Lords Sitting of 16 December 1994

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Part-Time Workers: EC Draft Directive
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as reported in the Financial Times on 8th December, the Secretary of State for Employment negotiated a compromise in Brussels on the draft directive on part-time workers and then voted against it.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my right honourable friend did no such thing. The German Presidency had tabled a compromise proposal on part-time work. My right honourable friend considered this very carefully, as he had undertaken to do, but concluded that he would not accept it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has just said, but is it not correct that the Secretary of State for Employment had indicated during the discussions that he might consider a modified proposal and that it was deliberately watered down because of that? Would it not also be correct to say that as a result of those proceedings, much resentment was created among our partners in the European Union? Furthermore, is not the vetoing of that modified resolution by the Secretary of State for Employment academic in view of the previous House of Lords' judgment enhancing the rights of part-time workers on the ground of sex discrimination as the majority of part-time workers are women?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is important to make clear that throughout that debate in the Council my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it quite clear that he was opposed to the proposals and could not see a way in which we could accept them. Nevertheless, because we act in the Council of Ministers in good faith and although we had made our position entirely clear, we said that we would consider any proposals that might be brought forward to see whether we might be able to accept them, although we could not see any likelihood of being able to do so.
On the noble Lord's point about the relationship of the House of Lords' judgment and the part-time work directive, we do not want European law to introduce a degree of inflexibility into the framework of labour relations in this country. That is because we want to he able to continue to have as flexible a labour market as we can and because we believe that that is in the interests of those in work and out of work in this country.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any increase in the cost of part-time employment would inevitably lead to more
1470
unemployment in this country? Therefore, does he agree that my right honourable friend was entirely correct in refuting that suggestion?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that point. He is right that the more burdens that are placed in the way of, and on to, those who want to provide jobs, the fewer the number of jobs that will result.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does not the noble Lord recall that as long ago as December 1990 a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, representative of all political parties and of none in your Lordships' House, made a very strong representation that there should be support for the draft directive? When will the Government learn that they should take advice from people who have considered these matters in a great deal of detail? Why do the Government persist in their view that you can create employment only by driving down conditions for workers to a sweat-shop level? Surely we know by now that that does not produce employment; all that it produces is increasing misery for the people involved.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment said recently, what we want to see is a highly skilled, highly paid workforce. There is only one way of achieving that in the real world—and that is by having businesses which can afford to pay the level of remuneration which we would all like to see.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does not the Minister understand that the highly skilled workers in this country to whom he has just referred are on lower rates of pay than their counterparts in Europe? Does not he also understand that employers over here are undercutting companies in Europe because of our depressed wage rates, which gives our companies a financial advantage? How long does the noble Lord think that the rest of Europe will tolerate that position when they are being beaten in some respects by what are termed "scab" conditions?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am reassured to hear that the noble Lord accepts that the state of British industry is such that it is successfully competing in Europe and obtaining work. As I have already said, that is the way in which jobs will be created. As I said earlier, the only way in which we can ensure that we have highly paid jobs in this country is to have firms which are generating high profits, and they do that by competing not only in the European market, but in the wider world market in the post-GATT world.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is it not a fact that the now open divisions in the Cabinet on European Union policy as expressed by Mr. Portillo are not only undermining our relations with our European allies, but contributed to the electoral disaster in Dudley yesterday? Would it not be much wiser for the Government to base their European Union policies on the fact that the overwhelming majority in Parliament is in favour of Britain being at the heart of Europe instead of basing their policies on the tiny minority in

1471
Parliament whom they continually appease and who, in their hearts, are against membership of the European Union?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend agrees with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that we should be at the heart of Europe. That is at the core of government policy.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that some of the countries of Europe, of our partners in Europe, have the highest non-wage labour costs in the world and it is this fact which causes Europe to be in the slow lane when one looks at the other economies which are emerging in the world, and that the kind of action on which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on taking in Brussels on this occasion is precisely the sort of action that allows unemployment in this country to be falling faster than anywhere else in Europe?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to verify the proposition put forward by my noble friend that some of the other member states in the European Union have the highest on-costs for labour in the world, but it is undoubtedly the case that in other member states they are high. As is clear from the communiqué issued at the conclusion of the Essen Summit, it is necessary to reduce burdens on employment and encourage competition to improve the state of the economy in the Union.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does paying economical wages to part-time workers on the boards of companies and quangos contribute to full employment in this country?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the level of remuneration for board members is a matter for the companies concerned.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the majority of part-time workers are women, and that women perceive this as yet another measure by the Government to keep them at poverty level wages and to undercut employers who are prepared to pay decent rates of pay?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness illustrates a paradox. More part-time workers are women than men, and yet, as I understand it, she advocates a policy which will make part-time work less rather than more likely for them.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Lord did not deal with the point I raised about the House of Lords judgment. Will the effect of that judgment be similar to the effect of the Community's draft directive?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, no. That is not the case. The basis of the House of Lords judgment was a finding of fact that in the particular circumstances of the case the working of the legislation was such that it amounted to discrimination against women. The Government wish to keep their options open so that in the future if, for example, the relationship between men and women in
1472
the labour market were to change, they would have the opportunity to deal with those matters along the lines of the legislation that has hitherto been in place.

Parenthood Education
11.15 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree that the role and responsibilities of parents are essential to the healthy growth and development of children, and whether they intend to introduce education for parenthood into the national curriculum.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we share the right reverend Prelate's views on the importance of parents to children. There is already emphasis within the wider curriculum on teaching young people the skills they need to he good parents. We have no plans to introduce education for parenthood as a discrete subject within the statutory national curriculum.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Is he aware that a recent report by the family studies support group indicated that today our society is so complex and our culture so fragmented that one cannot assume that just because children and young people have parents they can be parents themselves? Furthermore, I have no doubt that he will be aware of the Childrens' Society report Running the Risk, which indicated that many young people run away from home and put themselves at risk because of family breakdown. Can he reassure us on that?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will want to pay tribute to the Church of England Children's Society which over many years has done a great deal to help children in distress, and which over that time has accumulated a great fund of expertise to which the Government pay much attention. Indeed, the Government welcomed the report Running the Risk in an extensive speech by my honourable friend Mr. Bowis, a copy of which is in the Library for anyone who wishes to see its details. So far as concerns education for parenthood, we feel that it is important to give to children while they are at school a basic understanding of how to take responsibility, how to form relationships, and some feeling of the reality of what it is to be a parent. In terms of the intensive availability of information on what a parent needs to do, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has announced recently a new initiative to increase the availability of that information through as many channels as may be appropriate.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, has the noble Lord noticed—as I have because of my background of 30 years representing a northern inner city —that there are many parents with a low income and without a good formal education who are excellent parents and who love and look after their children? Equally there are those who have been to good schools and had a good education, and who have plenty of money, whose

1473
memoirs reveal that they set bad examples to their children. There may be more to good parenthood than O-levels.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I agree completely with the noble Lord.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I was pleased to hear the noble Lord refer to relationship education and an understanding of children's needs as being an appropriate subject for school teaching. Does he agree that one of the reasons why that discipline has taken a back seat in many schools is that teachers are nervous and unsure about teaching it? Are the Government prepared to consider making a small amount of additional funding available for a once-and-for-all pump priming of teacher training to give teachers support in teaching the subject?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, these are important subjects. I am sure that the new Teacher Training Agency, when deciding how teacher training should progress in the future, will take into account the views that the noble Lord has expressed.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept that it may not be appropriate for education for parenthood to be part of the national curriculum, and I welcome the Government's initiative on the part of the Secretary of State for Health. However, does the Minister accept that it might be desirable for the Government to issue guidelines to schools on education for parenthood, including not only advice on the education of older pupils but guidelines on how teachers might work with young parents of children in schools on what constitutes good parenting?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government must be extremely careful in putting forward one or any particular model of what it is to be a good parent. In this area, voluntary groups, and in particular the Churches, have a role to play. There are many views on what constitutes a good parent and I do not believe that the Government should try to set forward one standard model.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry for rising again. Will the Minister accept that I was not asking for guidelines on what constitutes good parenting? I was asking for guidance to be issued to schools on how they might institute work with parents and older pupils on the importance of good parenting and of parenthood in our society.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that is something which good schools do already. We hope that the practice will spread, not least because it is one of the primary areas that Ofsted will look at during the course of its inspections.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a great deal of good work is being carried out in some adult education colleges; for instance, the City Lit in London? Parents are brought into schools to work with the children, which is a good opportunity to
1474
educate both the parents and the children. I hope that such work will be encouraged by the Department for Education.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sure that it will be encouraged.

Gibraltar: Spanish Border Delays
11.21 a.m.
Lord Merrivaleasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will protest at the delays and controls imposed by the Spanish Government at the frontier between Gibraltar and Spain.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we have repeatedly and vigorously protested to the Spanish authorities about the harassment at the frontier and the disruption to normal movement across the border. We are keeping the position under close review and will continue to protest if the situation does not improve.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging Answer. Does he agree that the hours of queueing at the frontier—according to yesterday's Daily Telegraph it is up to four hours for pedestrians and up to eight hours for motorists—indicate that Spain is seeking to impose a form of economic strangulation on Gibraltar? Does he further agree that with double checks, normal Customs, and Guardia Civil controls, the controls go totally against the Community spirit whereby member states should conduct effective controls in line with common criteria?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is right. However, Gibraltar is outside the common Customs tariff and Spain is therefore technically within its rights in carrying out the checks at the frontier. As my noble friend said, the current checks are completely intolerable. They are extraordinarily heavy-handed and burdensome. They are intrusive and a profound disgrace. It is important that checks of this nature should cease forthwith.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I accept that an agreement should be by Spain and the United Kingdom and that representations have been made by the United Kingdom. What response have the Government received from the Spanish Government and where do the talks now stand?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we have been in touch with the Spanish Government at high levels. The Spanish Foreign Minister is visiting my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday next week. Obviously, the current situation will be high on their agenda.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend make clear to the Spanish Foreign Minister that far from these niggling, tiresome attempts at the persecution of Gibraltar making it more likely that Spain will be able to acquire Gibraltar the reverse is the case and that this country will firmly support the people of Gibraltar in resisting such outrageous behaviour?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Our commitment to the people of Gibraltar in the

1475
1969 constitution is well known. They will not be allowed to pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I note with pleasure that Her Majesty's Government occasionally enter a protest against actions they do not like. However, will the Minister consider more than protests and saying "No" to some of the demands that Spain makes until, as regards this matter, Spain can behave in a more communautaire manner?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, by the tone of the noble Lord's voice I take it that he may be suggesting confrontation. I do not believe that in the present circumstances that will get the British Government very far. As irritating and frustrating as the circumstances may be, I believe that co-operation is the best way forward.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, when exercising the gentle art of persuasion, to which my noble friend referred, will he bear in mind that Spain receives £12 million per day until the end of the century from the structural fund?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I was unaware of that particular figure. However, I am aware that Spain receives money from the structural fund and also from other Community initiatives.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I echo and agree with what the Minister said. It is far more appropriate to try to co-operate on these matters. I regret the tone of some of the questions that have been asked. I agree that harassment at the frontier by the Guardia Civil is entirely unacceptable. However, will the Minister comment on press reports of worrying developments in Gibraltar? We read of money laundering and extensive drug and tobacco smuggling into Spain. Will the Minister also comment on reports that failure by the Gibraltarian Government to adhere to EU directives has led to the threat of direct rule by the British Government?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I make clear straightaway that there is no threat of direct rule. I repeat that co-operation is the best way forward. There are suspicions of money laundering and drug trafficking and it is true that the Gibraltarian Government have fallen behind in implementing some EC directives. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is exhorting them to implement the directives as soon as possible.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the Spanish Government have given any reason for the recent worsening of the position on the frontier with Gibraltar? Are we to deduce that it is as a result of the newly appointed governor of Andalucia or in anticipation of next weeks's talks?
A recent article in the Independent made the suggestions to which the noble Baroness has referred today. I understand that they are totally erroneous. In
1476
terms of fulfilling obligations as regards the signing up of directives, only recently have the United Kingdom Government signed up to the directives referred to.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the United Kingdom Government sign up to directives as quickly as possible. They have the right and bounden duty to make certain that the Gibraltarian Government also sign up to directives as quickly as possible. I do not believe that the reason is connected with the newly elected governor of Andalucia. The Spanish Government say that it is due to the smuggling of tobacco and drug trafficking in the area.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, will my noble friend consider the Maastricht Treaty, in particular Article K.1, which states that member states shall regard as matters of common interest,
"rules governing the crossing by persons of the external borders of the Member States and the exercise of controls thereon."?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that we are considering all possible options. That will be one of the probable areas of action that is being considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

Dangerous Convicted Criminals: Release Conditions
11.30 a.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that when dangerous convicted criminals are released from prison or secure units, adequate protection exists for their earlier victims.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the arrangements for the discretionary release of sentenced prisoners and for the discharge of restricted patients are designed to ensure that all members of the public remain properly protected.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister knows of my interest in this matter as chairman of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for Personal Safety. The case in which I am interested and which has prompted my Question is that involving the man convicted of attacking the second daughter of the Lamplugh family. Noble Lords will recall that it was publicised widely at the time. He came from France with all sorts of weapons, determined to make a sacrifice of the first woman he met. It so happened that it was the second daughter of the Lamplugh family.
The family are very concerned as to what degree of supervision is being undertaken at present. Out of courtesy the police have notified the family that just two years after the attack, which is little more than 18 months after the conviction, he has been released into community care and is no longer in secure accommodation. Of course, that is a terrifying thought for the girl who faced the ordeal and for the family, which has now suffered twice. The family asked the

1477
police whether an eye could be kept on the man but were told that that is not at all possible as he is now a patient in community care and, therefore, patient confidentiality is an issue and the police can do nothing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sure that the House would wish to put on record its thanks for the work of my noble friend in relation to the trust and also the way in which we admire the incredible fortitude of Diana Lamplugh, the mother of the two girls, and the bravery of the second daughter who withstood that awful attack.
I understand that three psychiatrists were involved in saying that the man was suitable and fit for release, but it was a conditional release. Again, my understanding is that the conditions of the release were that he should reside at an address approved by his supervisors; that he should be under the supervision of a consultant psychiatrist and a social worker; that he must keep regular appointments at the outpatients department of a psychiatrist's clinic; and he is also subject to weekly home visits by a social worker and a community psychiatric nurse. Of course, he also remains subject to recall should my right honourable friend the Home Secretary consider it appropriate.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us whether there is any scheme, or whether it is possible to introduce such a scheme, to deal with the situation when a prisoner who was considered to be dangerous is released so that the victims or their families might be alerted to be on their guard, in particular in cases where the victim has given evidence which has resulted in that prisoner's conviction, as revenge might be very much in his mind?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important and sensitive point. It is true to say that not enough has been done in the past for victims and, in particular, victims who find themselves in those circumstances. But the House will know, because I have said it on a number of occasions from the Dispatch Box, that much is improving in that regard. The national standards that have now been issued put an obligation on the key people—the police and certainly probation officers—to be as sensitive as possible and to give information about and warning of the release of prisoners.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we all share the admiration that has been expressed for the family involved in the particular case to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred. However, the Question is framed extremely widely and does not refer only to prisoners released on licence or on home leave but refers also to those released at the end of their sentences. Could the Minister be rather less opaque than she was in her first Answer and clarify the position, not in relation to the notice which is
1478
given generally to the public at large about the release of prisoners, but specifically in relation to victims and their families?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance that specific information will be given to victims when there is a release as a result of completing a sentence, the release of somebody who is subject to a mandatory life sentence and is subject to recall for the rest of his life and also in relation to the release of discretionary life sentence prisoners. It is now part of the system and national standards that victims should be given as much information as possible.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a growing concern in the country about the potential danger of psychiatric offenders who are now often at liberty whereas in the old institutional days they were not? I do not have in mind any particular case, but I hope that my noble friend will take into account that there is a growing anxiety about such offenders.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am happy to register that point and the sensitivity of it. It is true that within the Home Office we are doing what we can to tighten and make more rigorous the arrangements for the release of offenders in those circumstances. I know also that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is doing much in her sphere of influence.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister said that the offender to whom I referred would be subject to recall. How is any assessment made as to whether or not he should be recalled when the Home Office and the police are no longer involved?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, only a few days ago I answered a Question about the recall of a prisoner who started to display the kind of behaviour which gave cause for concern and which precipitated his recall. That is precisely what would happen here. If information is received, whether from the psychiatrist, the social worker or the police, that the behaviour of the offender is giving cause for concern, then the recall procedures would be re-activated.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
11.36 a.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Motion incorporates several amendments to Standing Orders, all of which are consequent upon recommendations made in the second and fourth reports from the Procedure Committee last Session. As the House has already agreed to those reports, I shall not explain the changes in detail unless any noble Lord wishes me to do so.

1479
I should mention that if the House agrees to the Motion, it is proposed that the Standing Orders should be reprinted in their amended form. At the same time, new editions of the Companion to the Standing Orders and a brief guide to the procedure and practice of the House of Lords will be produced. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
Standing Order 37
At beginning insert "Except as provided in Standing Order No. 40(3),".
Standing Order 38
After paragraph (5) insert—
"(5A) Any motion relating to a report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee on a draft order laid under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 shall be entered before a motion to approve that draft order."
In paragraph (6), leave out "and (5)" and insert ", (5) and (5A)".
Standing Order 40
At end insert—
"(3) Business may, on motion, be postponed to later that same day without notice: provided that the question shall not be put on any such motion if a single Lord objects."
Standing Order 62
After "Consolidation Bills Committee" insert—
"Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee".
Standing Order 67(2)
After "except" insert "a Saturday,".
Leave out "Eleven and One of the clock on a Saturday or",
Leave out "on any other weekday".
Standing Order 69(1)
After "1974," insert "or a draft order proposed to he made under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994,".
After "Instruments" insert—
"( ) in the case of a draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee;".—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should like to ask the Chairman of Committees a very simple question in relation to Standing Order 69(1) which refers to a report on a draft order from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. However, it gives no time limit. Surely it would be appropriate to allow at least a few sitting days for such reports to be considered before the House goes on to deal with the deregulation to which that report refers.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for raising that matter. No doubt he will be aware that the order to which he refers is dealt with in the second report of the Procedure Committee. The particular point that he raises is not dealt with.
1480
However, a close watch will be kept on it. Perhaps I may pass on to the Procedure Committee, which is due to meet on 24th January next year, the points the noble Lord made so that they can be borne in mind against a possible need for further action should that prove necessary.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, when the new edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders is issued, may we have an assurance that copies will be sent to your Lordships?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, they will certainly be available as usual in the Printed Paper office. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will allow me to look into the point that he has raised. I am always conscious, as I know are your Lordships, of the costs involved in additional procedures.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
11.40 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my 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:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 12,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 13 and 14,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 15 to 19,

Schedule 5,

Clause 20,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 21 and 22,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 23 to 60,

Schedule 7,

Clause 61,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 62 to 66,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 67 to 73,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 74 and 75,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 76 to 87,

Schedule 12,

Clause 88,

Schedule 13,

Clause 89,

Schedule 14,

Clause 90,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 91 to 94,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 95 to 97,

1481

Schedule 17,

Clauses 98 to 105,

Schedules 18 to 20.—(Viscount Ullswater.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund Bill
11.42 a.m.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 15th December):
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may ask once again—and, indeed, I have asked the question more than once—why the Second Reading of such an important measure is denied as an opportunity for noble Lords to debate the whole of the economy which it affects. Why do the Government persist in obstructing the opportunity for your Lordships to debate these very important matters?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend raised the matter yesterday with my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal; and I suspect he has raised it on a number of previous occasions. As my noble friend knows, this is the convention regarding such matters. I have nothing to add to what my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that another place passed the Bill yesterday in all its stages formally.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; Bill read a third time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps we may have the Government's assurance—which has been given to us on previous occasions in response to questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and indeed by me—that, notwithstanding the convention in such matters, the House can still ultimately assert its rights to debate the Bill if it so chooses.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, knows, it is quite clear in The Companion to the Standing Orders that it would be within the rules of the House to do as he says. But, equally, it is the convention to do as I have just done.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, when the convention has been
1482
defended by himself and his predecessors, it has always been defended on the grounds that other opportunities for debating the economic situation will be made available? Is my noble friend also aware that, in the light of the very recent financial statements made by Ministers, both noble Lords opposite and those on this side of the House pressed for a full-scale debate on the economy? Will that undertaking be met?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that only yesterday my noble friend made the same point to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. My noble friend answered, giving a list of the number of occasions upon which such matters can be debated. If further debates are desired, that is a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is the trouble.
On Question, Bill passed.

High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1994
11.44 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1944 laid before the House on 29th November 1994, be approved. As the draft County Court Remedies (Amendment) Regulations 1994 are closely connected, I shall speak also to that Motion and move it formally later.
The draft High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1994 makes two amendments to the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991. The first amendment will enable higher value cases to be dealt with in the Central London County Court Business List. That list was established in June 1994. Its aim is to enable commercial cases to be dealt with in the county court in a way which is more suitable for the subject matter of such cases and the kinds of issues which arise.
At present, there is a presumption that cases worth £50,000 or more should be dealt with in the High Court. Article 4 of the draft order amends the jurisdiction order so as to provide that, where the High Court or a county court is considering whether to transfer proceedings to or from the business list, the presumption will not arise unless the value of the action is £200,000 or more.
The effect of the second amendment is that judgments given in proceedings arising out of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 may only be enforced in a county court, whatever enforcement method is chosen. It is inappropriate that such judgments should be enforceable in the High Court because this creates problems of "interest on interest".
The draft County Court Remedies (Amendment) Regulations are also connected with the establishment of the Central London County Court Business List. They amend the County Court Remedies Regulations 1991 so as to specify that, in business list cases, a circuit judge

1483
nominated by the senior presiding judge may grant a Mareva injunction. The possibility of obtaining a Mareva injunction in the Central London County Court Business List will significantly increase the attractiveness of that list.
I believe that the changes made by the two instruments represent welcome improvements to the civil litigation process. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committe]—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

County Court Remedies (Amendment) Regulations 1994
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) Regulations 1994
11.46 a.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the above regulations, I shall speak also to the other orders and regulations standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The orders and regulations are necessary for the implementation of the revaluation of non-domestic property which takes effect from 1st April next year. There are seven sets altogether. Five of the orders prescribe new rateable values for the railways, electricity and water industries, British Gas and certain docks and harbours. The sixth revokes the existing order which prescribes rateable values for the telecommunications industry and British Waterways. From 1st April, those industries will no longer have their rateable values prescribed: instead, they will be determined in the same way as for most other businesses. I will say more about the six orders later.
Perhaps the most wide-ranging instrument, however, is the Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) Regulations. They contain provisions for phasing in the effects of the 1995 revaluation where changes in liability would otherwise he significant. Rate rises for small properties—those with a new rateable value of less than £15,000 in London or less than £10,000 elsewhere—will be limited to no more than 7.5 per cent. next year, after allowing for inflation. For larger properties, rates will rise by no more than 10 per cent., after allowing for inflation. For small business properties with living
1484
accommodation, increases will be limited to 5 per cent. in real terms. The regulations provide for the same limits to apply up to the date of the next revaluation.
Revaluations do not affect the overall yield from business rates. Their purpose is to ensure that the burden of rates remains equitable. If the national total of rateable value changes, the law requires the poundage—that is, the amount per pound of rateable value which ratepayers have to pay—to be adjusted accordingly. In fact, however, the 1995 revaluation will make very little difference to total rateable value in England, and the poundage is likely only to increase in line with inflation. In Wales, total rateable value is set to increase, so the poundage will come down.
For individual properties, however, the picture could well be different. The revaluation will reflect changes in the rental values of property since the 1990 revaluation, and some businesses will therefore find themselves facing rate increases, while others might expect reductions or else see little change.
Without phasing provisions, changes in bills could be significant, for two reasons. First, the economic cycle has affected businesses quite differently in different parts of the country. In 1988, which was the base year for setting rateable values for the 1990 revaluation, rental values were still rising in many parts of the country. In some regions, particularly the North and Midlands, values continued rising for a while and then levelled off. But in others—notably central London—they soon began to fall as the recession took hold. The 1995 rateable values for these properties will therefore be based on their rental values at the very bottom of the market. Many losers from the 1990 revaluation are therefore likely to be gainers from the next one, and vice-versa.
Rate bills might also be expected to change significantly because some ratepayers are still receiving relief under the 1990 transitional scheme. In some cases, their current rate bills are well below what they would have been had the effects of the 1990 revaluation been allowed to work their way through in full. Even without a revaluation, these ratepayers might have expected another large increase in bills next year: the revaluation could make the increase even greater.
The Government accept that businesses need time to adjust to changes in their rates burden. That is why we have introduced the phasing provisions in these regulations to reduce the impact of the changes. The limit on increases will benefit nearly I million small properties and nearly 350,000 larger properties in England and Wales. A quarter of beneficiaries will be small shops. Almost half a million offices, warehouses and factories will also benefit.
Some 170,000 properties will see reductions in their hills as a result of the revaluation. Since many of these will have benefited from relief under the 1990 transitional arrangements, we think it right that owners or occupiers of these properties should take their turn to help fund the new arrangements. The regulations therefore include provision to set the rate reductions to a maximum of 10 per cent. for small businesses and 5 per cent. for larger ones next year, after taking account of inflation. Similar limits are likely to be needed in the

1485
following year. However, as ratepayers who are being phased upwards reach their full new bills, so the cost of supporting the scheme will fall. This means that, in 1997–98, reductions should come through much faster, with reductions of up to 20 per cent. for small businesses and 15 per cent. for large ones looking possible. For the last two years before the next revaluation, further reductions of up to 35 per cent. for small businesses and 30 per cent. for large ones should be feasible on current predictions. These estimates are inevitably provisional, and the Government will need to review them before the start of each year, but it is likely that the great majority of gainers will see their full gains before the next revaluation in the year 2000.
Even with this level of support for the cost of the scheme from gainers, there would be a shortfall in rates yield next year. That is why, as announced in the Budget, the Government are putting over half a billion pounds towards the cost in England and Wales. This sum will be used to top up the non-domestic rating pool so that billing authorities are no worse off as a result of the scheme.
Noble Lords may have seen stories and comments in the media suggesting that these measures will be particularly unfair to London. But to say that London will be "robbed of millions" is a travesty of the facts. As I hope I have made clear, gainers in London will see some pretty large reductions in their rate bills over the coming years. Those who complain about our plans for 1995 conveniently forget that the boot was on the other foot in 1990. Then, many central London ratepayers received generous help, financed by deferring other ratepayers' gains. Those parts of the country facing steep increases in rates would find it incomprehensible if London did not return the favour.
In any event, it would be wrong to think of this as a case of London versus the rest. About half the ratepayers in inner London will actually receive help from the scheme. And London authorities will not suffer from the scheme—as I have said, we will top up the national rate pool, and every London authority will continue to get the same amount per head of population as every other authority.
Noble Lords may find it helpful if I said a little more about the content of these regulations. They are inevitably complex because of the variety of different cases which can arise. However, the arrangements are broadly similar for all cases. The new rates bill (known in the regulations as the notional chargeable amount) will he compared with a notional bill—the base liability—for the current year. Any existing transitional relief will be taken into account. If the year on year change is more than the limit (known as the "appropriate fraction") allows, ratepayers will pay the limited amount, subject to any other reliefs which may be available.
As under the 1990 scheme, properties newly constructed after 1st April 1995 will not be subject to phasing. But properties created by the division or
1486
merger of existing properties will do so. In addition, the regulations include rules which will apply the downward phasing provisions to properties wholly or mainly reconstructed from existing properties. This is to prevent ratepayers who are helping to meet the cost of the phasing arrangements from escaping their obligations by undertaking refurbishment or other reconstruction works.
The regulations also apply phasing to the large network industries, which are the subject of the other six orders to which I now wish to turn. Prescription of rateable values for these industries is necessary because of the difficulties of conventional assessment. This may be because of the highly specialised nature of the property or because its sheer size and complexity has meant that the resources needed to value it conventionally have simply not been available.
Since rateable values for conventionally assessed property have changed little as a result of the revaluation taking Great Britain as a whole, we have based the new values for most of the centrally assessed industries on their 1994–95 values, adjusted only for changes in the property they occupy. In other cases, such as the railway networks, the extent of changes since the last revaluation has been so great that we have valued the industry afresh.
The orders also contain formulae to allow for the annual adjustment of rateable values to take account of any further changes in the amount of property these industries occupy. The changes which the formulae measure are a proxy for those which would trigger an alteration in the rateable value of properties occupied by other ratepayers. The water undertakers order also contains a method for determining rateable values when water companies merge.
The prescription of rateable values is not an ideal way to determine the burden of rates on industries, especially now that many of the former public utilities are having to compete against private sector companies whose properties are assessed conventionally. For that reason, timetables for gathering the information necessary to assess properties have already been drawn up for some industries and discussions are to start early in the New Year for others. For British Waterways, British Telecommunications and Mercury Communications, prescription will end from next April and one of the orders before your Lordships therefore repeals the existing orders setting rateable values for those industries. The Tyne and Wear Metro and the Docklands Light Railway will also be conventionally assessed from next year and so no longer appear in the Railways Order. Likewise, the 1989 docks and harbours order has been amended to reflect the fact that ports with relevant incomes of between £50,000 and £1 million will he conventionally assessed in 1995. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Gas plc (Rateable Values) Order 1994 Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994 Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) Order 1994 Railways (Rateable Values) Order 1994 British Waterways Board and Telecommunications Industry (Rateable Values) Revocation Order 1994 Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) Order 1994
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft orders laid before the House on 5th and 12th December be approved [2nd and 3rd Reports from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Council of Europe: Russian Federation Admission
12 noon
Lord Finsberg Lord Finsberg rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy in respect of the admission of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity of discussing in the House a dilemma. Europe will be incomplete without the membership of Russia and I certainly support the principle of Russian membership. The Council of Europe has two entities—the ministerial side and the parliamentary side, in respect of which I have had the honour of leading the United Kingdom delegation for some seven years.
The Council of Europe has guest membership. Very briefly, that is within the gift of the Parliamentary Assembly. It gives us the opportunity of bringing in countries which are starting on the road to democracy. We are able, as it were, to give them the seal of good housekeeping. For example, Poland, Hungary and others have progressed from guest membership to full membership by fulfilling various human rights and standards and having free multi-party parliamentary elections, etc. Russia has guest membership and has asked to become a full member. As is normal, Ministers have asked for the view of the Parliamentary Assembly and unless it assents, it is not possible for Russia to become a full member.
We have to examine the human rights legislation and practice as well as the rule of law. In October 1994 the Council of Europe sent four senior distinguished lawyers, including the vice-president of the European Court of Human Rights and one of the chamber
1488
presidents of the European Commission of Human Rights. I shall read to your Lordships three brief conclusions. The first is:
"The experts have come to the conclusion that so far the rule of law is not established in the Russian Federation".
The second conclusion states:
"With regard to the right to property and the freedom of movement, including the right to choose the place of one's residence, large cities, in particular Moscow, seem simply to ignore the Constitution".
The third conclusion says:
"In sum, the experts have, after careful consideration of the evidence submitted to them and the findings during their mission, come to the conclusion that the legal order of the Russian Federation does not, at the present moment, meet the Council of Europe standards as enshrined in the statute of the Council and developed by the organs of the European Convention on Human rights".
It is important that we recognise what has been said. I should add that those are not the views merely of the Council of Europe because the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has just published a new report. There is one quotation which I would like to give to your Lordships:
"In the St. Petersburg remand centre … the Special Rapporteur found no problems falling within his mandate. … On the other hand, despite the fact that some of the overflow from [an] isolator [prison] in St. Petersburg had been placed in Lebedeva, Kresty remained with an inmate population double its capacity. This meant that cells designed in czarist times for one prisoner and now considered as appropriate to accommodate six prisoners, in fact usually accommodate 12 prisoners who have to sleep in two shifts. The atmosphere and conditions … are oppressive and degrading … However, the conditions of detention in Moscow's … remand centres … [are] even more disgusting. They are believed not to be unique in the territory of the Russian Federation.
The Special Rapporteur would need the poetic skills of a Dante or the artistic skills of a Bosch adequately to describe the infernal conditions he found in these cells. The senses of smell, touch, taste and sight are repulsively assailed. The conditions are cruel, inhuman and degrading; they are torturous. To the extent that suspects are confined there to facilitate the investigation by breaking their wills with a view to eliciting confessions and information, they can properly be described as being subjected to torture".
I am trying to get across that I have no doubt that many of the laws passed by the Russian Parliament are in place, are well-intentioned, but are being wholly ignored throughout the Russian Federation.
It is again fair to say that no one doubts the Russian will to conform. According to Russian officials, the problem is lack of resources, financial human and material. But the passing of laws without implementation is absolutely unacceptable. Thousands of prisoners who have not been tried and who are on remand, but treated as prisoners, may have been in centres for up to two years. One of the problems is that the defence lawyers are not being paid: the state has no money to pay them.
Those are the brief facts and here is the dilemma. There is pressure from governments in Europe for early, speedy Russian membership of the Council of Europe. The standards of the Council of Europe, as your Lordships will know, have gradually evolved over a period of 45 years. It was quite recently at the summit of the heads of state and governments in Vienna, when Her Majesty's Government were represented by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that warm

1489
tribute was paid to what had been done and it was pledged that those standards would be not merely maintained but would even be increased.
It is clear from what I have said that no rational human being can say that Russia is ready yet to become a full member of the Council of Europe. On the one hand—and this is our problem—do we refuse to admit Russia to the Council of Europe until she has reached standards that are acceptable in these modern days and acceptable to the Council of Europe? If we say, "You must wait until you have reached the appropriate standards" there are some in Russia who would use an expletive and who would want to distance themselves from the Council of Europe and from Europe in general. I do not merely refer to Mr. Zhirinovsky.
Perhaps I may very briefly tell your Lordships of an encounter which I had with Mr. Zhirinovsky when he paid his one visit to Strasbourg. We had a very pleasant conversation which is so often possible on a one-to-one basis. An interpreter was present. But the moment there was an audience he started ranting. The following night he went to a reception and his blue cap was stolen. He said that he would never return to Strasbourg because "It is a den of thieves". That was my one encounter with Mr. Zhirinovsky.
On the other hand, do we refuse, as I have said, to admit them or do we admit them knowing that their standards are unacceptable, but set a timetable for improvement and monitoring of what they are doing to fulfil their commitments? That is something which we have done for Romania and Bulgaria. There are very strict monitoring ideas, but they do not always produce the results that we would want.
If we adopt the latter idea of admitting Russia, monitoring it and helping it—and we have done an enormous amount so far—to achieve the standards, can we be certain that those standards will be set throughout the federation or will there be, as we have seen, big cities which opt out? If Russia does not conform and does not keep to the timetable, will any government or the Parliamentary Assembly have the courage to suspend or expel Russia from membership?
That is the appalling dilemma that those in your Lordships' House and in the other place have, as the United Kingdom delegation, to consider in the not too distant future. I hope that I shall have a helpful comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, when she responds. Of course, the situation is the responsibility of the Parliamentary Assembly. But because it is such a major matter, their views as to which course of action is preferable are important. Whether those views are accepted by the Parliamentary Assembly is a different matter, because aside from what I have said, the entry of the Russian Federation into the Council of Europe will distort the whole concept, balance and structure of the Council of Europe. It will require substantial influx of additional finance. Again I ask my noble friend to say that, unlike previous occasions, when new members have been admitted at the request of governments, the increased costs will be covered by increased budgetary resources. That has not been done by governments of all parties throughout Europe. It is important in the concept of Russian membership because they need much more
1490
help, which we are willing to give them, in the training of parliamentary democracy, local government democracy and the rule of law.
I hope that I have not taken too much of your Lordships' time in seeking to explain one of the most intractable problems that I have ever had to discuss.
12.12 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, for placing the Question before your Lordships this afternoon. At the outset, I substantially agree with the outline of his remarks. I might not fully accept the ultimate pessimism contained in his latter few comments, but I suppose that that is more a question of emphasis than of fact.
I believe that the Question which the noble Lord has posed can be divided into two questions. The first is a political one. The noble Lord has elaborated very fairly on the political realities which face the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe at this time. It might be worthwhile recalling that President Gorbachev, as he then was, visited the Council of Europe about four years ago. There he delivered his speech which has since become quite famous and has been referred to frequently as the Common European Home Theme speech. He chose to deliver that speech to the Council of Europe and not to the European Parliament—he had also received an invitation from that body at about the same time. So it is quite clear that even several years ago the Russian thinking was that their first step into Europe —into some European confederation or grouping—would be within the Council of Europe.
As the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, pointed out fairly, it is reasonable to say that upon entry—if that occurs—it will be the first major world power within the Council of Europe. That, of course, will distort the present balance of influence within the Council of Europe. That is a challenge which the Parliamentary Assembly, and indeed the Committee of Ministers, must ultimately face if Russian membership becomes a reality.
The other political point to which I shall refer is that if Russia does not in the end accede to the Council of Europe, it poses these questions: Where does Russia go'? What link will she seek to develop? She is, after all, both a European and an Asian federation. I think that one can argue that she might begin to look for more Asian type links. Then the question has to be posed: Is that relevant to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and relevant to each constituent government member of that Committee of Ministers? Those are the geopolitical difficulties and, as I said, the noble Lord has fairly set them before your Lordships' House.
The next question which possible accession by Russia poses is the legal situation. I am currently chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It falls to my committee, in conjunction with the Political Affairs Committee and with the committee on relations with European non-member countries, to make the initial assessment of the possibility of Russian entry. Again, as the noble Lord pointed out, those three committees commissioned a panel of legal experts to

1491
visit, for a fairly prolonged period, the Russian Federation. It was led by Professor Bernhardt, and included in the panel were Professors Trechsel and Ermacora and Mr. Albert Weitzel. The remit placed before that group of eminent jurists was to report on the conformity of the legal order of the Russian Federation with Council of Europe standards. That was what it was asked to do.
The noble Lord pointed out the ultimate conclusion of its comprehensive findings. However, Mr. Trechsel makes one point in his report—gathered together in the final report, I may add—which I believe is worth reading out to your Lordships. The report states:
"A central question we have to address relates to the rule of law. This aspect is discussed in several sections of this report, especially in Mr. Trechsel's findings for the field of the administration of justice. While the Constitution"—
that is, the Russian constitution—
"guarantees a comprehensive set of fundamental rights and establishes that international conventions are part of the Russian legal order and prevail over ordinary laws, this seems to be more theory than practice. In many important fields—civil law and civil procedural law, criminal law and criminal procedural law in particular—the essential legal codifications have not yet been reformed as planned and the work might still take a considerable amount of time. The traditional authoritarian thinking still seems to be dominant in the field of public administration. This might be due to the fact that certain personal components are still the same as in the former USSR. The courts can now be considered structurally independent from the executive, but the concept that it should in the first place be for the judiciary to protect the individuals has not yet become a reality in Russia".
It is against that background contained in the conclusions of the eminent jurists' report to the committees of the Parliamentary Assembly concerned that I have to refer to a number of pertinent issues. The committee of experts states that the rights of national minorities, freedom of religious assembly and of ordinary style assembly, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, seem largely to be sustained in the Russian Federation at this time. They are not, therefore, ultimately critical of those basic freedoms and we must emphasise that point.
The administration of justice, the deplorable conditions within the prison system and the fact that, while in theory the rule of law has been altered by the constitution, in practice it is rather going on as it did before lead to a number of clear difficulties, to which I have just referred. Nevertheless, some representatives of the Russian authorities hold that the report of the eminent lawyers disregards the dynamics of the evolving situation in Russia. For example, the visit of the lawyers took place more than six months ago. Of course, some things have changed since then. The Russian view is that it is not the task of the lawyers to judge in what timeframe the most important legal and human rights issues can be brought into conformity with the standards of the Council of Europe.
For those reasons, the legal committee has decided to ask this of the Bureau of the Assembly—and I explain it to give noble Lords a little of the background. The Russian process of accession is developing its own momentum in procedural terms. We, or the legal committee, asked the Bureau of the Assembly to
1492
mandate the lawyers—the committee of experts to whom we referred—to return to Russia as soon as possible. My committee wishes to see the position for itself, so we shall visit Russia at the beginning of April.
After we have received the new report from the eminent lawyers, and after we have received and analysed the final answers to a questionnaire which our rapporteurs have developed and sent to the Russian authorities, and after we ourselves have surveyed the situation on the ground, in so far as we can, we will then decide as to what recommendation we might make to the rest of our parliamentary colleagues. But in any case—and this is very important and worth emphasising—Russia will have to commit itself in writing to making all the necessary improvements which we desire, which we ask of them and which the Assembly will demand. The legal committee, together with the political affairs committee, will continue to monitor the honouring of the commitments after the Russian accession. Each commitment has to be seen to be honoured. As a sign of goodwill, Russia must be seen to be making significant improvements—and I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, emphasised this point earlier—particularly with regard to the appalling conditions within the prison system. They are so abhorrent as to be almost beyond reasonable description.
In my view, therefore, the development of the process of Russia's accession to the Council of Europe is now largely dependent on the attitude and actions of the Russian authorities themselves. If they ameliorate the legal and human rights situation and show some good will in co-operation with the Council of Europe, they will undoubtedly accede sooner rather than later. At any rate, in my view that is the likely outcome of the deliberations of the members of the Parliamentary Assembly when the issue comes before them for their ultimate consideration.
12.23 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is now five years since the Iron Curtain was pulled down. Many of us have looked with amazement and admiration at those countries of central and eastern Europe which have succeeded in bringing about a stable, pluralistic democracy and in transforming their economies from a centralised communist system to a decentralised, more capitalist system. However, in that consideration, there has always been a question mark over the Russian republic, in part because of its size, in part because of its significant history, particularly during the cold war period, and in part because of the underlying wealth of that country in terms of both human resources and other vital commodities. It is also because the Russian republic started its reforming process rather later than some other countries.
In that context we do well to remember the words of Bismarck much earlier this century when he said:
"It is a great mistake to underestimate Russia's strengths or Russia's weaknesses".
I therefore consider this an opportune moment for my noble friend Lord Finsberg to pose the question to the Government. Like him and the noble Lord, Lord

1493
Kirkhill, I should declare an interest as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe which will be required to vote on the matter early next year.
It is a remarkable privilege to be a member of that Parliamentary Assembly because we are able to meet and mix not only with representatives of the parliaments of those countries which are already members of the Council of Europe, but also, as my noble friend mentioned, with the parliamentary representatives of those countries which have applicant status.
In expressing my view that we would do well to make haste slowly in the case of Russia, I nevertheless recognise the importance of continuing to develop close contact both at national and international level. I recognise also the need to encourage and support both the government and the people of the Russian republic in achieving the necessary preliminary requirements for membership of the Council of Europe.
My reasons for urging caution include the difficulties so well outlined by my noble friend Lord Finsberg and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. They are human rights, freedom of speech and the need for transparency in its institutions and workings. Currently, we are all only too well aware of the agitation, to put it at its mildest, which is taking place over the situation in Chechnya. We have to look closely at the action being taken there because we must ensure that the standards of admission to membership of the Council of Europe are strictly observed. There are a number of consequences of membership. There is the inevitable pressure for Russia to apply for membership of the Western European Union and all that that implies once it becomes a member of the Council of Europe. There is also the inevitable pressure for Russia to join the European Union.
We all recognise that membership of the Council of Europe is widely regarded as a stepping stone to the deeper membership of the European Union. It is on the grounds of a pluralistic democracy and a human rights situation accepted by the Council of Europe that some of the new applicant countries for membership of the European Union base their readiness. I note with interest that recently there has been a joint delegation from the Russian Duma and the federal council to meet members of the European Parliament and various commissioners in Brussels.
The other reason I emphasise caution is that whatever we do in the case of Russia must create a precedent. If we go too quickly, what then do we do about other, smaller countries which may wish to have the benefits of membership of the Council of Europe? In the waiting room are Latvia, Albania, Ukraine, Croatia, Belarus and Moldova. We are not simply talking about the Russian republic in this situation. I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister can reassure us that Her Majesty's Government will be their usual pragmatic self and will exercise a restraining influence on those who wish to go too far too fast.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, for providing the opportunity for this House to discuss this important
1494
matter. I speak from my experience since 1981 as a UK representative of local and regional authorities within the Council of Europe, on the former standing committee, and now as a member of the congress.
I speak in particular to support the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, on the point he made about the need for resources to ensure that legislation is implemented with the maximum available support in terms of experience, knowledge and training from countries that have longer experience in dealing with legislation which meets both democratic and human rights standards within Council of Europe member states.
There is a concern that, were the programme to be extended to the Russian Federation, work that is being done in countries such as those that were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, would be withdrawn and reduced, and it is work that is desperately needed. It is extremely important that the value that is attached to the principles that are enshrined within the Council of Europe—namely, democratic freedom and human rights—are not diluted, and that countries should not he admitted with undue haste without resources being made available to ensure that the legislation that is acceptable is being enacted in reality and is affecting the democracy and human rights of every individual citizen within those countries.
It is certainly the case—the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, was right when she referred to the fact—that there are other countries waiting and watching. I speak from the point of view of a particularly close relationship with one of those countries, Albania, where similar legislation is being enacted but where help and assistance are still needed to be able to implement that legislation fully; where the culture and traditions are so in conflict, and the experience of those who seek to enact the legislation is so far removed from the intention of that legislation that help is needed. I seek from the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will extend the human resources, the expertise and training facilities.
My colleagues who have spoken have visited many of these countries. They have spoken of the desperate need to provide an extension to the extremely valuable LODE programme working for local democracy and the other projects dealing with human rights. It is vitally important that we do not allow an increase in membership to dilute the principles for which the Council of Europe was formed and must continue to stand.
12.34 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe I am right in saying that the noble Baroness who speaks for the Government and I are at something of a disadvantage in this debate since we are the only speakers who do not have a direct involvement in the work of the Council of Europe. All the other speakers are either British representatives or members of its committees.
I listened with great interest to what was said about the problem, and in particular to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, who speaks with the special authority of chairman of the Legal Committee in the Council of Europe.

1495
Clearly, there are still a number of justifiable concerns about the human rights position in the Russian Federation. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, and others about Russian prison conditions. Just to add another anecdote to what has already been said, I read recently stories of inmates being forced to work as long as 16 hours a day, doing work of an extremely disagreeable kind: they are forced to take a crouching position for many, many hours, and have to work with coarse thread, which leads to the deterioration of their eyesight; they have continually swollen feet and their hands are ripped up by that thread. We have also heard disturbing stories about police methods in Russia, particularly in the conduct of arrests and the obtaining of confessions. There are still restrictions on freedom of movement: for example, it is still necessary to have a permit to live in some of the great cities of Russia, including Moscow and St. Petersburg. All this and more indicate that old habits die hard.
However, while noting that nothing in the UK can be anything like as bad as prison conditions in Russia, Britain, too, still has a long way to go in terms of some of its own prison regimes. There are people who are still locked up for 23 out of 24 hours a day. Slopping out is still common in many of our gaols. Indeed, there are still things here that need doing in respect of some of the methods that are used by the police in obtaining convictions.
Moreover, there are a number of the existing members of the Council of Europe with far from perfect human rights records. I am sure that other Members of this House will agree. Turkey, of course, comes to mind.
A second, and perhaps even more important, concern was raised by my noble friend Lord Kirkhill about potential Russian membership of the Council of Europe; namely, respect for the rule of law. Concern centres on the question as to whether Russia is a state that is now properly based on the rule of law. The new constitution guarantees all kinds of rights, but it is a matter of implementation. As my noble friend asked, is the concept, for example, that the judiciary should be there to protect the individual now a reality in Russia? We have to ask questions about whether that is the case. It is apparent that the Russian Government need to take these matters very seriously and to try to speed up the implementation of reform in both these areas if they wish to gain the membership that they seek.
The noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, put the dilemma very clearly. I am indeed very grateful to him for posing this dilemma. There are very difficult political decisions involved. It would be very helpful to hear the Government's present thinking about the dilemma.
I note, however, that the new Secretary-General of the Council of Europe has indicated quite recently that he expects Russia to be admitted by next summer, and possibly as early as May. Clearly, allowing Russia to join other European democratic nations has many advantages. Again, that was clearly put by the noble Lord who introduced this debate. The more Russia and other European countries of the former Soviet Union can be drawn into the fold along with the stable Western democracies of Europe, the better. But I wonder whether
1496
the Minister could tell the House clearly whether the Government are now in favour of Russian membership, assuming that the Russian Government accept that progress must be made in the area of both human rights and the implementation of the rule of law. Could she also say whether the Government share the views of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe about the timetable for Russian entry?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, mentioned, there are a number of other countries seeking membership. I have a slightly longer list even than the one which she gave. Could the Minister also give some indication of the Government's views about the impact of Russian admission to the Council of Europe on those other countries and on their applications for membership, particularly those countries which were formerly part of the Soviet Union—Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine—all of which wish to join the Council of Europe?
My noble friend Lady Farrington mentioned the wish of Albania to become a member of the Council of Europe and the need for resources to help such countries move toward proper democracy—I do not just mean aspirations in a written constitution, but their implementation. I should like very much to support her argument for greater resources.
There are a range of views on Russian membership among existing member countries of the Council of Europe and their representatives at Strasbourg. Some favour early accession, some favour accession at a later date and others are opposed to accession. Presumably, the British Government are a little more pragmatic than those who oppose accession per se. I certainly think that the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, is more open-minded and pragmatic than to take that view.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhill raised the question of the impact of Russian membership on the balance of power and influence in the Council of Europe. The Minister, speaking for the Government, may also like to comment on that. Could she also indicate whether discussions have taken place with other members of the European Union on this matter?
It is clear from the recent CSCE conference in Budapest that the Russian Government are concerned about the possible expansion of NATO eastwards to include east European countries. President Yeltsin attacked those plans as a threat to Russian security and argued that they were divisive with respect to the common objective to create greater European unity, especially between East and West. Could the Minister say whether the Government believe that Russian anxieties about being excluded from NATO should be taken into account in the decision about Russia's access to the Council of Europe? Could she perhaps say whether the Government believe that Russia's admission to membership of the Council of Europe will help allay any of the suspicions that Russia might have about being excluded from a more integrated Europe, particularly with regard to security arrangements? The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, raised similar questions about whether membership of the Council of Europe would lead to greater pressure from Russia for membership of other western European bodies.

1497
We must all hope that the huge steps that Russia has taken since 1989 towards democracy and becoming a successful democracy, where individual freedoms are both protected and respected, will continue. I myself visited Russia earlier this year and was impressed by the many changes that have taken place since I was last there, ranging from freedom of expression and independent newspapers to freedom of worship. But there are still worrying signs of the old authoritarianism, which is a matter for concern.
However, from this side of the House I hope that the setback to Russian accession to the Council of Europe, which was received when the eminent jurists and human rights experts published their report a few months ago, will be a temporary one. I also hope that with further progress in the next months—of course with proper monitoring both before and after membership—the Council of Europe Assembly and the Committee of Ministers will be able, in the not too distant future, to agree to Russia's accession and that Russia will play a full and positive role in the work of the Council of Europe.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is quite right. In a way, we are both outsiders today. I am sure that she will join me in thanking my noble friend Lord Finsberg for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue.
The Council of Europe's work has never been more important. It plays a unique role in anchoring democracy, human rights and the rule of law throughout the new Europe. It is an organisation in which Her Majesty's Government play a full and active role. Perhaps I may also take this opportunity to express appreciation for the enormous contribution made to the work of the Council of Europe by the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation, and in particular its leader, my noble friend Lord Finsberg.
The Motion asks: what is the Government's policy on the admission of Russia to the Council of Europe? We wish to develop a close and co-operative relationship with Russia, both bilaterally and in multilateral forums. Russia can make a considerable contribution to global stability and security, particularly in Europe. Therefore, we want to see Russia play a full role in the international system. Indeed, without Russia that system could not work to its full potential. Underpinning democratic institutions in Russia is an important element in that process.
We have welcomed Russia's application to join the Council of Europe. Russia has made great progress in firmly establishing the principles of the rule of law, human rights and democracy, which the Council of Europe seeks to promote. Russia's membership would therefore help further to consolidate those principles. We wish to see Russia join as soon as possible once—I stress the word "once", in answer to my noble friend Lady Hooper—it has met the standards demanded by the organisation.
I cannot give the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the answer to her question regarding the impact of Russia's membership on other countries in so far as that
1498
is still a hypothetical matter. Her question about Russia as a potential member of NATO is not in fact a question for today. I am sure that there will be other opportunities for the noble Baroness to raise that point. Our priority is for NATO to develop an open and wide-ranging dialogue and a substantive partnership with Russia.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, noted the recent Council of Europe report on the conformity of the legal order of the Russian Federation with Council of Europe standards, which highlighted, among other things, some serious shortcomings in pre-trial detention centres in Russia. The recent report by the special rapporteur to the United Nations Commission of Human Rights also drew attention to the very poor conditions in remand centres. The Russians recognise the serious nature of the problem. They want to take the necessary action to bring conditions in those institutions into line with acceptable standards. But that may take time, especially as resources are extremely limited.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg mentioned the recent report by jurists from the Court and Commission of Human Rights. That was mixed in its conclusions. For example, it rightly noted the considerable progress that had been achieved in the protection of human rights, but a number of criticisms were made. The overall conclusion was that the legal order and the rule of law did not meet present Council standards. There was some particularly trenchant criticism of Russian detention centres. Some commentators interpreted the report as a serious obstacle to Russian entry. The secretary-general of the Council stressed that it is an agenda for action which identifies those elements of Russian legislation and practice that must be brought into conformity with Council of Europe standards.
Dwelling on the Council of Europe standards, both my noble friend Lord Finsberg and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, mentioned the maintenance of standards in the Council of Europe. Every member state in the Council must not only have functioning democratic institutions but must also accept the rule of law and the enjoyment by all people within its territory of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Those need to be met in practice as well as in theory. There is no question of Her Majesty's Government wishing standards to be lowered. Indeed, the Council would lose its credibility if it granted permission to states which had neither the intention nor the wherewithal to achieve those standards. But that must he balanced with the need to encourage the newly-emerging democracies of the east by welcoming them into our institutions.
Russia has made considerable progress in a short space of time. We believe that early membership is important for Russia and for its relations with other European states. But membership cannot be at any price. Certain standards must be met. Equally, we should not demand perfection before entry or ask more of Russia than of other recent applicants. There is a general appreciation that Russia is moving in the right direction and is responding to the suggestions for improvements. Nevertheless, it may well be that some matters could

1499
reasonably be left for resolution until after entry. Finding the right balance is the delicate task facing the rapporteurs from the Parliamentary Assembly.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Finsberg for giving me warning that he would be asking me what would happen if Russia failed to meet its obligations. This was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. Once a member of the Council of Europe, Russia will be judged just like any other member state. It will be expected to fulfil its obligations under the statute and the commitments it enters into when it joins. We shall have a clearer idea of what they will be when the rapporteurs produce their report. In relation to the sanctions available, the Assembly has its own procedures in place, of which my noble friend is well aware. The Committee of Ministers only last month adopted new procedures to tackle any possible slippage in standards. Those lay stress on dialogue and co-operation with the member state concerned. Beyond that, as my noble friend is aware, it is also open to the Committee of Ministers to take action under Article 8 of the statute which allows for the suspension of a state which is seriously in breach of its obligations. However, before then we would hope that the process of dialogue and co-operation would produce the required results.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, introduced the question of resources for the Council of Europe activities. The budget ceiling for 1995 has been set at a 2 per cent. rise over 1994. However, the Secretariat will have access to an additional 35 million French francs' worth of credits for 1995. That represents another 4.65 per cent. over the 1994 figures. I do not think the organisation can expect more at such a difficult time in Europe. Our own contributions, based on new scales, may rise by as much as 5.4 per cent. in 1995, amounting to around £15 million for the ordinary budget alone, with a further £2 million for the pensions and buildings budgets. I hope that those seeking yet further budgetary increases will study those figures with care.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg asked whether additional funds will be forthcoming when Russia joins. The best answer I can give is that officials are assessing what is likely to be needed. We shall need to see the results of that assessment before taking a decision.
I am appreciative of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, but what she said is a little wide of today's debate. It behoves all member countries to look at how they can best assist the countries she mentioned. Her Majesty's Government already provide "good government" assistance to many countries. However, I shall draw her remarks to the attention of my noble friend the Minister for Overseas Development. Of course, the Government recognise that the decision on Russia's application will be taken by the Members of the Council of Europe Assembly, who quite rightly value their independence of judgment. But it is the Government's hope that Russia will join as soon as possible when the Assembly is satisfied that the membership criteria have been met. It is important that
1500
Russia and the Council of Europe continue to work together in a spirit of positive co-operation to achieve that goal.

Royal Assent
12.56 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act.

Motion for the Adjournment
12.57 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is one of the great pleasures of the Chief Whip to move the Adjournment and I should like on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House to wish all noble Lords a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. I hope that the Recess will prove to be for all your Lordships a happy and refreshing break from the rigours of parliamentary business.
I should also like to seize this traditional opportunity to say on behalf of the whole House a hearty thank you to all those who work so hard in support of our activities.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I should like to offer our very best wishes for Christmas and the new year to those who serve us so well in the Parliament Office, Black Rod's Office and Hansard, and to the Custodians, the Refreshment Department, the security officers and the police. I should like to offer particular good wishes to the Doorkeepers and express my hope that their Christmas festivities last night were not too greatly overshadowed by proceedings on the Environment Bill. I should especially like to wish the Principal Doorkeeper a very happy retirement.
I wish all in the House, both Peers and staff, a very happy Christmas.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a great pleasure on behalf of colleagues to follow that omnibus vote of thanks. The Government Chief Whip is quite right. We are indebted to so many people and a number of them are in the Chamber. I have heard the noble Lord's remarks and we on these Benches certainly wish to he associated with them. The noble Lord took the opportunity of drawing to the attention of the House our indebtedness to the Doorkeepers and to Mr. Emmerson, the Principal Doorkeeper. Mr. Emmerson not only served in the Royal Marines for 21 years—having served there for only four years I know what a service that was—but also served for another 24 years in your Lordships' House. When one reflects on the fact that someone has been in public service for 45 years in those very important positions of security, one realises what a remarkable achievement it is.

1501
My attention was also drawn to the retirement at this time of Mr. James Dalton from the Hansard office. He has served the House for 21 years. It is fitting, while we do not try to choose too many people, to recognise that we are always indebted to the Hansard writers. Most times they get it right; and when they get it wrong it is our fault! Nevertheless, Mr. Dalton and his colleagues have served this House very well indeed.
We are also indebted to the Government Chief Whip and his colleagues for ensuring that the House was able to rise this week and not next week. That is no accident, which those in the usual channels appreciate. It could have gone the other way. We are indebted to the Government Chief Whip and his colleagues for recognising the value to Members of the House of rising this week instead of next week.
We meet on the "mourn" after Dudley. That presages the fact that, while there may be some kind of a peace now, when we get back after Christmas it will be an uneasy peace that will he broken. In the meantime, I certainly respond very well to what the Government Chief Whip said and wish him and his colleagues and noble Lords throughout the House a merry Christmas and happy new year.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, it falls to the Deputy Whip of the party I represent on these Benches to be a kind of perpetual stand-in. Sometimes that is not a pleasant role but—and this is the third year that I have done it—it is always pleasant to give the Christmas message.
I hope I will be forgiven by noble Lords if I start my Christmas message by referring to the excellent work that has been done in your Lordships' House this year for motorcyclists. We have a parking area which is surrounded by chains and portcullises. As always, we are given polite and ever-courteous attention by police and security officers alike, which is absolutely in keeping with all the other attention we receive in the work that we do in your Lordships' House.
I should like to re-echo what has already been said by the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip and the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip. While we
1502
cannot cover everyone, I have a particular feeling for the Doorkeepers. I am very sorry to learn that Lord Emmerson—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: You anticipate!
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I anticipate. Perhaps we have now found a solution for the proper reform of your Lordships' House. Mr. Emmerson leaves one of the most extraordinarily effective bodies of men in any institution in our public life. I am not shy to say that I have a particular reason for saying that. When my father was here—he was a much liked man but got himself into some difficulties—he was so well treated and looked after by the Doorkeepers in the House that I always think of them with the greatest affection. I hope that I am no embarrassment to them—perhaps I shall become one—hut they treat me almost with affection and with great respect and good humour. That is the kind of atmosphere we experience in this House when we follow our duties, which are sometimes not all that easy.
Having said all that and indulged myself in this stand-in position as usual, perhaps I may wish all noble Lords, and everyone who works to make our lives as comfortable and effective as possible, a very happy Christmas and, as they say in Scotland, a guid new year.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I am also a stand-in. On behalf of our respected Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers I should like to express our thanks to the officers and staff of the House for the way in which they look after us throughout the year. I refer to those on the principal floor, in Hansard, and those in the Refreshment Department downstairs. I echo the tributes which have been paid to the Doorkeepers. I well remember, shortly after I arrived here, committing a minor offence and being told by one of them, "You may have a Speaker to keep order down the other end, sir, but here we have Doorkeepers"—and very well they do it too!
I am often asked whether the Cross-Bench Peers hunt as a pack and whether we have a united line on issues of the day. I must assure your Lordships that we do not. We are all individuals. But we are united today in wishing your Lordships and the staff of the House a very happy Christmas.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at five minutes past one o'clock until Monday, 9th January next.