia and Montenegro for their human rights abuses whether they be in Croatia and Bosnia or in Serbia and Montenegro. Whether or not it is a question of indictment, the entire world is united in condemning the numerous human rights abuses referred to throughout the debate.
The situation in Kosovo remains tense and highly unpredictable. We fear that conflict could break out at any time; it is a conflict which would spread beyond Serbia's borders and, potentially, engulf the whole Balkans. At the same time human rights abuses are being perpetrated by the Serbian regime on a widespread basis. The international community has put in place a mechanism, in the shape of the international conference on the former Yugoslavia, for the negotiations between the Serbians and the Kosovars. Those negotiations are not being pursued
1058
with good faith by either side. There is no doubt that the Serbs must bear the primary responsibility for the failure.
The international community continues to put strong pressure on Belgrade, both diplomatically and by strong sanctions, to co-operate fully in the international conference. In the meantime the CSCE observer mission and perhaps in the future a UN mission will play an essential role in monitoring human rights abuse, helping to promote contacts between the two sides and preventing an escalation of the tension into a fighting scene.
The presence of observer missions has done much to keep the situation a little steadier than it could otherwise have been. But I am afraid that until the main parties come to some agreement for a lasting cease-fire the real business of re-building the lives of people in the region cannot begin. In the meantime we must watch their needs and the need for further international action with the greatest of care. I assure your Lordships that we shall be doing that for the Kosovars as well as for other people in the Balkan area.
House adjourned for the Easter Recess at twenty-eight minutes before three o'clock until Wednesday, 14th April next.