Lords Sitting of 3 March 1994

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Milford— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father

Hallmarking System
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made to ensure the continuation of the British hallmarking system in view of the proposed European Community directive on the harmonisation of hallmarking.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, negotiations are continuing on the European Commission's proposal for a draft directive. The Government are determined to preserve as much of the British hallmarking system as possible and to ensure that consumers are afforded the high level of protection to which they are presently accustomed.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is the Minister aware that under Article 12 of the draft directive, manufacturers will be allowed,
"to strike existing traditional marks"?
Can he assure us that the famous British hallmarks which have guaranteed absolute standards since 1300 will continue to be able to be used correctly in this country and not misused by other European countries?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the proposed directive as it stands would generally permit only two marks: the sponsor's mark denoting both the manufacturer and the notified body; and a fineness mark. Therefore, British assay officers would not be able to use their existing hallmarks. However, the draft directive would allow the continued use of so-called traditional marks so long as they do not confuse. We are seeking clarification from the Commission, and we shall continue to argue for existing hallmarks to be included.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, does the Minister agree that negotiations on the draft directive have now entered a critical phase? If so, will he please arrange for their conduct to be carefully supervised in his department, bearing in mind that the present text of the so-called Annexe 4 does not safeguard adequately the interests of consumers and would also undermine seriously the hallmarking arrangements which have existed satisfactorily in this country for seven centuries?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government have strong reservations about the conformity procedure proposed in Annexe 4 of the draft directive— the manufacturer's declaration of conformity that he has properly struck the sponsor's and the fineness marks on
1126
the article. We believe that Annexe 4 is a weak form of control which is open to abuse. We shall argue for changes in the draft proposals.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has correctly stated the case? Any reduction in the standards relating to traditional hallmarks in this country may well open the door to sharp practice, which we can do without. It may also lead to a reduction in consumer protection. Along with other noble Lords, I hope that the Government will resist any diminution of those standards.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that the Government recognise fully the strength of the British hallmarking system; and they support it. We should not wish to see lower standards of consumer protection 'which must remain the priority in any such arrangements.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if subsidiarity means anything at all, it should cover this subject? This kind of nonsense risks alienating those of us who remain committed to the European ideal.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as regards subsidiarity, the Government's position must be to satisfy the subsidiarity provisions by achieving a system which satisfies UK objectives without an unnecessary proliferation of new rules or unnecessary costs for business while maintaining the extremely high UK standards in that area.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in his original reply the noble Viscount said that the Government would endeavour to maintain the British position sc far as possible. Is he aware that that is not at all adequate? Who in the Commission dreamt up this idea out of the blue? Why do they not mind their own business and get on with something that is really important for the people of Europe?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have stressed that the Government sympathise with the anxieties expressed while recognising the desire for harmonisation; and that is shared by industry. That is why we are continuing to press for the maintenance of the highest standards.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could inform the House under what article of the Treaty of Rome this absurd directive is proposed; and whether we are in a position to be outvoted on it, whether we like it or not.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the directive has been proposed as a single market measure under Article 100A of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the deputy warden of the London Assay Office has achieved considerable progress in the preparation of a draft European standard? Can he assure

1127
the House that the interests not only of the consumer but also of those involved in the precious metals and related industries will be looked after?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the industry recognises the need for some form of harmonisation; but all sections of the industry— manufacturers, assay officers and retailers— support the existing arrangements which are easily comprehensible and which offer a very high level of protection to the consumer.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am stupefied by the suggestion of a desire for some form of harmonisation. Does the Minister not recognise that we have an extremely satisfactory system of hallmarking in this country which protects the consumer? Perhaps the noble Viscount will address himself to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I speak, as the Minister knows, as a strong supporter of the Community, but I should like to know on what grounds the Community is involving itself in a state of affairs which is currently more than satisfactory. The present system offers an extremely good measure of consumer protection. The Government should not be negotiating on this issue. They should be saying no.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I endorse entirely the views of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on the strength of the existing UK system. But at present, a number of differing systems are in use throughout the European Union for marking precious metals. Member states, as well as the Commission, see the benefits of harmonisation. We shall continue to press for the maintenance of the present extremely high standards.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether I could press my noble friend to answer the second half of my question as to whether this country can be outvoted on this absurd directive, whether we like it or not.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my understanding is that the directive is governed by the principle of qualified majority voting.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that five other European countries each have their own satisfactory hallmarking standards? Can we not call upon them as allies to support the idea of retaining our own individual hallmarking standards?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government are aware that a number of other member states including France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain also have reservations about the Annexe 4 procedure. They also seek to maintain the high standards which they have in their industries.

Equine Medicines
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will oppose the proposed European Union regulations concerning equine medicines.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, there are no current proposals for European Union regulations on equine medicines. The noble Viscount may, however, have in mind Council Regulation 2377/90 under which maximum residue limits (MRLs) must be established by 1996 for active ingredients in veterinary medicines used in food producing species. The European Commission has confirmed this morning that, in line with existing UK policy, if a horse is not destined for human consumption, maximum residue limits will not be required.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and indeed for the reassurances that it brings. I believe everyone will be pleased at what he has said. However, until such time as a firm and practical agreement is in place within the European Commission, does he not agree that horse owners may be deprived of the ability to carry out their legal responsibility properly to care for their animals? Similarly, veterinary surgeons may be unable fully to carry out their professional responsibilities. Finally, does the Minister agree that potentially curable animals could well face premature slaughter?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in the light of my initial Answer, I believe that the noble Viscount will find that his fears are quite groundless. Any suggestion that only high value horses will be covered by MRL exemptions is a misinterpretation of what the Commission has said. It has merely given some examples among which high value animals are featured. UK policy applies to all horses irrespective of value.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, do the Government or the Minister's department consult closely with the British Veterinary Association, as that body can give them proper and worthwhile guidance on these matters?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government's links with the British Veterinary Association are indeed close. We have worked closely with the association on this matter and I am sure that we have found an acceptable solution.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, while this issue is of particular concern to the United Kingdom, it is a problem for the whole of the European Union. The volume of sales of equine products is such that it is unlikely that many pharmaceutical houses will go to the effort or expend the funds involved in determining MRLs in these products. Therefore, as has been mentioned, a number of products may be withdrawn not only as regards equines of high value but also equines of low value. I refer to both economic value and value to riders. In this respect will the Minister

1129
support efforts by bodies such as the BVA and the veterinary medicine directorate to join with the European Community bodies of comparable status in seeking to have some derogation applied to this measure at the source from whence it came; namely, Brussels?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in certain countries of the European Union the consumption of horsemeat is a regular occurrence. That is not the practice in this country, which is why I gave the initial Answer that I did. The principle behind the regulation is not one with which, in logic, one can argue. Where meat enters the food chain, we must be able to ensure the safety of the consumer and we must give the pharmaceutical industry a proper framework in which to operate. It is to everyone's advantage to know what the safety levels are. I shall, however, reflect on my noble friend's suggestion to see whether there is anything that we in the UK can do to assist other member states.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, is there any evidence of public health problems arising from the residues of current animal medicines, either in the EC or elsewhere?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not aware of any particular incidents in the UK, but incidents have arisen in other member states— for example, Spain and Ireland — in other species arising from the misuse of medicinal products. It is only right that the Community should take appropriate action to safeguard human health.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, if the Commission had not changed its stance on MRLs, the effect of the original proposal would have been devastating for the race-horse industry? Will the Government ensure that the Commission does not resile in any way from the policy which, as the Minister mentioned, was confirmed only this morning?
Earl Howe: My Lords, had the Commission not issued the clarification that it did, I would have told the House that we were confident that a full and adequate range of veterinary medicines would be available for treating horses. Nevertheless I take note of what the noble Lord has said. As far as I can see, the Commission's clarification is quite unequivocal and we shall proceed on that basis.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are certain veterinary medicines which may legally be used for other animals but which may not be used legally in the context of horses? In this context might it not be desirable that the horse should be classified as a goat or a rabbit, which we sometimes believe it resembles, and in that case would not be subject to these regulations?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I think that my noble friend's point is somewhat academic in that, under the rules as we now understand them, the horse will effectively be exempt from the rules surrounding MRLs anyway.

Sugar: CAP Support Prices
3.16 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What reductions in the price of sugar they are seeking in the current annual common agricultural policy price settlement.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Commission has proposed no changes in support prices for sugar this year apart from a reduction in the amount paid for storing sugar. Proposals have to be made later this year to address the reform of the regime and the measures needed to implement the Community's GATT obligations in time for the 1995– 96 marketing year. The Government, however, believe that there is no reason why some reduction in prices should not be made now to help redress the growing imbalance between this sector and that for other arable crops.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. In asking this Question I declare an interest. While my noble friend's Answer is welcome so far as it goes, does he not think there are sufficient technical issues involved to enable us to ask the Commission to reduce the price still further in the light of the out-of-date situation regarding the sugar regime?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is ample scope to reduce prices even before the reform of the regime. As regards this year's price fixing, we have made it clear in the Council that a price cut is essential.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if there is a reduction in the price of sugar, what mechanism exists to ensure that the consumer benefits and that the reduction is not used to increase the profits of the sugar industry? Do the Government anticipate that the change in the reimbursement of storage costs— the Minister mentioned that— proposed for 1994– 95 will be reflected in prices generally?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the reduction in the storage refund will lead to a reduction in the level of the storage levy which should in turn reduce the price of sugar. 'That is good news for consumers. However, in processed products such as cakes and biscuits, sugar represents only a relatively small proportion of the total cost and the impact of any cut may therefore be modest. Nonetheless, if it occurs it will be welcome.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not an exercise of extreme optimism to believe that the Commission will reduce the price of any commodity?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I remind my noble friend that the Community has signed up to the GATT agreement and sooner or later those targets will have to be addressed. It is likely that the targets will be met by a combination of quota cuts and price reductions. That combination cannot yet be determined, but we will press hard for price reductions to take the weight.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if one reduces the price of sugar, very little

1131
of that reduction will reach the consumer? Over 70 per cent. of the price of the product goes to manufacturers and retailers and very little to the farmers who produce the sugar?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there is no doubt that the consumer bears a large proportion of the cost of the sugar regime. In that respect what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, says, is correct. However, if, as I indicated, prices come down— if not this year, then as the regime is reformed— it would be a great surprise to me if there were not some effect on retail prices in the shops.

European Parliament: Accommodation
3.19 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take immediate action, either at a specially convened meeting of the European Council or at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, to veto the proposal for the construction in Strasbourg of a new building to accommodate the European Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, no. A decision was taken at the Edinburgh European Council in December 1992 on the question of the seat of the European Parliament and other Community institutions. It is for the European Parliament itself to decide policy on buildings in the light of that decision.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, this is a matter of the utmost urgency. Is the noble Viscount aware that discussions are taking place, both unofficially in COREPER and in the circles of the European Parliament, concerning this matter? Is he also aware that the French, with their usual felicity in such matters, have already indicated that there will be a withdrawal of co-operation with some members of the European Council in the event of a new Parliament not being established in Strasbourg? Is the Minister further aware that there are three Towers of Babel which at present accommodate the European Parliament: one in Luxembourg which was never used for the purpose after it was built, a further building in Brussels which is used for only about 10 days a year for ordinary parliamentary purposes, and another one in Strasbourg which was built only about 25 years ago and is far from written off? Can the Government not take some action in order to avoid this lush expenditure which at present, in terms of rental, is costing the Community £ 1 million a week? Will the noble Viscount see that something is done about it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord describes as lush expenditure. Certainly, in 1993 the expenditure net of receipts for the European Parliament was over £ 456 million. I cannot differ altogether from the noble Lord over his estimate of the total cost of renting the nine buildings in Brussels, the five buildings in Luxembourg and the five buildings
1132
in Strasbourg, to which he referred rather elliptically. The Edinburgh agreement to which I referred in my original Answer confirms the status quo, and so far as I am aware the French have signed up to that agreement. I remind the noble Lord that that status quo was confirmed in exchange for what was seen by all members of the Community as a greater good, namely the enlargement of the Community, which I believe noble Lords feel is in British interests.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend gain the same impression as I do on every visit to Brussels of an ever-increasing number of Community buildings, all having in common the fact that they look very expensive and are rarely used? Can my noble friend tell the House what contribution we are making towards the building programme in Brussels, Strasbourg and elsewhere?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend has the advantage of me in that he has visited these buildings and I have not, so I must accept his description of them. It is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to say precisely how much they contribute towards the cost of building, running and renting these buildings, but they form an integral part of the overall Community budget to which Her Majesty's Government make a contribution, as my noble friend knows.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it true that the estimated cost of the new building is some £ 230 million? Is it also true that the French Government have threatened that if the building is not built and occupied by the European Parliament they will block the European elections which take place in June? If that is so, is it not disgraceful and downright blackmail?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I cannot confirm the estimate which the noble Lord gives of the cost of the new building that is proposed for Strasbourg. That is a matter which must lie between the European Parliament and the Government of France, which is the sovereign state in which Strasbourg is situated. As I emphasised a few moments ago, the Edinburgh agreement was an agreement among all members of the European Community and as far as I am aware France is fully signed up to that agreement.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that this is a sheer waste of public money? Taxpayers not only in this country but throughout the Community are contributing to this extravagance. Does my noble friend also agree that it is not only the cost of the building that we should be worried about but also the cost of shuttling the various bureaucrats and so on between the three centres, which is costing the European taxpayer millions and millions of pounds quite unnecessarily?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government would be the last to deny that the present arrangements are anything but ideal. My noble friend will be aware that under the arrangement which at present obtains in this matter the secretariat of the European Parliament is separated from both seats of the

1133
European Parliament. It may well be that our friends and allies in other parts of the Community know better how to deal with these matters than we do, but I observe that in this country the learned clerks of both Houses of Parliament are collocated in a way which is clearly not considered desirable in the European Parliament.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the recent decision to enlarge the Community by inclusion of the Scandinavian countries and the wish in future to see further enlargement of the Community by inclusion of countries located in Eastern Europe, would it not be logical to think of the future and recommend that the European Parliament is located in Berlin?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, that is not a suggestion that I have heard before this afternoon. I can confirm that the plans for the new building in Strasbourg encompass enough space to accommodate new members from EFTA who are at present negotiating to join the Community as well as new Members of the European Parliament from former East Germany.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, bearing in mind that it has just been estimated that each active Member of your Lordships' House costs the British taxpayer some £ 38.000 per annum, that each Member of the other place costs the taxpayer about £ 250,000 per annum and that each Member of the European Parliament costs just under £ 1 million per annum, does my noble friend think it would be a good idea to hold up the construction of this new white elephant until the latter figure— £ 900,000 per annum per European Member of Parliament— was divided by about, say, six?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I must point out to my noble friend that if he wishes to discuss these matters he must take them up with the European Parliament itself and perhaps with the Government of France, who are responsible for the construction of the building and for relations directly with the Strasbourg project.
Lord Richard: My Lords, am I right in assuming that there are two issues? The first relates to the site of the European Parliament; the second to whether the European Parliament in Strasbourg needs a new building. Am I also right in assuming that on the question of whether the site should be in Strasbourg, the Government have already agreed with the French and others that that is where the building should be sited? So far as I can understand today, the Government take no position on the second issue. If they take no position on whether there should be a new Parliament building in Strasbourg, does the Minister agree that if anything is not needed it is a new European Parliament building in Strasbourg? Those of us who have seen the to-ings and fro-ings and the size of that building, and have worked in a parliamentary House in this building, have envied the facilities in that building. Does the Minister accept from me that the last thing the European Parliament needs is a new building? Would it not be a good idea if the Government said so?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am well aware of the great experience of the noble Lord in matters
1134
European. I certainly defer to what he described as the to-ings and fro-ings associated with having different sites for the European Parliament.
But I can only repeat what I said at the beginning of these exchanges. All members of the European Community in this matter are bound by the status quo which was the decision of the Edinburgh agreement would be the last to deny that in principle it would be desirable to have a single venue for the European Parliament. And I cannot comment on the building. The noble Lord has been there; I have not.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Viscount convey to his right honourable friend the general sentiments on the matter and ensure that a veto is imposed on this quite unnecessary expenditure? Is he aware that if he considers Chapter 20, Title 2, of the European Parliament's budget for the current year he will find under item 2000 a rental of £ 49 million, of which the British bear approximately £ 6 million? That is without rates or any other expenditure. When will the Government take some active, positive steps to bring this travelling circus to an end?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I shall convey to my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary the sentiments that the noble Lord has expressed.

National Parks Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the establishment of new authorities to carry out functions in relation to national parks; and to make provision with respect to those authorities and such parks. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. — (Lord Norrie.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Priorities for the Science Base: Select Committee Report
3.32 p.m.
Lord Flowers Lord Flowers rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Priorities for the Science Base (2nd Report, HL Paper 12).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Members of the sub-committee who joined me in preparing our report, Priorities for the Science Base. Several of them are speaking today and I thank them for that too. All of us would wish me to thank our clerk, Mr. Andrew Makower, whose ability to turn a mass of tangled undergrowth into a trimly pruned garden is phenomenal.
Warm thanks are also due to our specialist adviser, Dr. Peter Collins, and to the Royal Society for seconding to us someone as experienced as he in science policy. Last, but by no means least, perhaps I may thank

1135
our many witnesses from industry, Government and universities. That includes our first witness, Sir David Phillips, who has since retired as chairman of the now defunct Advisory Board of the Research Councils after many years of distinguished service to the administration of science.
The report is both wide-ranging and technical. It is wide-ranging because it examines within given resources how choices are made about scientific research, whatever the objective, conducted in universities and research council laboratories, no matter who funds it. It is about the science base.
It is technical because it examines the problem in the particular light of last May's White Paper, Realising our Potential. That White Paper promised many reforms of the system of government support for science and technology. Some of the recommendations were proposed in earlier reports of your Lordships' Select Committee and I gladly acknowledge that we have been listened to.
We did not consider the special problems of medical research, nor the European framework programme, nor the role of government research laboratories. They had been dealt with in earlier reports. We did not try to set priorities ourselves. Nor did we attempt on this occasion to make a case for increased resources. I do not mean that we considered present levels of spending on science and technology sufficient; we would like to see them increased. In particular we should like to see industry spend more on research; it is not just a matter for Government.
However, the chief purpose of a policy for basic science and engineering is to maintain a creative tension between excellence and utility. The best of British research is still first-class by world standards, although there may be less of it than once there was. We can no longer afford to support all the research our scientists and engineers consider important, no matter how first-class they may be. No country can. We should also support research which offers hope of fruitful application. In no circumstances, however, should we support second-class research, no matter how desirable its objectives. That leads nowhere. Instead we need to identify areas of particular significance to the progress of science or to its eventual applications and in which the practitioners are themselves excellent, and give those practitioners in those areas a measure of priority.
I am saying nothing new: that is the policy of selectivity and concentration which has guided the funding of basic research for 25 years or more. Where has it got us? Counting London and Wales as one university each (and ignoring the raucous protests of their more powerful colleges), there are now 87 universities in the United Kingdom including the former polytechnics. The research councils are open to proposals from all of them. Yet the largest and most general of the councils— namely, the Science. and Engineering Research Council (soon to be a blessed memory)— awards 60 per cent. of its grant money to just 16 universities. The other councils concentrate their resources even more densely. This de facto concentration shows that basic research has become a very
1136
competitive business. We thought that it had become a mite too competitive, and we recommended accordingly.
University people know why they want to do research. They find the pursuit of knowledge exciting, their teaching is enriched by the heightened understanding that it gives them, and they believe that they are contributing to human progress by the results and applications of their discoveries and by the training they offer through research. But since the taxpayer meets so much of the cost of basic research— it is about £ 2 billion annually— it is also right to ask others what they think the science base is for. Our industrial witnesses had a very clear message for us: the science base provides something important but different from what they themselves provide through in-house training and applied research. For example, British Aerospace stated:
"[It] makes an important contribution to the long-term technology investment which is needed by industry".
What the CBI wanted was not particular competences which can be learned on the job, but,
"scientists and engineers of world-class training with a capacity to solve fundamental … problems".
Above all, there was a rejection of the idea that the science base could be substantially funded through industrial research contracts. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry put it very firmly:
"It is not the function of universities … to undertake research which has as its sole aim the production of marketable products and commercial inventions, but rather to provide the infrastructure on which UK industries can build".
The Government, for their part, in their White Paper, explain that they want the science base to contribute to the improvement of,
"national competitiveness and quality of life".
The means are, "a closer partnership and better diffusion of ideas between the science and engineering communities, industry, the financial sector and Government".
In particular, every government department is to receive a science and technology mission statement and every research council is enjoined to meet the needs of users and to support wealth creation. There will be a partial reorganisation of the research councils with more industrial involvement in their management and a director general of research councils to oversee them. Your Lordships briefly debated aspects of the reorganisation only last month.
There is to be a Technology Foresight programme under the direction of the new Office of Science and Technology. Government science and technology spending is to be the subject of an annual forward look. The Advisory Council on Science and Technology, with its independent chairman, is to be replaced by a council for science and technology with a Minister of Science as chairman and the chief scientific adviser as his deputy. Its remit is to receive reports from the foresight programme and to advise Ministers on the balance and direction of government-funded science and technology.
There is to be a new committee, bringing together the research councils and the higher education funding councils, chaired by the chief scientific adviser, so that the two sides of the dual funding mechanism will at last

1137
have to talk to each other. In general terms, we welcome all those measures, and I hope that some of my noble colleagues will tell your Lordships why.
In the time that remains to me I shall comment on the Technology Foresight programme and on structural arrangements within the Office of Science and Technology. In the words of the White Paper, the Foresight programme will attempt to influence the setting of priorities by means of a,
"systematic, well-informed assessment of the match between potential research outputs and the likelihood that they can be appropriated by firms and organisations".
It is not a new idea and the UK is late in the field. A recent report of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology makes revealing comparisons with fore-casting practices of other countries. Nevertheless, we welcome it.
However, there appears to be some confusion of purpose. A long-term sharing of vision between the science base, industry and government and a resolve to achieve that vision by acting in partnership is one thing. We welcome it. The process of short-term resource allocation is quite another. There are three timescales involved in government planning of research and each needs its own objectives and its own methods. There is next year's definitive public expenditure survey, for which procedures are well established. There is the Forward Look at government funded research and development, looking forward five to 10 years, which is a welcome development of the Cabinet Office's annual review, itself a response to an earlier suggestion of your Lordships' committee. And there is now the Technology Foresight programme which attempts to see what the future might hold 15 or 20 years ahead.
It is the last that is the natural timescale for planning and thinking about: basic research. We felt that we had to issue a sharp warning. Any suggestion that the outcome of the foresight exercise may be implemented — that was the word used— by top-down means or in response to short-term considerations should be resisted, we said. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure your Lordships that that confusion has already been resolved.
Many of our witnesses had a further message. It was that the foresight programme should not be used in the manner of yesteryear to select private sector projects for preferential public support. At best, it might indicate a set of generic technologies, as they have become known, which might be pursued preferentially. In technology foresight, the process is more important than the product. As Professor Howard Newby, outgoing chairman of the Economic and Social Research Council, put it:
"The value of technology foresight does not come from the particular recommendations that are on offer but from the actual understanding which is developed through the process of what each has to contribute".
We have, on earlier occasions, told your Lordships that we greatly welcome the creation of the Office of Science and Technology with Mr. William Waldegrave, a senior Minister, in charge as Minister of Science. We were concerned, however, that responsibilities at the top of the office were not more clearly defined. Mr. Waldegrave invited us to image a troika, pulled by
1138
himself, the chief scientific adviser and the director general of the research councils. That somewhat rustic metaphor became politically intriguing when we were later invited to imagine the Permanent Secretary at the reins. Of course, we were exploring the accountabilities of the various persons involved and the apparent overlap of functions. I must confess that we found the confusion rather bewildering. I have no doubt that, with the most welcome appointment of Sir John Cadogan to the post of director general, matters have already become clearer, but I should still be grateful if the Minister would explain how the arrangement is to work in practice.
In particular, I wish the Minister to elaborate on the powers of the director general. Mr. Waldegrave said that Sir John's role would be purely advisory. He would not be the accounting officer for the research councils, as we would have wished because that would have given him an important measure of executive power which we wished him to have. That function will belong to the Permanent Secretary as the holder of the reins.
We were also concerned that Sir John's advice should be published and normally accepted and that if not accepted the Minister should explain why to Parliament. Otherwise, the chief executives of the research councils could readily marginalise, the director general. I have been the chief executive of a research council and I know how that is done.
We also wanted the director general to have personal control over a small proportion— perhaps 2 per cent. — of the Science Vote, so that he would have genuine powers to initiate. In short, we want the Minister to assure us that the director general will have the authority generally to direct.
In the last chapter of our report, we collate our conclusions to address the Government's concept of a strategy for the science base. Conflicting objectives and confusing structural arrangements are interesting and great fun for a committee, but our prime concern must be with the integrity of the science base and its relations with the other members of the partnership created by the White Paper.
Our main conclusions are set out in the summary. As far as the science base itself is concerned, the strategy must, first, leave room for new people who have not yet made their mark and for ideas too novel to have been awarded priority. That is the seed-corn; that is above all else what the science base is about. Secondly, it must be focused on long-term needs and not on the solution of short-term problems.
Thirdly, the science base cannot itself reverse our industrial decline, although it makes a vital long-term contribution. Many of the changes that are being urged upon the science base in the White Paper in the name of wealth creation have in fact long since taken place. Industry and government must now play their part in the partnership, and the Office of Science and Technology must monitor their progress through Forward Look.
Fourthly, inflexible concentrations of university research must be prevented. That means that those outside the big battalions must be carefully nurtured. The ratchet effect of funding formulae operated by the higher education funding councils must somehow be

1139
mitigated. If noble Lords will overlook a brief lapse into jargon, the "DevR element" in the funding formula should evolve from being merely a transitional measure to assist the former polytechnics into a permanent measure applicable to any university that is genuinely trying to develop its research potential. I should be interested in the Minister's comments on that suggestion.
Recent trends, I have to say, have been different. There has been increasing emphasis on income generation and the fashionable and too much reliance by many institutions on short-term industrial contracts. There is an urgent need for fresh strategic thinking. The introduction of even more industrial participation in the affairs of the research councils may be desirable; it is certainly not sufficient. If industry were so good at applying science there would be no problem; and if the science base were so bad at choosing the right research, its practitioners would not be so well regarded and their discoveries exploited abroad. That is why we ended our report on such a sober note, warning that if no fresh thinking is forthcoming the science base may go into decline. But I am encouraged by the general tone of the White Paper, by the quality of recent senior appointments to the Office of Science and Technology and to the research councils and by the support which the Prime Minister has consistently given to science and technology since he first came to office. There is a window of opportunity, and for a little longer I remain optimistic. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Priorities for the Science Base (2nd Report, H. L. Paper 12)— (Lord Flowers.)
3.53 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, the House is deeply indebted, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, for introducing this report so clearly, and indeed for steering the sub-committee so successfully through what I believe he described as a "tangled garden". I must pay tribute also to the noble Lord's very distinguished tenure as chairman of the Select Committee itself. I know that he will be watching his successor trying to grapple with the problems. It is a daunting prospect for myself as his successor. Indeed, I follow at some years' remove the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who also chaired the Select Committee with such distinction. I consider it a great honour to have been invited to take on the post.
As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, reminded us, the report is far-ranging and comprehensive. It helps to shed light on the purpose, the nature and the funding mechanisms of the science base. It certainly helps us to understand the nature of the recent changes— those in government organisation so far as the science base is concerned and science policy and also the changes of emphasis that we detect in the White Paper. The, noble Lord ended on a sense of optimism. I share that optimism. I believe that the creation of the Office of Science and Technology, with a Cabinet Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, at its head, has
1140
been an enormous help towards promoting the role of science and government. I welcome the co-ordinating role that the chief scientific adviser has bringing together the research and development strategies of each of the government departments. I believe that the Office of Science and Technology can do much to bring science into playing a more central role in determining policies in government.
Having said that, I should like to strike a note of caution. As so often, this White Paper diagnoses the problems that we run into in this country in failing to exploit what is clearly by any standards a science base of high quality. The diagnosis follows fairly familiar lines. We have heard it many times before. The short-term approach of industry is referred to, as is the lack of links between research and industry. But I do not think that sufficient note is taken of the fault that government have fallen into in adopting over the years a short-term approach to science itself. That is a major problem which needs further exploring. By its very nature, fundamental and strategic research, whatever else it needs, needs continuity and a long-term approach.
Many noble Lords will remember,20 or more years ago— certainly the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, will remember— the debates at the time of Lord Rothschild. His particular concern was to involve spending departments that were responsible for executing policy more in the determining of research priorities. His solution to that problem was to give four departments a share of the science Vote fund. In practice, I believe that that approach has demonstrably added to the short-term, unpredictable nature of the funding of science in our research institutes and establishments of one kind or another. The departmental mission statement which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, will certainly not resolve this matter.
Perhaps I may refer to the evidence of Professor Blundell, who is chief executive of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. His research council is one of those which have been required to work closely with the funding department— in his case it is of course the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Having been chairman of that research council I know how difficult it has been to detect a common strategy from one five-year period to the next— one could almost say from one year to the next.
Professor Blundell is quoted as saying (at paragraph 2.40 of the report):
"It is no good saying that this year we want this expertise and expect to close down another area and to pick it up in five years' time; it is not there".
The report continues,
"meanwhile, retraining or releasing a scientist, if an expected contract is not awarded, usually costs the Science Budget a year's salary".
In other words, chopping and changing is a very expensive activity.
Professor Knill, who was then chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council, had precisely the same complaint. Incidentally, he gave the Overseas Development Agency recognition that it did in fact operate from a "long-term horizon". But he criticised other government departments for,

1141
"failing to provide for their own long-term strategic needs … leaving the NERC too dependent on small, short-term contracts".
On the very day that the White Paper was published, the DTI announced that it was to cut back on research and development and move more into technology transfer. Technology transfer may be a very laudable area for the DTI to move into, but clearly it raises the question once again as to whether those departments are the proper repository of these research funds. I believe that while it is clearly the responsibility of the Office of Science and Technology to try to co-ordinate and achieve strategic thinking between departments, I have my doubts as to whether an adviser rather than a fund-holder will be able to operate more than at the periphery.
I myself would not necessarily be averse to seeing the Office of Science and Technology operating a science Vote itself derived at least perhaps from the Rothschild funds which were moved into the departments. Where it seems appropriate and there is a common interest between departments, it may well be wise to put it into the Office of Science and Technology rather than keep it in the departments.
Another aspect of short-termism arises from the operation of the dual support funding system. Again, witness after witness referred to the problems faced by the universities through the collapse— total collapse in some cases— of the dual support system. Sir Mark Richmond, chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council, said that dual support had virtually broken down. Professor Andrews from the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales pointed out that it was the research element that enabled departments in universities to experiment and go off on research ideas of their own. At that point in time they may not tempt research councils but they will enable departments to build up research teams and encourage young scholars to take up post-doctoral research and nurture young lecturers. He said that it was absolutely vital that that research should continue.
But it is not continuing. As we have heard so often from the universities, there is a real problem there. Again, I ask the Government to take account of it.
What came out very clearly from the written evidence of the Wellcome Trust, and indeed the oral evidence that we took, was a further lack of stability arising from the level of remuneration of scientists and particularly younger scientists. We had informal meetings on two occasions with younger scientists and were struck by their dedication. We also noted the precarious way in which they had to live from hand to mouth on short-term contracts. They were very poorly rewarded. The written evidence from the Wellcome Trust stated that there was:
"evidence to show that salaries of UK scientists have declined by about 30 per cent. in relation to other comparable professional groups over the past decade".
It went on:
"At the same time, career stability has been undermined, and established posts have been lost and replaced by short-term contracts".
Again and again we were faced with evidence of a short-term approach to what must be a long-term activity; namely, the funding of the science base. It is a
1142
matter of great regret that the White Paper attributes that to just about every other organisation, from the research institutes to research councils to industry, all of which are accused of failing to make the right linkages; while the Government themselves have not recognised that chopping and changing from the customer-contractor system to the near market research, which the Chancellor now recognises was perhaps over-zealously pursued to the loss of vital parts of the science base. Those changes of direction have clearly been damaging and caused a lot of anxiety. The review of research institutes, which I understand is taking place at the moment, does nothing to allay those fears.
I hope that we can now have a period of stability. The Government have produced an excellent White Paper in many respects. The Foresight technology exercise and the Forward Look are important elements that are needed if we are to secure stability. I hope that the Government will now build on that very firm base. commend the report to the House.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, it is a pleasure as well as a privilege to follow the immediate past and present chairman of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology and to be the first to welcome this excellent and timely report. I also thank them for their clear exposition of the content and recommendations of the report.
When the White Paper, Realising our potential, was debated in this House, it had a favourable reception from all sides and indeed from me. It would have been inconsistent for me to take any other view, since in essence the document accepted the recommendations of the Select Committee's Report, Science and Government, which was published in 1983 and subsequently followed up by the committee.
It is true that we were rather tentative in our recommendations about the research councils. The White Paper has produced a far more radical and fundamental arrangement for the research councils which is now on the statute book. Nevertheless, it is entirely consistent with what we said on that subject.
This report is timely for two principal reasons. The White Paper set out a broad strategy and structure, but much depended on how these were applied or filled in and put into practice. The report comes out at a moment when the modus operandi is still being worked out. It switches on some yellow lights and points out some possible pitfalls before anything has been set in concrete.
Secondly, the report gives in clear and encapsulated form the views of the principal players, past and present, in this field: administrators, academics and industrialists. I hope that the views expressed and the committee's recommendations will be taken seriously, especially by government departments, industrialists and the City. The concept of partnership that lies at the heart of the system, which is strongly supported by the weight of the evidence and fully accepted by the research councils, will require complete reciprocity between all the parties concerned if it is to be successful.

1143
One of the beneficial effects of the creation of the Office of Science and Technology and publication of the White Paper has been to push science policy much higher on the Government's agenda. Already this year there has been the very encouraging speech by the Prime Minister at the annual lunch of the Parliamentary Scientific Committee. That coincided with the debate on the research councils in another place in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made an interesting and informative speech. Then came a similar debate in this House, to which the Minister made a positive reply. We are promised the first Forward Look next month and the first Technology Foresight report at the end of the year. It seems to me that both the Forward Look and Technology Foresight initiatives will have the effect of keeping science policy issues high on the parliamentary agenda and in the public eye.
The Technology Foresight programme is a relatively new concept in this country. It was fully discussed in Chapter 3 of the Select Committee's report and was dealt with this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. I therefore need not say much about it. It has been well described and analysed in a document published in January by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST for short), which is now happily and securely incorporated into the parliamentary system. I may say, en passant, that the report is a good example of the useful work and help which POST can give in the future.
Although there are differing opinions about its value, it seems to me that Technology Foresight could be used to involve a large number of firms and individuals and so increase the awareness, especially in many parts of industry, of the importance of sustaining the science base. I am also encouraged by the emphasis laid on the public understanding of science by the Chancellor of the Duchy in another place. In spite of the efforts of the Royal Society, the Academy of Engineering and the British Academy in this field, progress in the public understanding of science, particularly in the areas affected by radiation, is slow. Mr. Waldegrave referred to a new initiative which he called Megalab UK. That was scoffed at by some of the Opposition speakers. But the matter is so important that any new initiative taken in this field is to be welcomed.
The report is not about funding. Indeed, we were given assurances that the size of the science budget will be maintained in real terms over the next two or three years. Nevertheless, total government expenditure on civil research and development across the board is set to decline. If a recent report is correct, that the DTI is dispensing with its chief scientist, that may be a symptom of what is in store for other departments. The right structure and organisation can ensure that the available funds are applied efficiently and to best advantage. But if adequate resources are not provided, our performance relative to our competitors— already poor— will decline further.
In conclusion, I hope the Minister will be able to give a positive reply to the debate and that the warnings in the report will be heeded on all sides. However promising, influential and effective the new scientific
1144
set-up may be, the old demons of short-termism, industrial indifference, lack of investment and underfunding are still lurking in the bushes.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, although I am a member of the Select Committee, I was not a member of the sub-committee that produced the report and I can therefore welcome it. All members may not be aware that the sub-committee, with only nine members, contains a former President and three other Fellows of the Royal Society, two former chairmen of research councils, five long-serving vice-chancellors, a former chairman of the University Grants Committee and an experienced chairman of a major scientifically based industrial corporation— a positive galaxy of talent and experience. I do not find it surprising therefore that I am in total agreement with almost everything that they said. Indeed, I find it difficult to add anything of great significance.
The Government's White Paper, Realizing our Potential, promoted a partnership between the science base, industry and government in a tripartite effort to improve national prosperity and the quality of life. It seems at first sight to be a wholly unexceptionable objective with which we can all agree. The views of the three partners on the proper strategy for the science base have been explored in detail in the report. First, as has already been stated, every government department has a mission statement that gives as one of its objectives wealth creation.
Secondly, industry naturally targets its own in-house research and development towards wealth creation. But — and it is an important "but"— on the evidence in the report at paragraph 227, industry appears to think that academics in the science base should not do so, but should concentrate mainly on training the high-quality scientific personnel that industry needs, and on carrying out "blue skies" research that every so often may throw up new insights, new techniques or new knowledge that will provoke industry to open up new fields of research and development.
Thirdly, the report quotes a great deal of evidence given by academics working in the science base both in universities and in research councils. In summary, at paragraph 5.4, it says,
"no-one is compelled to be an academic research scientist, and no-one does it for the money. So what is it that attracts bright young people to research careers in the Science Base?"
In paragraph 5.5 it gives an answer to its own question by quoting Professor Housley of Glasgow University as follows:
"Academics are geared to following research ideas that most excite them in essentially a 'blue skies' fashion; hence new ideas arise. Usually this is why people stay in academia rather than industry, i. e. they do not wish to be directed".
It is quite clear that if research in the science base becomes so directed, then the supply of bright young men well trained in research, the very recruits which industry needs, will dry up.
At present the research councils are expected to undertake such research as government departments request of them, and academics working for the research councils must combine such directed research with their

1145
own blue skies research. The same is true of academics in those universities which undertake contract research. The essential problem in both cases is how to maintain a balance between blue skies research and directed research. When I worked many years ago for a research council there was in fact a very reasonable balance, and I believe that that is still true. I also believe that it is a precarious balance.
On reading the report, I was struck by the fact that the views of industry that were quoted supporting blue skies research in the science base were drawn, again in paragraph 227, from Courtaulds, Celltec, Unilever, British Aerospace, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and Sharp Laboratories. Those are all extremely large companies and all devote large sums to in-house research and development. On the other hand, if one looks at the evidence presented by the CBI, which represents some quarter of a million companies of all sizes, one gets a slightly different view. In their oral evidence— question 1009— they welcomed an increasing industrial representation on the research councils, and stressed the need to measure the success of research by its output. In other words, they were looking much more for wealth creation and a close co-operation with industry. I would myself guess that the demands of many of the smaller industrial companies would be very different from those of the bigger ones that are quoted in the report. We are all agreed that there is an enormous need for many more industrial companies to devote resources to research and development, but many such companies will be relatively small. In my view, most would want to get their research done not by building vast in-house resource but by contracting the science base to do it for them. I have a great fear that this may impose an increasing burden of directed research on the science base, and thus upset the present precarious balance.
The message I want to stress this afternoon is that the science base, by producing trained personnel for industry, is making a very important contribution to wealth creation. This tends to be overlooked by simplistic economic analysts. I would also maintain that the occasional vital contribution of a brilliant new idea more than compensates, in terms of wealth creation, for the expenditure involved in the large amount of blue skies research that is wholly unproductive.
I conclude by saying that this report treats a very complex problem with great wisdom and I believe that the Government should pay the most careful attention to it.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, it goes without saying that I endorse all that de noble Lord, Lord Flowers, has said so eloquently in opening this debate. My endorsement also includes his more personal remarks about the sub-committee's Clerk, the specialist adviser and witnesses; and to this I would add my personal gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, himself for the skilful way in which he has conducted our deliberations and our interrogation of witnesses. It is a sad fact that, under the rules of this House, the Select Committee on Science
1146
and Technology is now, I hope only temporarily, deprived of his membership and therefore his wisdom and experience.
I shall not recapitulate the arguments for the Select Committee's recommendations, which I fully support. They are clear enough in the report. Indeed I intend to concentrate on a few underlying themes and start by reminding your Lordships that what we call the science base comprises those natural scientific, engineering and technological activities carried out in universities and research council institutions, all supported by government funds.
As it happens, when I was thinking of this speech, suddenly thought that my lifetime spans the period in which almost all that has happened in the formal arrangements between the Government as paymaster and the science base as performer has taken place. The MRC, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the UGC were founded just before I entered primary school; the Agricultural Research Council just before I left secondary school. For almost 34 years thereafter they were left undisturbed. But the 30 years following the Trend Report in 1963 saw the pace of organisational change quicken, and the proportion of our gross domestic product spent on the science base first rose and then entered a period of decline.
To the original trio of those research councils were added the Natural Environment Research Council and the Social Science Research Council, which is now the Economic and Social Research Council. The Council for Science Policy was created to advise the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to whose department responsibility for funding the five research councils was passed. Seven years later, in response to the Rothschild and Dainton Inquiries, to which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred, the relations between the research councils and government departments were revamped and the Advisory Board for Research Councils replaced the Council for Scientific Policy. In the 1980s the UGC was replaced by the Higher Education Funding Councils, now territorially based and which operate an a priori based formula funding. Then, two years ago, the Government appointed a Minister for Science, which we all welcomed, with a budget and an Office for Science into whose care the five research councils were put and whose first decisions are in the White Paper, Realising Our Potential, the consequences of which are another major upheaval in progress, the possible effects of which on the science base were the subject of the Select Committee's report now being debated.
There must be many in the House who will ask why this section of our government-funded activity is subject to so much repeated scrutiny and change. The answer lies in some fundamental relationships. Natural science is now the knowledge base on which advances in engineering, which were originally based on empiricism, have in the past two centuries become almost exclusively dependent. It is the rapid advance of science which dictates the need for many other changes. Furthermore, technology, which provides the means

1147
nowadays of producing all that we need to ensure health, transport, communications, food, shelter and so on, is dependent on engineering.
That is why the science base which generates first-class, well-educated scientists, engineers and technologists, and a corpus of knowledge in these fields which is both fundamental and later applicable, is so important to the well being of this country. Nothing must be done to damage the quality of work which it does. But since the United Kingdom cannot cover in depth more than a limited number of areas of science and engineering, one has to ask how choices are to be made which maximise the benefits which can be derived from the amount of money that Parliament is prepared to invest in the science base.
There are two complementary methods which are referred to in the report. The first is the maintenance of excellence, which means funding first-class people with good ideas; the bottom-up responsive approach. The second is to identify desirable technologies and ensure that the base can give adequate support to those technologies. This is the Technology Foresight or top-down approach. In passing, I should like to join in the congratulations to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on making a start with that latter process of technological foresight.
Getting the balance right between those two processes, which is the job of the Council for Science and Technology, is bound to be difficult and we expect — at least I expect— that the balance will vary over time. But with all this change one thing remains certain. If the science base produces enough people of high quality and relevant experience to go into and be properly used by industry, then UK Limited will prosper. Therefore the universities must have the resources to identify and educate such able people who will be the seed corn of the future, and funding mechanisms must adapt themselves to achieve this and give some stability. By the same token, mechanisms to ensure that useful ideas become a practical reality must be devised, and this in turn requires more partnerships replacing existing barriers to permeability of ideas across the boundaries separating industry, government and the science and engineering communities.
Mention of the word "boundaries" causes me to comment that there are boundaries within the science base which give cause for concern. These are the boundaries, now increased by five, which separate research councils from one another. Because scientific principles are universal and transcend boundaries between scientific subjects— and many of these subjects such as chemistry, physics, biology, geology and so on are very interdependent— and because many practical problems, such as the preservation of global biodiversity, require for their solution input from many subjects, it is essential that these boundaries do not become impenetrable ring fences. Otherwise some multi-disciplinary areas will become nobody's business and therefore be neglected. Systematic biology, which was the subject of another inquiry by the Select Committee, is just one such case which has arisen recently, and chemistry, so vital to the health of so many
1148
other subjects, could easily also suffer a similar fate. Therefore these demarcation lines between the research councils must be permeable and variable over time.
I think your Lordships know that my view has always been that this calls for a unified national research council, the responsibilities and resources of the various divisions of which, not being set in tablets of stone and not protected by Royal Charters, can easily be varied. But the Government have decided otherwise. All we are to have is a Director-General of the Research Councils. In those circumstances it is absolutely essential— and here I speak from my experience as the first chairman of the Advisory Board for Research Councils, just as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, spoke retrospectively of his chairmanship of the Science Research Council in that period, so as poacher and gamekeeper— that from the beginning this new Director-General of the Research Councils should not be merely decoratively marginal but have the clout to make what territorial changes he regards as necessary in the missions of the research councils after proper study of issues, and taking account of changes in national need and developments abroad as well as at home.
Make no mistake, my Lords, the pace of change will not decrease; and only an adequately funded, easily steerable and flexible science base will prevent the United Kingdom from being left behind. I hope that the Minister can reassure us in the way suggested in Chapter 3 of the report on that vital point. I also hope that she will clarify the basis of the less than completely transparent working relationships and responsibilities involving what has been referred to as a troika, but in fact I think of the English analogy of the four-in-hand because it consists of the Secretary of State, the Permanent Secretary, the Director-General of the Research Councils and the Chief Scientific Adviser. Any confusion or ambiguity of the relationships and functions at this level could be very damaging to the whole enterprise.
A little earlier I referred to the dependence of technology on engineering and of engineering on the natural sciences. That sounds like a linear relationship; but in fact it is a circle, because developments in technology and in engineering often provide the tools for the further advancement of natural science and engineering. So that circle has the potential of becoming the dynamo for change which, if properly exploited, can be the means of achieving the twin goals which the White Paper addresses. I mean by that the enhancement of the quality of life and the creation of national wealth.
Those developments are not going to happen automatically. There must be in place effective brokerage mechanisms to ensure that what is in the science base and of practical use to industry and Government, can be identified, drawn out and exploited. While the appointment of a part-time industrialist as the chairman of each research council will assist industry in its perception of the research councils, it is more important to increase awareness in industry of what the science base has to offer. The Economic and Social Research Council has already shown that it could have

1149
a valuable role here, although industry must also be ready to interact and to develop and exploit wherever it can.
To achieve good results between the science base and the government departments which have a large stake in the use of science, engineering and technology, it will be necessary for each side to know the other's capabilities and limitations. This is not a matter which can be left to chance, and here I see a key role for the Chief Scientific Adviser, whose position and duties give him an unrivalled vantage point to see both sides and to effect the necessary brokerage. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Chief Scientific Adviser's influence will penetrate the government departments to the degree which is necessary to achieve that end.
A 100 years ago it was possible for an inventor to say, as Edison is reputed to have responded when asked what use was all his experimentation,"Damned if I know. But sure as Hell they'll tax it one day". I have tried to emphasise matters are now somewhat more expensive and complicated; but two things will always be true. First, if the UK science base falters in quality or in effective interdigitation within industry and government, we shall all be worse off. Yesterday's articles in the Financial Times show how far the United Kingdom and Europe have slipped in the 1980s behind the USA and Japan.
Secondly, in a country of this size the science base cannot effectively do everything; choices must be made, as we all know. What the Select Committee on Science and Technology has tried to do in its recommendations is to state what is needed to keep the science base healthy and to make good choices within the new structures which have been put in place by the Minister, and I commend these recommendations to the Government.
I have no doubt that the research councils which have to bear the brunt of these major upheavals, will accept them with good grace and work well within the new system, not least because they were consulted in early discussions in an entirely admirable manner. What they need now more than ever before is, as has been said, a period of stability. But they— and here I speak of the scientists themselves within the science base— are at present much disturbed by the intrusion, either actual or in immediate prospect, of the efficiency unit into the affairs of the research council institutions. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has already mentioned that. Once again, those scientists feel that change is imminent and this has set back morale. Can the Minister assure this House that the period of stability so necessary to carry this next step forward to fruition and for first-class scientific work is not now again at risk?
4.36 p.m.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, my contribution today is that of an industrialist with a long association with the science base, having been a member of the Science and Engineering Research Council and of the Advisory Board for Research Councils; later chairman of the Advisory Council on Applied Research and Development (ACARD) and then the Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACOST), in the formation
1150
of which an earlier report of your Lordships' Select Committee played an important part. ACOST has now been succeeded by the Council for Science and Technology, which is to be chaired by the Minister rather than by an independent chairman, as was the case for ACARD and ACOST. I am not convinced of the desirability of that change.
This may be an appropriate time for me to say a few words about the work of ACOST, a much underrated body in some quarters. Its many reports and conferences are of course well known, but its influence in government circles is not, since the advice which it gave to government remained confidential.1 make no criticism of that practice; indeed, much of the influence which ACOST had depended on the fact that its advice was not published. But there is certainly an increased awareness in government circles of the importance of science which owes much to the activities of ACOST and to the support which that body received from the then Prime Minister. I hope to be convinced that that role can be as effectively performed from within the government machinery.
The general thrust of the White Paper is welcome, as is the fact that the science base has become a subject of government anxiety. The Select Committee draws attention to a number of respects in which responsibility is not clearly defined as yet and we must expect that experience will rapidly lead to the remedying of those defects. However, I believe that almost any organisation can be made to work, given the right people in the key posts, and we have made a good start in the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Director-General of Research Councils.
So I am less concerned about organisational shortcomings than I am about what seem to me to be excessive expectations of the role of industry in the process of the selection and exploitation of science. There is, to be sure, a need for a close understanding between scientists and industrialists if the potential value of our scientific activity is to be realised for the national benefit. But, that is no new discovery; closer links between researchers and industry have been developing over the past two decades and I shall not weary your Lordships with the many examples of this, some of which are mentioned in the report.
But it is certainly not the case that industrialists are omniscient— an assumption which seems to me to pervade much of the argument in the White Paper. There are many examples of academic researchers whose contribution to the exploitation process is as good as that of leading industrialists, and so I find undesirable the notion that research council chairmen should necessarily be industrialists. We are looking for a partnership in which the best talents are employed, irrespective of label.
The role of industrialists in all parts of the process is an important one, but one has to recognise the regrettable fact that much of industry is indifferent to scientific research. There are many ways of tackling this serious shortcoming, but it does not follow that involvement of that part of industry in the management,

1151
selectivity and predictions envisaged in the White Paper will be fruitful. We may be putting the cart of involvement before the horse of awareness.
Of course, there are industrialists, many from large companies, who are well aware of the processes and promises of research. But such people are already deeply involved in the science base both personally and through their companies and are certainly not to be looked to to represent the views of the uncommitted sectors of industry.
Perhaps, therefore, the pendulum has swung a little too far in the belief that industry can produce the changes which the White Paper seeks. I believe it to be of the utmost importance that the contribution of industry at large to the process of realising our scientific potential should be continuously evaluated so that, if the process requires adjustment, as I believe that it will, it can be achieved at an early stage in the development.
The White Paper was an important document, signifying the welcome commitment of the Government to the development of science and its contribution to national prosperity. I wish it every success and I hope and believe that the report of the sub-committee of which I had the honour to be a member will help that development.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, since the White Paper Realising our Potential and our own report were published, the new structural arrangements for science have gradually been taking shape. Only this week, for instance, we have learnt that the Technology Foresight programme is to have 15 sectors; that each sector will have a panel led by a chairman and a deputy chairman and that, wherever possible, one will be an industrialist and the other an academic. That is a move which points up the systematic partnership between the science and engineering base on the one hand and industry on the other. I think we are all agreed that if it is to be successful, Technology Foresight needs to be driven by such a partnership.
Another piece of the machinery which I hope is taking shape is the new Science and Engineering Base Co-ordinating Committee, the creation of which was welcomed in our report with the words:
"It has important work to do".
That committee will bring together the heads of the research councils and the chief executives of the higher education funding councils.
It is my understanding that the co-ordinating committee has already been set up and has, in fact, had several meetings. I was therefore surprised to be told in the Times Higher Education Supplement by Dr. Lewis Moonie, the Opposition spokesman for science and technology in the other place, that almost a year after the publication of the White Paper, the membership and remit of that important co-ordinating committee has still to be formalised.
I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the matter and let us know whether or not that important committee is operating because its creation impacts upon a crucial aspect of our debate: the importance of
1152
effective co-ordination between the research councils and the funding councils to make sure that the two streams of university funding truly complement each other.
While I am in this area, perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the dual support system, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Selborne. I do so because many of us are concerned about the training of young scientists, especially those not yet senior enough to make their own applications to the research councils. It was the White Paper of 1991 which brought about the important change in the dual support system by saying that the research councils would become responsible for the full costs of research, including overheads. As a consequence, a once-for-all transfer of resources is being made from the funding councils to the science budget. When it is complete in the year 1994– 95, that transfer will amount to no less than £ 150 million. In our report we state that there is some suspicion in the universities at any rate at this early stage that the research councils are not returning the whole of that money to the universities. Our report recommends that if that exercise continues and the research councils find themselves with more money than they need, the surplus should be returned to the funding councils.
I think that I would now be inclined to go even further. Ought we not to admit that the dual support transfer to the research councils was a mistake and reverse it? It is clear from the evidence that we now have that the dual support system has virtually broken down. It has virtually ceased to exist. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that he regards the continuance of the dual support system as important and has no plans for further transfers.
If the money were handed back from the research councils to the funding councils, it would have to be distributed by them with due regard for their new principles of selectivity, but that would have the advantage that more funds would be managed by those universities which are already regarded as excellent in scientific research. It is no good saying that we should practice subsidiarity in Europe and not practise it at home. The nearer that the management of cash takes place to the coalface of science, the greater the opportunity for management to apply those funds in ways which will ensure that young scientists are given the opportunities and the training that they need. The primary responsibility for young scientists under our present set-up remains with the universities rather than the research councils.
Finally, I refer briefly to the problem of the constitutional roles of the chief scientific adviser and the director-general of research councils. I too very much welcome the appointment of Sir John Cadogan as director-general, but I am not at all convinced that it is constitutionally appropriate or wise that the advice of a civil servant should mandatorily be published. I shall be glad to hear in due course what is the Government's reaction to that recommendation.
Secondly, there is need for clarification of the division between the roles of the chief scientific adviser, Professor Stewart, and the director-general. Professor Stewart, as the administrative head of OST, did much to

1153
deliver the White Paper, which our committee warmly recommended. However, his White Paper is coy on the division of responsibility between the two officers. It states:
"The Chancellor will in future be supported in exercising these statutory functions by a new Director General of Research Councils located within the Office of Science and Technology, enabling the Chief Scientific Adviser to concentrate upon his responsibilities for the lateral science and technology issues across all government departments".
The paper goes on to detail the responsibilities of the director-general. I am afraid that our report could have been clearer. Paragraph 3.57 states that,
"the Chief Scientific Adviser must be seen to leave Research Council matters to the DGRC".
Yet in paragraph: 5.12 it states:
`The Chief Scientific Adviser must be given a degree of authority over the science spending plans of Government departments".
I hope that the committee is not inconsistent on that matter. I would welcome anything the Minister can say on the relationship between the two officers. In my view, they should be encouraged to achieve the greatest possible interaction. They have become two of the most powerful advisers in Whitehall. I am happy to know — or I have been given to understand— that they work together exceptionally well.
In view of the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that we expect, in real terms, that science funding will not remain the same, I wish to make one point. The Prime Minister referred to the problem at the function of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. It is important to put his comments on the record. He said:
"Despite the absolute necessity of restraining public expenditure, we expect spending on the science base to rise in real terms next year. And science will remain a high priority in the future".
I hope that I too have concluded on a note of optimism.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Porter of Luddenham: My Lords, today I wish to refer to only two points in the report before the House, embellished slightly with my personal prejudices. Together with my colleagues on the committee, I welcome the White Paper Realising our Potential. It contains much wisdom and provides a useful starting point for further progress. Unfortunately, both the starting paint and the undercurrent of some of what follows show a misreading of the problem that is addressed.
The importance of wealth creation is beyond dispute. The story that has been received wisdom for several decades is that our basic science in the UK is very good yet our industry is not competitive and that our science is exploited for wealth creation by foreign companies rather than by ourselves. But we cannot complain at one moment that our basic science has got its priorities wrong and in the next sentence say that foreign companies are exploiting those ideas. As the Daily Telegraph put it:
"Britain appears devoted to destroying its science base to save the embarrassment caused by its inability to exploit ideas".
1154
As we have heard, for most of this century this country has had the best science base in the world. I do not believe that that statement is over the top. Why is it then that at the height of our scientific prowess there are still those who would have scientists change their ways towards short-term exploitation, even if it means that ultimately we shall have no science to exploit? Once a base of knowledge and skill has been removed, the cost and the time factor involved in its restoration make it virtually impossible to catch up with the uninterrupted competition.
Sir David Phillips told us:
"If one wanted to reform the state of UK industry it is al least arguable that one would not start by worrying about the science base".
Sir Mark Richmond said:
"The piece that is missing, I think, is the White Paper, sponsored by the DTI, on how the science base is pulled through into industry".
Sir Geoffrey Allen, Head of Science at Unilever, said that it is industry that needs to be made more aware of science rather than vice versa. Dr. Lackie of the Yamanouchi Research Institute rather mischievously suggested that the reason why the Government focused on the science base is that this is the bit that can be manipulated easily.
The White Paper Realising our Potential contains a number of proposals for managing the science base. The main new proposal, about which we have heard this afternoon, is the technology Foresight programme. However, we must not expect too much from that. First, it has been done before in the United States, Japan, Germany, Holland and other countries, and there have been numerous think-tanks, seminars and brainstorming sessions in this country too. Of course, the technology that we try to foresee is not significantly different in the United Kingdom from elsewhere. Science and technology are the most international of human activities and therefore it is unnecessary for every country to go through these exercises separately.
The fact that forward looks and foresight programmes of the past have not led to directives that were implemented is perhaps fortunate. If such programmes led to short-term directives to the science base, irreparable damage might be done, as my noble friend Lord Flowers has warned. But to be fair, the White Paper reassures us that the Office of Science and Technology is not in the business of picking winners. So what is the use of technology foresight? It is more than might appear from my negative remarks so far.
There was general agreement among our witnesses that, although the results would be meagre and soon forgotten, there was value in the process of discussion which would provide an important bridge between industrialists and scientists. It is to be hoped that when the bridge is crossed there will be somebody on the other side.
In conclusion, I wish to comment briefly on a rather different point concerning the proposal that research graduates should do a MSc before they get stuck into real research. There was very little support for this as a general proposal and quite strong opposition from the

1155
Royal Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry and the many industrial representatives, which saw no need for it.
I understand that the Government have promised to look again at that point. For years many university departments have insisted on an MSc as a preliminary to a PhD. It serves the useful purpose of finding out whether the student is likely to be successful in subsequent research studies, and sometimes it is a useful stand-alone degree for further training in some ancillary to the subject of a first degree. For example, in engineering it can be a valuable bridge between academia and industry. But for many students the MSc serves little purpose. Those going into industry are often better off learning their trade there, and for those going on to a PhD in the university, the best way to learn how to do research is to do it under the guidance of a good research scientist, and to begin as soon as possible.
The genius of Newton, Einstein, Davy and Maxwell was apparent before they were 21 years old. That genius could well have been sacrificed on the altar of yet more lectures. The talented young scientist is a delicate plant which matures early and does not flower for long. In nurturing these talents flexibility must be paramount in our minds.
5.2 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lord Flowers for his work and the work of his committee, and for the report that we are debating this afternoon, I note that most of the speakers have been members of that committee and have consequently dealt with points of detail which are of interest to them. I hope that your Lordships will indulge me if the matters I raise this afternoon are in rather more general terms.
Our dramatis personae are the universities which I regard as self-governing communities of scholars dedicated to knowledge as good in itself; the preservation of knowledge in compendious libraries— a university without a library is almost unthinkable; the dissemination of knowledge— their teaching function; and the expansion of knowledge— their research function. Here I would endorse everything said by my noble friend Lord Porter on the representations of the Royal Society of Chemistry in paragraph 2.64 about the four-year MSc degree.
One must not tamper with the education of chemists. The chemical industry is a science-based industry from the very beginning. It produces a surplus of £ 3.8 billion towards our balance of payments and it lives entirely off the educated young chemists, many of whom attained PhDs at the universities. More MScs of a four-year standard for the same sum of money means fewer PhDs and the robbery of the input of highly qualified people to the chemical industry.
The Achilles' heel in our universities is equalitarism. Parity of esteem in senates between disciplines is accepted, but that does not mean parity of expenditure in councils. Different universities have different words for senates and councils. I simply use the terms of the university of which I have the honour to be Chancellor.
At this point I should like to quote three obiter dicta
1156
by distinguished scientists in the context of paragraph of 2.68. The late Sir Thomas Merton, treasurer of the Royal Society, often used to say to me that scientists are of two types, explorers and colonists, and the explorers are very few and the colonists are very many and much dispersed. The late Lord Blackett's words on this subject were, "The research does one of two things: either trying to understand something or trying to do something". As an example of something we understand but do not know what to do about, take the JET laboratory where we are trying to make nuclear fusion work in a finite apparatus. We understand the principles of nuclear fusion very well, but we do not know how to accomplish it.
The third principle was that of my late friend Lord Robbins who taught me that all decisions are concerned with the application of limited means to competing ends. My noble friend Lord Flowers said that we can no longer do all that we should like to do. We never have been able to do all that we should like to do. This is a perpetual state.
Perhaps I may now deal with the various councils involved. I may say that I have lived through a large number or reorganisations and redeployments in the course of 45 years' involvement with the research councils. That is over half my lifetime. I sat on two of them, was a party to setting up a third, and their appurtenances have occupied a very great deal of my life.
We have the funding councils on the one hand and the research councils on the other. The distribution of responsibilities between them, to which the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, referred, is to some extent the subject of our debate this afternoon. Let me then make clear in what respects the Government are responsible for research.
There are certain things which a government must do because nobody else can do them; for instance: a bureau of standards, miscalled the National Physical Laboratory; the ordnance survey of the country; collating the geological survey of the country with the various geological surveys produced by interested parties; the Meteorological Office; defence research where it involves a security problem. The Government must do all those because nobody else is in an authoritarian position. The ordnance survey can be the basis for litigation and what the courts will accept as a plan of the country.
Now I come to what the Government should not do. They should not do anything that is better done by somebody else. Let research be done where its side effects can be exploited by people who have vision into what those side effects are — that is, in industry. For one industry to license another industry and find a licensee is a very different matter from a government employee trying to do the same.
I come now to what the research councils should not do. As patrons of universities regarded as clients, they should not compete with their clients by running their own laboratories. To give an example of that, I am very interested in work done at the National Institute of Medical Research, but I am not sure whether it ought not to be decentralised and its various sections become the

1157
outstations of various medical schools. They would then be subject to peer review. At present, every establishment run by a research council in the executive sense is not subject to the peer review that obtains in the applications from universities for research of "special timeliness and promise"— the sacred words which were used to set up the original Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
The appointments to research councils raise a very difficult matter. I have very strong views on the fact that you can delegate authority but you cannot delegate responsibility. You cannot make somebody else answerable to the source of your authority for that for which you are answerable. I mistrust the appointments of chairmen of councils of one kind or another, compared to what I am used to in industry. Under the Companies Act, the chairman of the board is appointed and elected by the board. In the eyes of the shareholders, he is merely a director— one of those whom they re-elect from time to time at annual general meetings every three years or so, or whatever the Companies Act or the articles of association provide.
I well remember an incident in the career of my noble friend Lord Flowers when I was sent as an emissary, by the council of which he was a member, to the Secretary of State— I believe: that it was Tony Crosland— to say, "We want Brian Flowers as our next chairman". The council authorised me to do that and sent me as an ambassador to the Secretary of State. He obliged his council. Therefore, my noble friend was first among equals because we made him so. The morale was enormously heightened by the feeling that our chairman was a colleague and an old friend.
I am worried about appointed chairmen and appointed members from the standpoint of my doctrine — if it is my doctrine; I do not know— of the exercise of authority and collective responsibility.
There are a number of what I call "fad" words in circulation. Such words are fashionable for a time. They are said to assist ore's thinking, but I believe that they are a convenient escape from thinking. Some of those words can be found in the report. Once upon a time "automation" was a fad word. "Fifth generation computer" was another fad phrase which spread into Europe. "The customer-contractor principle" was a phrase which sorted out nothing and did nothing. "National competitiveness" and "quality of life" take us into the sphere of my noble friend's report, as do "the generation of national prosperity" and "wealth creation". I do not believe that the consideration of wealth creation in the abstract will have the slightest effect on the decisions that one takes. That brings me to "technology foresight". I do not believe that much will come of that.
I should like to conclude my remarks by giving your Lordships a history of real development; that is, the history of the Torotrack transmission system, which was invented by a German called Hoffmann in 1890. He never put it into practice and it was forgotten about. In 1958— 36 years ago— a couple of young engineers who were running a vehicle repair business reinvented it. It was the reinvented bicycle. It was a continuous variable speed transmission. I was then managing director of
1158
BTG and I backed that scheme because I felt that those young men had some fire in their bellies and I thought that their proposal was extremely elegant. There are various solutions to the problem of a continuously variable gear but none of them is elegant. In electronic engineering it is represented by the Ward-Leonard set. In hydraulic engineering, it is a couple of swash-plate pumps back to back, one acting as the drive and the other as the driven. But they are very noisy. The proposed scheme seemed to be extremely elegant. Of course, I did not know that it had been invented before.
I skip now to about 1970, and the drive was installed in the Harrier vertical take-off plane. That is 12 years after I had initiated the scheme as fit for NRDC sponsorship. Then in the middle 1980s, there was a partnership with Rover. That partnership was dissolved but from it came a prototype vehicle which could be driven around a test track. That vehicle is now driving around the motor industries of Europe, demonstrating its paces.
I come to 1994. There is now a contract with Ford for a demonstration set-up as a possible design feature of a new model of the Ford motor car. To date BTG has coughed up £ 6 million. That would all have gone down the drain but for two key constituents contributed by other technologies which were never imagined when the work began. One was the development of the negatively thixotropic Newtonian lubricant. These lubricating oils go solid in the nick of a roll so that the two metal sliding pieces never come into contact with one another, because the lubricant solidifies to prevent them from doing so. When the stress is relieved, it liquefies again. The other contributor is the silicon chip. The transmission has taken 36 years to develop and it is not finished yet. What would Technology Foresight have done to that 36 years ago? In the report, there is reference to that under what is called a "hunch". I have a hunch that if I had done my work more thoroughly, I should have found that it was an old invention by a man called Hoffmann in Germany in 1890 and I would have said, "There is nothing new about that". It is terrible to confess but sometimes hunches are better than scholarship. The Toro track gear is lighter, cheaper and 15 per cent. more effective than any other competitive continuous gearbox. On that note, I thank my noble friend Lord Flowers and I shall resume my seat.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to noble Lords who have commented on the report. There has been a galaxy of talents; and, surprisingly, the debate has ranged extremely widely. In his skilful introduction of the report, the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, mentioned the vital necessity of greater financial support from industry. That is one of the few themes which has come through the debate. But he stressed also the importance of the creative balance between excellence and utility.
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, welcomed the creation of the OST; but he struck a note of caution about our continued failure to exploit our research and the short-termism still to be found both in government and in industry.

1159
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, pointed out that there must be— I use his phrase— "complete reciprocity" between all the parties if progress in British scientific research is to be made. He mentioned with approval Technology Foresight and the public understanding of science, although he felt that little progress is yet to be seen in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, agreed. He stressed the problems of the proposed parties to the partnership. From blue-skies research to blue-chip research is a very wide spectrum and a very long haul. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, demonstrated the complex links between the government office and the research laboratory, and the difficulties created by the rate of change. He felt that the identification and nurture of excellence and the development of a Technology Foresight movement is fundamental to the creation of the balance. He saw a key role for the chief scientific adviser.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, has great industrial experience. He defended ACOST and mourned its passing. He pointed out that it may be that the White Paper expected too much from hard-pressed British industry. He asks whether the pendulum has swung too far.
I greatly enjoyed the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, who considered that the dual support transfer was a mistake. He believes that the dual support system has real value, as I do. Science needs subsidiarity.
The noble Lord, Lord Porter, accepted the importance of wealth creation but warned us that we must not destroy the science base because we cannot exploit its ideas. He asks where is the White Paper emanating from the DTI.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, took the widest view. He told us of educated young chemists who are the salt of the earth. He reminded us that universities are not about equality; quite so. There are certain things which only the Government can do.
Your Lordships' House is extremely fortunate to have some of Britain's most distinguished scientists on its Benches. I wish there were many more of them here, especially on the Benches behind me.
Any fair-minded person reading the Government's White Paper on science policy would find little to quarrel with there. Indeed, he or she would find little there to bite upon. It is full of high hopes and unexceptionable generalisations, noble aims and cheerful optimism. It would be unfair to say that reading it is like eating candy-floss; it is more like chewing cotton wool in that it is unsatisfying, tasteless and extremely low in nourishment.
The Select Committee's response to it is grave and takes the White Paper seriously; but I think I am not alone in detecting beneath its measured tone an underlying feeling of exasperation, not unakin to that we might expect from a grandmother being told at great length how to suck eggs. The heart and centre of the White Paper is the pious hope that someone, somehow, somewhere can create a partnership between the science
1160
base, the Government and British industry. That is the way ahead which will solve all our problems and give us all,
"a happy issue out of all our afflictions".
Unfortunately, the White Paper fails to tell us how this desirable consummation is to be achieved. The Select Committee's report, with devastating understatement, states the bleak truth— it will not happen by itself. I quote the report's words at paragraphs 2.4 and 2.7:
"On 13th July 1993 we met the Minister responsible for the Science White Paper, Mr. William Waldegrave, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for Science … He agreed with us that basic science cannot be justified by pretending that it can all be applied; but, he insisted, when times are hard the taxpayer cannot be expected to fund basic science 'unless the wealth creators in society see the value of it—.
He continued:
'There is only so much that Government can do to bring the horse of British industry to water. If the horse refuses to drink, the horse will die. It is essential to get across the message that industry must take its own responsibilities. We are trying to build a proper networking with them … but ultimately the industrial side must, I hope, respond".
Thus spoke Mr. William Waldegrave. It sounds a shade shrill. There is no evidence that the industrial horse wishes to drink. British industry is simply not responding to the Government's request. It has not done so in the past, or there would not be any need to exhort it now, and it will not do so in the future because it does not see the need. Either the OST must convince British industry and convert it to the truth or it must offer it such tax incentives or access to risk capital as are necessary to entice selected, targeted industrial companies into this partnership so devoutly to be wished.
Unfortunately, our Minister for Science— who is also and principally in charge of the Citizen's Charter — rules over a small department, with comparatively little money and no powerful influence over how we manage our scientific and technological resources. The OST cannot force industry to take action but, as the Select Committee report suggests, the DTI quite possibly could. Yet the omens are not propitious. The report states at paragraph 2.73:
"The DTI might offer inducements from its Innovation Budget, but the closure of the Advanced Technology Programmes suggests that it will not".
It seems that the besieged and beleaguered OST cannot expect the DTI cavalry to come charging over the hill to rescue it.
So the central hope of the White Paper seems doomed to be frustrated. The report's sober recommendation at paragraph 2.75 sums up the situation. It states:
"If the new partnership only operates in one direction, it will do more harm than good; it must be even-handed. We recommend that the response of industry to the White Paper initiatives be monitored carefully by the OST".
Industrial firms in this country must be trembling in their boots. Their response is to be monitored! If the monitoring reveals that their response is minuscule, irrelevant or inadequate, what will happen? The "industrial horse" cannot be forced, beaten or shot. It will simply plod on in its own way, with a supreme disregard of both government and the science base, except where those bodies assist firms to develop or make a profit. Market forces rule; self-interest reigns supreme; each of us must look after number one. The Government cannot cover their nakedness with the rags

1161
of their discredited ideology and beg industry and the science base to buy them a new suit as an act of social charity.
The solemn tone of the Select Committee's report arises from its experience of the past. Across all government departments expenditure on science and technology has suffered for the past 10 years. It is argued that the science budget— that is, the budget of the research councils— has not fallen in real terms. That is true. Let us not hear it again. But the money has been stretched to breaking point by the new demands placed on the research councils year by year, and by the steadily rising costs of carrying out research. And in other areas of government spending on research and development there has been an undeniable collapse in funding. Civil research and development is only just over half in real terms what it was 10 years ago. Can it be denied that Britain is the only OECD country apart from New Zealand. and Turkey that has seen a decline over the past decade in expenditure on R&D as a proportion of GDP? If it continues, British applied and pure science research will become shabby, second-rate and uncompetitive
The wet-nurse of all scientific research in this country is the British university system and the institutes of the research councils. The Select Committee's report makes, at paragraphs 4.76 to 4.86, a number of clear-sighted and practical recommendations about selectivity, about the R-T-X model, about "hot spots" of excellent research, and so on. But all these are simply means of arresting decline. Let us look back over the past decade. Professor Steve Jones states:
"Ten years ago, universities basked in a `dual support' system. There were two channels for government funds. Through one which still exists came sustenance for fully planned projects, formally proposed to the research councils and often involving hundreds of thousand of pounds.
The other, less well known, was just as crucial. Each laboratory had a modest but guaranteed income which allowed it to maintain its basic services and even to keep its researchers supplied with enough resources to pursue novel ideas.
Now, allegedly in the interests of efficiency, one of the channels is being blocked. Dual support is breaking down: only those capable, fashionable and lucky enough to win endorsement for a formally presented application win any backing at all. Under the new system, every new thought must be referred up the administrative chain for approval before it can be pursued."
The previous 220 words are not mine, nor are they the Labour Party's. The words are those of Professor Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London, a Reith lecturer, and a scientist of international renown, who speaks, I am certain, for the overwhelming majority of his colleagues in scientific research. The CVCP makes the same point when it states:
"Money left in the HEFCs' grant for research is too small to enable universities to initiate "blue skies" research and to adequately support the "well-found" laboratory".
As a former Professor of English I could have done without that split infinitive but I take the point. And of course university research staff have now come to be regarded as little more than gifted shop-assistants, to be hired and fired at whim, less secure in their profession than any good garage-mechanic.
The position of contract researchers has also worsened as universities come to depend increasingly upon external research contracts as a source of income.
1162
Such contracts are mostly fixed-term arid project-specific, and as such, potentially a cause of great exploitation of researchers. The number of fixed-term contract researchers has more than doubled since 1979 from 8,000 to well over 17,000. That has repercussions on career patterns. Any discussion of the future of the science base must take account of the most important resource of all— the people who work there.
The Select Committee's report is published many years after the Government withdrew from near market research, that ideological experiment that went disastrously wrong. Yet it is still the market that is expected to drive, fuel and fund our science and technology policy. As my honourable friend Dr. Lewis Moonie has recently written:
"The OST has managed to shed some ideological baggage but only on its own territory. There is no indication that anyone else in Whitehall has followed suit".
The OST, waving its little White Paper, is looking increasingly forlorn. The Select Committee's report deals comparatively gently with it. We on these Benches endorse every word in that report.
5.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it is no exaggeration to regard the issue of priorities for science, which is the subject of today's debate, as crucial to the future of this country. Therefore, I should like to put on record the importance of this debate. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, on his committee's report. It provides a clear and cogent analysis which reflects the considerable knowledge and experience of the subject of members of the committee. I have also listened with great interest to the contributions to today's debate, and I am sure that both the report and the record of the debate will repay careful study.
The importance of the science and engineering base was recognised by the Government in last year's White Paper on science and technology, Realising Our Potential. I am pleased to see that at many points the report welcome the policies in that White Paper. it is rightly concerned that the spirit of the White Paper is carried through in the implementation of those policies. The Government share that concern and we shall want to consider carefully what the report has to say.
This is the second debate on the subject in the space of a month. I recently had an opportunity to report to the House on the progress made in taking forward the policies in the White Paper on a major part of the science base, the research council system. Although I regarded it as a serious event, I understand that the media found some parts of it amusing.
The House approved the draft orders creating three new research councils, and I am pleased to say that the orders have now been approved on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Counsel. We are well on course to have the new research council system up and running from 1st April.
A number of important points have been raised in the report and in the debate this afternoon. There will, of

1163
course, be a full published response to the report in the normal way when the Government have been able to consider the recommendations further.
The report's overall message is that strategic thinking is needed for the science and engineering base. The Government agree. That is why the White Paper was subtitled:
"A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology".
The Government also agree with the committee's main conclusions about the nature of that strategy: in particular, that it must leave room for new people and new ideas; that it must be focused on long-term needs; that industry and government must play their part in the new partnership, and must be flexible enough to support excellent research throughout the science base.
A major theme of the White Paper was the need for a new partnership between the science base, industry and government. Chapter 2 of your Lordships' report addresses the way in which that partnership will be taken forward and is generally supportive of the measures we have proposed. To quote from paragraph 2.71 of the report on this subject:
"We warmly welcome the White Paper 'Realising our potential'. It acknowledges real problems, and proposes real measures which if implemented in the right way could bring benefits to science and industry alike".
This debate has been concerned with making sure that that is implemented in the right way.
The Government believe strongly that that partnership between science and industry is vital to our success as a nation. Some noble Lords have been concerned that we have placed too much emphasis on the science base and not enough on industry. I can assure the House that we fully recognise that for the partnership to work there must be commitment from both partners, from industry and the science base. That point was very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. We are not concentrating only on the science base. We shall be looking for a clear response from industry to our policies.
The noble Lord, Lord Moms of Castle Morris, if I may put words into his mouth, appeared to regard the approach which the Government have taken as a toothless tiger. I want to pose a number of questions to him, although clearly I do not expect a response to them. But what does the noble Lord suggest: compulsion? A research levy on companies? I believe, and the Government believe that the way forward must be to engage interest, involvement and investment but on a voluntary basis.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I do not want to interrupt the flow of her speech. I would find it extremely irritating to be interrupted all the time. I promise not to do it again unless hideously provoked.
What I should like is tax incentives and access to venture capital. Those are two aspects. They were mentioned in the report and they took my eye and captured my imagination.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not think that there is a great deal between us and I shall do what I can not to provoke the noble Lord during the course of the debate. I have a vested interest in not doing that.
The central theme of the report and of this debate is the way in which decisions are made about priorities in the science base. Some anxiety has been expressed that the effect of our policies, in particular the restructuring of the research councils and their new missions, will lead to a damaging move away from long-term, basic research.
I remind the House that the White Paper made clear the Government's continuing commitment to basic research. Paragraph 3.17 explained that in the new research council structure all five natural science councils will support the full range of underpinning disciplines appropriate to the pursuit of their missions and that individual councils will undertake the lead responsibility for the health of particular disciplines. The Director-General of the Research Councils will be responsible for keeping under review the boundaries between councils to ensure that all disciplines are properly covered.
In that regard, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that the director-general will not be purely decorative. He will have real powers to enable him to carry out his important responsibilities, as I shall mention later.
However, we want to ensure that systems for setting priorities within the science and engineering base take proper account of the prospects for practical application of research. Some of your Lordships have suggested that this risks turning our universities into a kind of contract research agency for industry, focusing on short-term research with immediate applications. I can assure the House that that is not our intention. We agree with the committee that such a policy would not be in the best interests of the science base, of industry or of the United Kingdom. It is industry's job to support short-term research with immediate application; the focus of the science base should be on the long term and on excellence in basic and strategic research.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, raised two specific points on the setting of research priorities, first, in relation to the technology Foresight programme and, secondly, on structural arrangements in the Office of Science and Technology and the role of the director-general.
The purpose of technology Foresight is to identify areas of research with the potential to lead to a range of commercial applications in the medium to long term — up to 20 years ahead. Perhaps I should alter that to 26 years in the light of what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said. I can assure the House that we do not expect the results of the Foresight programme to translate directly into decisions about short-term research programmes. Rather, we see it as one aid to making decisions about the overall balance of programmes.
As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, acknowledged, no country can afford to support all the research its scientists and engineers consider important, no matter how first-class they are. Difficult decisions need to be made about the areas which need to be nurtured in the

1165
medium to long term and those which may be of reducing importance. We expect the results of the Foresight programme to be one of the factors which will influence the research councils and the higher education funding councils in their decisions about priorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, also asked for clarification of the role and position of the Director-General of the Research Councils. The new director-general is indeed a vital post, and the Government have been very fortunate in securing the services of Sir John Cadogan. In terms of his responsibility versus that of Ministers, it is inherent in our parliamentary system that ultimate responsibility should rest with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. But the director-general is clearly in the line of authority over the policy, resource and management questions on the research councils system within government.
The noble Lord. Lord Flowers, expressed regret that the director-general is not the accounting officer for the science budget. It is, however, standard government accounting practice that the accounting officer role should rest with the permanent secretary of the department, in this case with Richard Mottram as head of the Office of Public Service and Science.
That Sir John has the real authority needed to carry out his duties effectively has already been demonstrated in the announcement last month of the science budget for 1994– 95. My right honourable friend made clear that the redistribution of £ 15 million for new programmes was attributable to advice from Sir John, notwithstanding his short time in the post. Sir John has already, to use the excellent phrase of the Select Committee, shown that he has the flexibility to touch the tiller of the science base.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, was concerned again about the role of the chief scientific adviser and the relationships between the permanent secretary, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the chief scientific adviser. He referred to four.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, have questioned the role and relationships, and the appointment of the Director-General of Research Councils will have the effect of freeing up the chief scientific adviser to advise on science and technology issues across government. Several noble Lords have mentioned the importance of that function: that it should not be departmental. We should look right across the pistes in these matters. The chief scientific adviser remains the adviser to the Prime Minister and will have the new role at his disposal through the new Forward Look and the Council of Science and Technology.
The report also looks at priorities for the universities, which form the major part of the science and engineering base. The universities are independent institutions, free to pursue their own missions in research as in other areas. There is no value, as the Select Committee recognises, in a rigid hierarchy of research or teaching universities. That would only impose a mission on each institution, stifle innovation
1166
and discourage diversity. Nor would spreading funds more thinly provide value for money or promote excellence.
Some universities engage in basic research, others concentrate more on applied research, often commissioned by industry for specific purposes. Both have their place. If we are to secure the most effective use of resources, it is essential to encourage universities to recognise their individual strengths and to play to them. The framework of research selectivity which has been developed by the Higher Education Funding Councils is designed to promote that.
Yet the system also allows flexibility. Funding is related to the quality of individual departments rather than institutions. A few universities have high quality across the board. But the system also allocates funds to individual high quality departments in institutions which otherwise have middle or low ratings. Moreover, all the funding councils have included provision within their research allocations for funds to support the development of research outside the traditional centres. I am sure that they will want to consider carefully what your Lordships have to say about the continuing importance of these development funds in maintaining the health of the system.
Because funding is allocated as a block grant, universities are free to decide how to spend it— for example, by funding promising individuals in otherwise low-rated departments. They can also encourage co-operation between departments and with other institutions. All these factors should protect the seedcorn of the future, allow innovation to flourish and new research and new research centres to develop
The block grant from the education departments and higher education funding councils is one side of the dual support system for supporting university research. The other side is the research grants available for project funding from the research councils. My noble friend Lord Selborne referred to the importance of the dual support system and the role of the research funding channelled through the higher education funding councils. The Government agree that universities need to have access to funds which they can use at their discretion, for example, to fund seedcorn research. The White Paper made clear the Government's continuing commitment to the dual support system for university research. It recognised the need for good working links between the funding and research councils within the system. To that end the Government announced the creation of a new Science and Engineering Base Co-ordinating Committee. At this stage perhaps I may say to my noble friend that I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating him on taking up the mantle of chairmanship of the Select Committee following the work of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers.
The committee brings together the chief executives of the funding and research councils, the Director-General of Research Councils and representatives of the four United Kingdom education departments under the chairmanship of the chief scientific adviser. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Butterworth that the committee has met several times since it was established last summer. It has made arrangements to involve other

1167
funding bodies such as the Royal Society and the charities in its work and to have discussions with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and other representatives of higher education institutions. It is proving an effective forum for discussion and co-ordination of science and engineering based issues.
The dual support system has been queried by a number of noble Lords in the course of the debate. The purpose of the transfer was to achieve greater clarity over the responsibilities for project funding. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been monitoring the research councils' spending to see that the funds are being used as intended. The British Universities Finance Officers Group accepted in its report for the CVCP last year that the transferred funds were being channelled back to the universities.
Arguments that the transfer should be reversed ignore the problems which led the Government to introduce the change. It is important that there should be clarity over funding responsibilities. There is inevitably a learning process as all those involved, researchers and administrators, understand and properly apply the new rules. It will take time for the new system to bed down.
The Government are committed to making the new system work as effectively as possible. They accepted the recommendations in the report from the Universities Finance Group, including the recommendation that there should be an independent review of the arrangements after two years of operation. That review will be carried out later this year.
The report singles out as one of the key roles of the universities the training of future scientists and engineers. Your Lordships reported that many industrialists regarded people as the most important output of the science base. The report identified the supply of researchers trained to international standards as a priority, and, in welcoming the White Paper's proposals for improving the career structure of contract research workers in universities, the committee asked for a commitment to the funding of individual fellowships to be carried forward on a large scale. I am pleased to report progress in meeting these points.
Last month the Office of Science and Technology published a consultation paper on the White Paper policy that research students supported by the research councils should normally complete an initial year of Master's training. The Master's year is intended to provide the students concerned with the skills and knowledge not only to tackle further research training more effectively but also to enter a range of careers outside as well as inside academia.
The purpose of the consultation is to see that we take full account of the views of universities and employers in taking forward this policy. The consultation paper makes clear that our aim is phased, not forced, implementation. The policy will need to take account of the different patterns of course provision in different subject areas and also differences between industry sectors in their demand for trained researchers.
Beyond the training stage, the White Paper suggested a range of measures to help the universities develop
1168
their role as employers of new academic researchers. The Government have begun to implement these measures through the announcement by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, of extra money for the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering to expand their fellowship schemes. That will help ensure the supply of highly qualified people to fill academic vacancies as they arise.
To turn to just one or two additional points made in the course of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Porter, and others referred to the issue of postgraduate training. Our aims of broadening postgraduate training generally and making it more relevant to employment have been well received. They were based on the widespread view, well expressed by the Royal Society, that some degree of flexibility and versatility should be incorporated into PhD training. That should include elements of non-science specific training, and at the very least should include communication skills and, where appropriate, the management of human material and financial resources.
The policy says that students supported by the research councils should normally complete a Master's year. This will help to assess the student's suitability for further research training but also provide a valuable qualification for those who, for whatever reason, do not proceed. The year will probably need to include some experience of research, the acquisition of further specialist knowledge and communication and other skills of use, both in research and other careers. We have already had helpful spontaneous comments from industry and academia. The White Paper indicated that there would be further widespread consultation and the Office of Science and Technology has now issued a consultation paper inviting comments by the end of April.
The White Paper made clear that implementation of the policy would need to be phased and flexible; for example, to take account of some four-year first degree courses which might fit students for direct entry to PhD.
A comparison was made between the United Kingdom, America and Japan. I thought it might be at least worth putting on the record that the figures are quite interesting. In terms of expenditure on R&D, if one takes the total figures, Japan and the United States of America come top of the league tables. Even if one takes the civil proportion of that expenditure, Japan will come first and the United States of America third. In the first table on total expenditure, the United Kingdom is fifth, followed by Canada and Italy. The same is true on the civil proportion. The point that I think needs to be re-emphasised again and again in terms of the Government funding of research and development, whether one takes the total amount of money or that spent on the civil proportion, is that Japan comes at the bottom of the list in both columns and the United States of America, high on Government defence-related research, is right at the bottom of the list on civil research. There is a real message for industry, if it is listening.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and other noble Lords again highlighted the balance between blue skies and near market research and that point is well

1169
taken. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in his as always fascinating contribution to the debate, reminded me personally of my own children, my son and daughter who are twins. My daughter is now an air traffic controller and the aeroplane for which she is responsible is that wonderful example of technology, the Harrier. My son is a young chemist in his final year of studying for a PhD. What the noble Earl had to say struck quite a chord with me.
The other point that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, made, as did other noble Lords in the debate, was to warn us all of the dangers of short-termism. That point is well taken. The final point on the additional matters was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. He mentioned Forward Look. The system is now transparent. The item of science and technology is on the agenda; we will be reminded of it annually, and the House will have opportunities to return to it. We have a Prime Minister who has shown considerable commitment to science. We have a separate department, the Office of Science and Technology, specifically established and concerned with science, headed by a Minister of Cabinet rank. The annual Forward Look, the Foresight programme and much greater transparency will all serve to keep science and technology well and truly on the agenda. In conclusion, let me return to the overall theme of the report, the need for a national strategy for the science and engineering base. The Government see science and engineering as vital to the health of the nation. The creation of the Office of Science and Technology and the publication last year of the White Paper are evidence of its importance.
We also agree that strategic thinking is needed. The Government's role is to put in place structures which encourage and enable such strategic thinking. That is the purpose of the new arrangements now being put in place. The Council for Science and Technology, chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will advise the Government on matters of national importance in science and technology. The Forward Look of government-funded research and development will bring together each year the programmes of individual government departments to give an overview of the totality of funding of science and technology. The Technology Foresight programme will help to identify where long-term investment is likely to be most beneficial, and assist in forging a closer partnership between the science base and industry.
Within the science base and the universities, we believe that the structures now being put in place will provide a sound framework for development of that partnership. The committee has in general welcomed the structural proposals, and has done some valuable thinking about how they should in practice be developed.
We will consider the report very carefully and provide a formal response to it in due course. We will also take account of the analysis and recommendations in the report as we continue to implement our policies for the science and engineering base. As expected, the debate will prove a valuable supplement to the report
1170
and a contribution to the important subject which. as I said at the outset of my remarks, is crucial to the future of the country.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I must not make another speech and I cannot, if only because I can no longer read my notes. At any rate, perhaps I may thank noble Lords for their support and their kind remarks about me personally, not least my noble friend Lord Halsbury, who seems to have been of greater service to me in the past than even I had imagined. It was a great pleasure also to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who has now succeeded me as chairman of the Select Committee. I wish him much joy on it. I also enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, under whose inspiring chairmanship I served for so many years. They both expressed the importance of reciprocity between the partners—industry, Government and the science base— and the damage caused by short-term attitudes towards the support of science and technology. I very much agreed with what they said.
It is not for me to comment on all the speeches made, but perhaps at least I may say how much I also welcomed the contribution of my noble friend Lord Tombs, the only industrialist to speak this afternoon. He spoke well, but the absence of other industrial participation today is perhaps symptomatic of the problems we have been discussing. Of course, they are busy people, but then so are the rest of us.
My chief thanks, however, must go to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, whose reply was, as usual, comprehensive. We shall all study what she said with great care, I think she clarified some important points. Naturally, I was particularly pleased that the noble Baroness seemed to be taking the long-term view and to be saying that the Government would seek to gain the real co-operation of industry in this vital partnership. I shall study her remarks on those points with particular care.
It has been an interesting and important debate. I hope that it will be seen to contribute to the new emphasis that the Government wish to place on science and technology and may therefore be regarded as a contribution to work in progress. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994
6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, many of your Lordships will recall last year the House approving the Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) Order 1993. That order gave effect to the Sangatte protocol between the United Kingdom and French Governments

1171
concerning frontier controls and policing, co-operation in criminal justice and certain other matters, and it modified the Immigration Act 1971 in order to apply it to the Channel Tunnel. The purpose of the order we are considering today is to provide the legal framework for measures to protect the Channel Tunnel, the international train services and related facilities from acts of terrorism.
The Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 sets about that task in two distinct ways. First, it creates a number of new and serious offences against the safety and security of the Channel Tunnel, the trains and associated facilities. Secondly, it provides powers for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to direct the concessionaires (Eurotunnel) and other users of the tunnel to take appropriate measures to protect the tunnel system, the trains and associated facilities, people and property against acts of violence. The order will apply a framework of law to the fixed link which closely parallels that now applying to aviation and shipping under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. Hereafter, I shall refer to the Aviation and Maritime Security Act not by its full title but by its common acronym, AMSA. That might cut some minutes off the length of my remarks.
The building of the fixed link was authorised in 1986 by the Treat of Canterbury. It was accompanied by an agreement between Eurotunnel and the United Kingdom and French Governments granting Eurotunnel the concession for 55 years. Under Article 5 of the treaty and Clause 23 of the concession both Governments have required Eurotunnel to put in place the measures necessary for the security of the fixed link and to submit proposals showing how they propose to do that. The concession agreement also requires Eurotunnel to secure the observance of those same requirements by other rail users; initially British Rail and its French partner, SNCF.
In the United Kingdom the responsibility for the security of all forms of transport rests with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It is, however, established UK practice to place a duty on the transport operator to put in place the necessary security procedures and facilities. In the civil aviation sector the Secretary of State gives directions under the 1982 Aviation Security Act and the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act to airlines, airport operators and others, requiring them to carry out specified procedures and to install physical security measures and equipment. The same happens at the ports and with ferry and shipping lines under the 1990 Act. This order places Eurotunnel, British Rail and others connected with the security of Channel Tunnel trains on the same legal footing as their aviation and maritime competitors. Each of these transport sectors is from an operational perspective very different and they require security arrangements tailored to suit those operating conditions and the nature of the threat; but the legal framework underlying the arrangements can be, and should be, very similar.
In France, by contrast, most transport security functions are undertaken by state agencies, not the
1172
transport operators. At the Channel Tunnel and at railway stations and freight terminals served by international trains most security functions will be undertaken by the frontier and air police and the customs, although French transport operators usually provide the security infrastructure and equipment.
Noble Lords will know that the legal basis in the United Kingdom for building and operating the tunnel system is provided by the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. When Parliament considered the Channel Tunnel Bill it recognised that there would be a need, near to the time of opening, for wide-ranging order-making powers to provide for the regulation of the tunnel system and for applying and enforcing provisions of the law. It was not possible to do that in the Act itself because much of the information required was not available at the time.
The powers for making this order are contained in Section 11 of the Channel Tunnel Act, in particular in subsections (1) (a), (1) (c), (1) (d), (1) (h) and (2). For the purposes of subsection (1) (a), the relevant international arrangements are those contained in the,
"Special arrangements between the UK and French Governments on security matters relating to the fixed link",
Article 3(a) of which requires both Governments to ensure that the security of the fixed link, including the terminal areas, other sites and essential services, is satisfactorily provided and organised and that the responsibilities are properly defined and exercised.
I should like now to focus more closely on the main provisions of the order and say a little about how they will function in practice. The main provisions of the order are contained in Parts II and III, which correspond closely to Parts II and III of AMSA. Part II of the order creates a number of new offences against the safety of the Channel Tunnel and Channel Tunnel trains. These are serious offences, including hijacking, seizing control of the tunnel system, destroying or damaging Channel Tunnel trains or the tunnel system and other acts likely to endanger safety, including issuing threats. All of the offences created in Part II of the order provide that a person found guilty is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life, which in each case is the same as the corresponding penalty under AMSA.
The primary purpose of Part III of the order is to provide for the protection of Channel Tunnel trains and related facilities, the Tunnel system, persons and property from acts of violence. It does so chiefly by giving the Secretary of State powers to direct Eurotunnel, British Rail and others to put in place appropriate physical security measures and to carry out sensible security procedures. All of the articles in Part III, including the related offences for failing to comply with the directions, are based on the corresponding sections of AMSA.
Unfortunately— or perhaps from your Lordships' point of view, fortunately— I do not have time here today to go through the order article by article—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes, you have.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think that I might be tempting the noble Lord's patience if I tried to do that. But I would like to focus on just a few of the articles. Article 11 gives the Secretary of State the

1173
power to obtain information, although this is limited to the purposes of Part III of the order. The ability to obtain accurate and up-to-date information is essential to achieving the objectives of the order: in particular it will enable the Secretary of State to judge what other directions, and their terms, may be necessary under other articles.
Article 12 allows the Secretary of State to designate restricted zones. These are an important means of protecting sensitive areas. Normally they are used in conjunction with perimeter security and controls on access. They also provide a secure environment for people, vehicles and goods waiting to board trains. Following discussions with the operators, the intention initially is to designate restricted zones within Eurotunnel's terminal at Folkestone, at Waterloo international terminal and a number of other railway facilities to be used in connection with Channel Tunnel trains.
Articles 14 and 15 are particularly important. They empower the Secretary of State to require searches to be carried out of people and goods before they enter the tunnel system or board a Channel Tunnel train; that includes searches of passengers' property and vehicles, of trains and of the tunnel system itself. Outside the tunnel system it would include searches of premises used in connection with Channel Tunnel trains, such as Waterloo international terminal, and people and property on those premises.
Both articles identify the circumstances and conditions under which searches may be carried out. For this to occur without a warrant it is first necessary for a direction to be in force under the relevant article; and then for the person specified in the direction, or a constable, to have reasonable cause to suspect that firearms or explosives are in, or may be brought into, the tunnel system or the building or train concerned. Regrettably, at the present time there remains good reason to suppose that such articles may indeed be brought in.
It is therefore the Secretary of State's intention to give directions under both articles. The searches may be carried out by the persons specified in the direction or by constables, although normally it will be done by trained personnel employed by the operator, which is the case now at most United Kingdom ferry ports and airports.
Article 16 provides general powers to direct other security measures to be taken. Examples of the type of measures that may be required include the preparation of contingency plans, for example to deal with bomb threats; they may require the implementation of access controls and security pass systems, usually in conjunction with other measures to control access to restricted zones. They may also require the installation of physical security measures or set minimum standards, for example in respect of perimeter fencing or closed circuit TV. Eurotunnel and British Rail are aware of the specific measures that will be required of them under this article and most are already in place. As with AMSA, a number of new offences are created of failing to comply with a direction.
Articles 17 to 28 contain supplemental provisions concerning directions given under the preceding
1174
articles. For example, Article 17 allows the Secretary of State to specify the manner in which searches are carried out and the training of those involved. Article 18 places limitations on the scope of directions. It precludes, for example, a direction being given which requires or authorises the carriage of firearms.
Article 20 allows the recipient of a direction given under Article 16 requiring him to carry out works to lodge an objection within 30 days, and it provides a procedure for objectors to present their case to the Secretary of State. Articles 21 and 22 deal with the service and content of enforcement notices to redress any failure to comply with a general requirement of a direction.
In Article 26 provision is made for directions to override other contractual or statutory duties and thereby preclude persons complying with a direction from becoming liable under those other provisions. Its purpose is to ensure that the measures required to counter the threat to the Channel Tunnel, to the trains or associated facilities are not frustrated or delayed by normal restrictions imposed by law. The same approach is taken in AMSA.
The remaining articles of the order underpin the preceding provisions. For example, they provide for Department of Transport officers to carry out inspections. New offences are created of unauthorised presence in a restricted zone; of making false statements concerning the contents of any baggage or goods, or in connection with an application for, or use of, a security pass. Here, as throughout Part III of the order, the maximum penalties available to the courts for each of the offences created correspond to those available under AMSA.
Finally I should like to say a few words in praise of all those who have steered this project from the drawing board to its realisation. Even though the original planned opening date had to be deferred by Eurotunnel, the task of commissioning the tunnel system and the shuttle trains is now approaching the point at which the two Governments, the safety authority and the intergovernmental commission will decide on the grant of an operating certificate. It is by any measure a momentous achievement by those who have brought this extraordinary and exciting project to completion.
It has not been possible today for me to do more than to focus your Lordships' attention on the main provisions of this order, but I hope that I have identified the most important aspects. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]. — (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish).
6.12 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will all be grateful to the noble Lord for the careful and clear way in which he has outlined the history and the substance of this order. I ought at once to declare an interest as the holder of a modest number of shares in Eurotunnel. I hope that it will restore my

1175
reputation for impartiality if I add that I have an equally modest number of shares in one of the the cross-Channel ferry operators.
My noble friends and I regard the tunnel not simply as being a quite extraordinary and imaginative engineering achievement and certainly not simply as being an additional means of transport across the Channel. We regard it as even more important: as providing this country with a fixed link to the Continent of Europe, to which we believe this country will be irrevocably committed in the future.
Of course the security of this enterprise is a matter of vital importance. It is and has been talked about frequently. Indeed, the very fact that the matter has been talked about may prove something of a temptation to the occasional maniac of one kind or another who seeks to test that security. I suppose that it would be idle to point out that this is not the first time that trains have run in tunnels of some considerable length, whether those tunnels be under mountains or under London. The fact remains that certainly in the early stages, before everybody begins to take travelling through the tunnel totally for granted, as I believe will happen very soon, it is particularly important that special care should be taken over safety and security issues.
For that reason a vast amount of attention has obviously been given to those issues. The British and French Governments have been concerned with the subject; Eurotunnel, BR and SNCF have been involved; there has been an intergovernmental commission with a safety authority and there is a safety directorate inside Eurotunnel. All of them have been studying these matters. I have no reason to query the ability and competence of any of those people. I have no doubt that they are fully aware of the risks involved and the steps that should be taken to meet them; hence, this order.
It is true that I have been provided, as I suspect other noble Lords have also, with briefing material which outlines various other risks. It is idle to pretend that those matters have not been considered by those who are responsible for ensuring the safety of passengers through the tunnel. I must confess that I am not impressed by some of those— I do not for one minute suggest that they are those who have been supplying us with material— who have been tempted to scaremonger in that regard. Whether or not that is their intention, I know not. I say at once that I exempt entirely from that observation the cross-Channel ferry companies. As one would have expected, they have shown complete restraint. Indeed, it must be obvious to them and to the Eurotunnel operators that any form of advertising war that breaks out which might endeavour to claim to offer more safety and less danger than any competitors would be a campaign doomed to backfire and, I believe, totally unproductive.
But the subject is one that is capable of enabling people who wish to do so to obtain cheap publicity. We have seen over the past months examples of that. in the press. Taking up a purely fanciful example, I suppose that if I wanted to get my name in the papers (which I do not), I could make up some story for your Lordships about the grave risk that an AIDS victim might go
1176
berserk, run through the tunnel carrying a syringe of contaminated blood and plunge it into the sides of motorists or passengers waiting in compartments beside their cars as they travel through the tunnel. One could say that. It is long odds that if I put that about seriously, there would be some story in one of the newspapers tomorrow about the grave AIDS risk to travellers in the Channel Tunnel.
For very much the same reason I do not feel that it would be helpful to pry across the Floor of your Lordships' House into the details of how security will be operated. There are matters about which I should like to know, such as where searches or checks will be made and how they will be carried out. But I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for that sort of information to be requested publicly and, if so, certainly I do not believe that it should be answered publicly. It would only be a temptation for people to see whether they could evade the checks which were thereby disclosed. Therefore I am certainly content with the subject matter of this order.
The only other matter to which I want to refer is a rather different one; namely, the parliamentary procedure that is involved in the making of the order. It is made by virtue of Section 11 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. As the Minister made clear, it largely follows the various sections of AMSA of 1990. It is clear that Part II of the order creates a whole series of totally new criminal offences which are very largely punishable, and quite properly so, with life imprisonment.
But I find it an unattractive procedure that an Act of Parliament should give to a Minister, through a statutory instrument, the power to create totally new criminal offences. I do not believe that Ministers should possess that power, whether the order is subject to the affirmative or negative procedure. In practical terms there is perhaps not a great deal of difference. As your Lordships know, by convention— though it is not always complied with— this House has no power to vote against an order and certainly does not have the power to amend one. If it had the power to amend an order I should be tempted to refer to Article 7 which, in subsection (3), makes it an offence,
"for any person intentionally to communicate any information which he knows to be false in a material particular, [which) endangers the safe operation of any Channel Tunnel train".
Quite right too ! Subsection (4) goes on to say that,
"It is a defence for a person … to prove … that he communicated the information in good faith in performance of those duties".
I must confess that my mind boggles at the scenario of anybody who has communicated information intention-ally, knowing it to be false and endangering safety, attempting to put up a defence that he was doing it in good faith in performance of his duty. But that is merely an incidental illustration of the fact that it is impossible to debate to any practical purpose the details of the order.
The answer which the Minister is fully entitled to make is that my point has no relevance today. It may have had a point six years ago when the principal Act — or Bill as it then was— was being debated in your Lordships' House, and that is certainly correct. Nevertheless, it is worth making the point that six years

1177
ago there was no Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in your Lordships' House. Had there been such a committee, grave doubts would have been expressed as to whether it is right in any circumstances to give such extensive powers to a Minister by statutory instrument to allow the creation of new criminal law. I make that observation in the hope that anyone who is tempted to seek to do this again in some other Bill may hesitate as to the probable consequences when it comes before your Lordships' House.
I wish this vast enterprise well. I too congratulate all those concerned in it and I can only say that I look forward to travelling through the tunnel on many occasions in complete safety.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, Perhaps I can first explain that it is in the absence of those who normally speak from these Benches on transport that I have this opportunity of taking part in what I hope the Minister will agree is not merely another order on another aspect of primary legislation, but one of the most crucial orders. When one looks at the scope and listens to the fair, full, frank and helpful exposition, it is more like a Bill than an order. If the Minister agrees with me that clearly what we are looking at is the product of consultation and reflection, it is a model that I hope some of his colleagues in other departments will choose to follow. hope that in future, before we are presented with Bills, there will be as much care taken by those involved in obtaining agreement on what is acceptable as was clearly obtained here.
The noble Lord quite fairly asked the House to accept that substantially we are looking at an extension of the powers, the provisions and regulations that apply to other major forms of transport. That is absolutely right. But I am sure that the Minister will recognise in this instance, because it is so new, revolutionary and far-reaching, that a great interest has been taken in the matter. He must accept also that it only needs what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, described as a "maniac" — I would use the term "nutter"— or a fanatic, someone with no responsibility but imbued by zeal of one kind or another, wanting to make a name for himself or his organisation, and one could be faced with a catastrophic situation.
We are considering what the Minister and those who advise him say is needed in the legal framework to give peace and security of mind to the many people— I agree in that regard with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder— who will want to give this new mode of travel from England to France and beyond a fair try. The Minister certainly satisfied me as to the seriousness of the Government's intent. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that one may be accused of scaremongering by asking questions. But the function of this stage is to ask questions— not in order to produce headlines but in order to ensure that those people outside the House who have genuine anxieties have those: anxieties put to rest.
The briefing for Eurotunnel in regard to safety and security states that its philosophy is,
"To integrate safety with every stage of planning, design and operation. The safety of passengers and staff is paramount".
1178
That is a fair objective. However, I should like the Minister to satisfy me and others that, in order to compete effectively with other forms of travel across the Channel, risks are not being taken in the: interests of speed; that is, turn-round, which will mean more passengers carried and therefore more profit. I trust the Minister will say that he and his colleagues have been guided and advised that all the elements in place have the philosophy of passenger safety as paramount. The question of security must be considered along with the overall safety of the system. It is a general point, which, among others, concerns the Consumers' Association. We believe that the safety of passengers must be paramount. In fact, there should be no other consideration such as speed, commercial viability or being the best among the other forms of transport entitling it to take precedence.
The Minister may be aware that there is not complete public unanimity that the tunnel will be safe or secure. That is not an exaggeration because I am told that in some surveys the public believe that the tunnel will be almost as vulnerable to terrorist attack as flying, and much more vulnerable than ferries. Under half— 44 per cent. — thought ferries were vulnerable compared with 61 per cent. for the Channel Tunnel and 64 per cent. for flying. In a later survey Mintel, which has a fine reputation as a market analyst, found that three out of four adults said that they are never likely to use the tunnel, with many saying that they would be frightened of venturing inside. Half of the respondents were worried that the tunnel would be a target for terrorists.
In the general domain, all those matters 'will only be tested in practice. The Minister must assure the House that the question of safety is something which he and his colleagues took fully into account. The viability of the Eurotunnel project hinged from the start on approval being given for the non-segregation of cars and passengers. The safety authority claimed that it always kept an open mind on the question. But it would have been difficult not to give approval because that could have placed the whole future of the project in jeopardy. I know that the Minister will take the point fairly and kindly that the fact that cars and passengers are not segregated, which may be safer, in the minds of the general public means that there may be a little more danger.
I was interested when the Minister spoke to us about the arrangements for security. I wonder whether the noble Lord can satisfy the House and those outside as to the quality and standards of the training which will be carried out. In the recent past we have had some experience of hitherto state-provided security in the prison service being superseded by a private security arrangement, Group 4. By comparison, the quality of the training has left much to be desired. The Minister may tell us that that was unfortunate, that it will not be repeated, and that the Government are looking at the matter very closely. The noble Lord has an obligation to assure the House and, I hope, the millions of people who will travel that the Government have made absolutely certain that the quality and content of the training are

1179
such that they can feel absolutely confident that their lives are safe in the hands of those who operate the tunnel.
My noble friend Lord Ewing is not here but he asked me to raise a matter. Is it correct that certain goods carried in bulk will be prohibited? My noble friend mentioned that gas, fuel and whisky are among the goods that cannot be carried in bulk. What is the rationale for denying the ability to transport such products in bulk through the tunnel?
The noble Lord has satisfied me that the Government take fully on board their responsibilities in these matters. At the end of the day, if there is a major disaster, despite all that has been done, the Government will carry the blame. It will be no good saying that it was some authority's responsibility; they will say it of course, but it will be no good saying it. It will be no good saying that they made every endeavour. Tragically, if a maniac, a nutter or a fanatic causes terrible damage, we— Parliament and the Government — will carry a major responsibility. We recognise that this is a major development which is welcomed by many people. But there are still many others who will have to be persuaded that travelling by this mode will be as safe as travelling by ferries, air and so on. I am not talking about a safety record. They all have a good record. However, the Minister needs to go some way to assure us on the safety aspects.
Rabies is part of the context of this matter. I am told that in Europe only foxes are known to transmit the disease and that there has been an EU-wide inoculation programme for several years now. Its success can be judged by the fact that the cases of rabies reported in France in 1993 were 80 per cent. less than in 1992. That is all very well, but if the figure has gone down from 5,000 to 1,000, which is 80 per cent. less, a figure of 1,000 is still worrying. What are we talking about— the number of cases falling from seven to two, or from 15 down to three? Rabies is still a feature of life and the possibility of rabies coming through the tunnel is there. I have read the excellent Explanatory Memorandum and I know that there are steps designed to prevent animals coming through. The systems are all in place. What the Minister has to tell the House and the public, however, is that the Government will make sure, even when it will mean money, time and men, that people travelling through the tunnel have had their best interests looked after. We certainly give the order a welcome and we look forward to the Minister's answer.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Graham of Edmonton, for their welcome not just to the order before us but also to this project which is coming to fruition and for which the order is a major, almost second last step, before we can try out a day trip to France through the Channel Tunnel.
The noble Lords asked a few questions and I shall try to answer them as quickly and as best I can. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, exercised the usual judicious balance of a lawyer and hedged his bets by
1180
having a small number of shares in both surface and underground systems of getting between the United Kingdom and France. He rightly drew attention to some of the scaremongering that goes on from some quarters around the project and he rightly pointed out how absolutely unfounded it was. I shall return to one or two of the specific issues that perhaps deserve an answer, and I hope that I shall be able to do that.
As the noble Lord rightly said, it would be wrong to ask— and I certainly would not answer— a question on how the security will work. We have a lot of experience of security at airports and security at the ferry ports. A lot of the experience we have gained in those two fields of transportation has been used in constructing the system for the Channel Tunnel. Indeed, as I mentioned, the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 has been very closely followed.
I fully understand the noble Lord's argument about such a fairly substantial piece of secondary legislation coming before your Lordships' House. As one of the original members of the scrutiny committee on these matters, I well understand the argument. Perhaps I may say in defence that this piece of legislation was well foreshadowed in Section 11 of the 1987 Act and it follows very closely the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. So there is good precedent for what is in the order. We are breaking a lot of new ground in the fact that it is a tunnel, but we are not breaking very much new ground in the security aspects because we have attempted to translate the principles of one into the practice of the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised a number of points. On the question of rabies, for example, which is a little away from the kind of security the order refers to but is probably one of the issues that people most often raise with me, considerable steps have been taken to ensure that animals do not enter the tunnel, and, if they do, that they will not get very far into the tunnel. The constructors have invested around £ 500,000 in experimental work on rabies defence measures. The CNVA centre in France and our own Wildlife Laboratory Centre at Worplesdon in the United Kingdom have carried out various items of research into matters concerning deterring not just foxes but also rodents. We believe, as do the operators, that they have designed a fairly elaborate system which ought to protect the tunnel against animals. Should animals get through the fences and so on which will surround the exterior entries to the tunnel, they will then come across some electrified grids inside the tunnel which one hopes would deter them from going any further. But the fact that trains will be passing through the tunnels at very frequent intervals and at quite a high speed is perhaps a good guarantee against animals progressing very far into the tunnel. We are well aware of that problem, but we believe that it has been seriously and successfully addressed. The whole question will be kept under careful review as the tunnel begins to operate.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked me about the training of security staff. We have a lot of experience on the training of security staff. On my trips up and down to Scotland I am subjected all the time to the security at Heathrow and other airports. I can assure the noble Lord

1181
and your Lordships that proper training is being carried out and that training is being approved by government officials.
The noble Lord asked me an interesting question about gas, fuel and whisky on behalf of his noble friend Lord Ewing. I am not very sure whether or not gas and fuel are used as a cover for the more serious question of whisky. I could not find the answer, but my recollection from some of the papers that I have read is that gas and fuel will not be carried through the tunnel. I am not sure about whisky which is not quite such a volatile liquid as gas and fuel. As there is not too much time for people to consume whisky in the quick journey through the tunnel, I do not believe that there will be much of a security danger in that regard. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord on that question.
I believe that have covered most of the points raised. Perhaps I may deal with the general point about the use of the tunnel and the survey which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned. I also read the survey and how people appear to be frightened of the idea of being in the tunnel. I can quite understand that. My wife takes the view that when she passes through the Clyde tunnel, which is a good deal shorter than the Channel Tunnel, she ought to do so as quickly as possible. She has not yet put that defence to the local constabulary when she passes through the tunnel in the car. I can understand that many people will feel that the Channel Tunnel is different from the long tunnels which one can drive through in, for example, the Alps and Northern Italy.
The difference is that one realises that above there is not just rock but the English Channel and a great deal of water both from the North Sea and the Atlantic. I can understand the fears. I believe that they will quite quickly disappear. Some people remain frightened of flying. Many people were afraid of flying at the beginning, but now fly without any trouble. The same is true of ships. Some people are quite frightened of them. I do not believe that such fear will be a lasting factor in keeping people away from the tunnel, although I fully accept that there will always be some who would prefer to go to the Continent by other means. Equally, there will be a great many who will be more than happy to try the tunnel as a method of getting to France and experience the excitement of being one of the first to make a journey in a fixed link between these islands and the continent of Europe. My history is not very good and nor is my geology, but I believe that this is the first time that that has been possible for many thousands of years since we were once linked to the Continent.
I believe that the problems of people being slightly nervous about crossing the Channel will disappear. I am sure that, as with other forms of transport improvement, the number of people crossing the Channel one way or the other will increase with this additional link between us and the mainland of Europe. As the noble lord; Lord Wigoder, mentioned, it is an important psychological step forward for this country to be connected directly to the Continent. I believe that it will act as an important sign to people that we are now fully part of the European
1182
Union. It will enable us to think in a more European way which will be to the benefit of us all, both economically and socially.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. A number of his remarks have certainly given me comfort. Can he help me on one point? It is the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority which has responsibility for making sure that the safety measures are adequate. Responsible organisations have great difficulty in discovering the basis and validity on which the measures have been taken. I am not talking about commercial confidentiality or security. As the noble Lord, Lord. Wigoder, said, those aspects are not in question. It will ease the minds of many people if it were possible either to vet, consult or prove the basis on which measures have been taken. At this stage the Minister may be unable to reply fully. Perhaps he can write to me in answer to that question.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall see what I can do about that question. A great deal of engineering work has gone into the construction of the tunnel. Among those who understand the technicalities of the civil engineering in the tunnel the safety measures which have been incorporated are fairly common knowledge. I can assure the noble Lord that both ourselves, the French Government and the company itself, for its own interest, have attempted to ensure that the highest modern standards of safety have been built into the construction of the tunnel and into the way in which it will be worked.
To some extent the fear about the safety aspects— if that is the word— which exists in some sections of the population who are potential users, leaving aside the security question, is a fear that tunnel travellers themselves will have to work to dispel in much the same way as in previous years people had to work to dispel a fear of flying, of trains and at one stage, a fear of the motor car itself. I was about to say that noble Lords will recall that, but obviously they will not. However, they will know from the history books that when the motor car first appeared a red flag was used to warn everyone away from it. I do not believe that we are quite at that stage as regards the Channel Tunnel. I do not think that a red flag is necessary. If I can say anything more positive to the noble Lord, I shall certainly write to him.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I do not doubt for a moment that everything which has been done has been done correctly. It is a question of openness. Perhaps publicity is the wrong word. But the question is the ability or the willingness to have that which has been done in the name of safety looked at by bona fide organisations. I shall be grateful if the Minister would write to me on that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I certainly shall. Eurotunnel will read these remarks and realise that it has a job to do to satisfy some people that everything has been done in a proper and safety-conscious way. With those remarks, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Iran
6.48 p.m.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy with regard to recent developments in Iran.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I take this opportunity first of thanking all those who are going to participate in this debate. I am looking forward to their contributions. We had a debate on Sudan not very long ago. At that time we had the benefit of the views of Members of your Lordships' House who had been in Sudan. We do not have that advantage this evening regarding Iran; but I am looking forward to hearing about the different aspects of the subject which noble Lords will bring to the debate. I have spoken to a number of right reverend Prelates and although they expressed support for this debate, I am disappointed that none was able to rearrange his commitments in order to participate.
The prime motive for this debate is the murder of the reverend Haik Hovsepian-Mehr who was both chairman of the Council of Protestant Churches in Iran and superintendent of the Assemblies of God. He was often called a bishop. I should have liked one of our right reverend Prelates to have participated in this debate tonight.
However, I shall be particularly looking forward to the response of my noble friend the Minister to the questions which I am sure that a number of us will be raising as well as for his statement as regards the Government's general policy today.
Reverting to the murder, I have seen in the media no evidence of a wholehearted investigation into its cause or to find out who actually committed it. Can my noble friend tell us whether he has any knowledge of an investigation or whether any genuine effort is being made to uncover the murder? It is a very strange coincidence that the murder occurred a very few days after the release of Mehdi Dibaj which was largely the result of the work of the man subsequently assassinated. He was one of the last great voices in Iran who was fearless in promulgating the truth of what was going on in that country at that time.
First, perhaps I may make a few remarks about the background. I hope that my facts are accurate, but they are not always easy to elicit. The last execution of a Christian pastor in Iran took place in December 1990. It is now some 15 years since the revolution, and I have seen it alleged that the government have executed some 95,000 of their political opponents during those 15 years. While that has not occurred at regular intervals, according to my calculations that is an average of more than 17 per day, which seems quite a high figure. However, let us put that into context. That figure is very small in comparison with what Hitler did; and with certain new films around, we are thinking again of the Holocaust and the 6 million who were murdered by Hitler in a much shorter period of time.
In quoting that figure of 95,000— obviously, it is not an official figure— I should like to put another aspect into context. I refer to the persecution of the Christian
1184
minority in Iran. A great deal more is done in terms of breaches of human rights against those who are opponents of the regime in Iran than to those who are just Christians. We need to put those different aspects into context.
I should like to make a few hesitant remarks about the question of the death penalty in Iran which is exacted for what Iran chooses to call apostasy— for changing one's religion from Islam to Christianity. As I understand it from the books that I have read by Islamic authors, the Koran does not decree the death penalty in this life although it says that there will be extreme punishment in the life hereafter. I have also read that the prophet Mohammed never put apostates to death, but there are plenty of ancient documents containing arguments for exacting the death penalty.
We need to understand the situation in Iran because it is right outside our ken here in England. Because of the inter-relationship of the government and the Islamic religion, to change one's religion from Islam is disloyalty to both the nation and the Islamic religion. That is something beyond our understanding. England is not a theocracy, as I believe that one might argue that Iran is. We need to have some understanding of the different situation there and to look with some measure of sympathy on the way in which Iran considers things.
Having said that, because Iran's 1979 constitution prescribes freedom of religion, I do not believe that a wholehearted dedication to freedom of religion would allow the way in which the courts there exact the death penalty on Moslems who change their religion to the Christian or another faith.
There are probably some 350,000 people who would call themselves Christians in Iran. That is quite a sizeable number; but the vast majority of them are members of the Armenian and Assyrian Churches, which conduct their services in their own languages. Because those languages are not spoken by the normal Iranian, they do not provide the same threat to the Iranian Government as the Protestant Churches, the services of which are conducted in Farsi, the natural language of the Iranians. Those Protestant Churches, of which the bishop was the chairman, are therefore much more open for Moslems to join. That is a threat to the Iranian authorities. Many people in Iran are calling for the death penalty for all those who started life as Moslems but have now become Christians or members of other faiths.
I turn secondly to certain current episodes and incidents. First, in 1989 the Bible Society, which had been functioning in Tehran since 1816, was closed. That was approximately four years ago. The society had been in Iran for almost two centuries. The effect of its closure was not only to hurt Christians, but to hurt Jews also because they used to obtain their own scriptures from the society which was the one organ which imported bibles for Christians and scriptures for Jews. Bibles cannot now be imported into Iran. Can my noble friend the Minister inform us why the Bible Society was closed and whether representations are continually being made by Her Majesty's Government and the European Union to apply pressure on Iran to permit the Bible Society to re-open its store in that country?

1185
In 1993— just last year— the restrictions on non-Moslems were increased; for example, their faith has now to be noted on their identity cards, which are greatly used. Non-Moslem shopkeepers have to put a notice on their shop stating their religious affiliation. There are also increasingly strong prohibitions on evangelising Moslems. Threats, arrests, prison and torture are common not only for Christians, but for opponents of
the regime. I emphasise that my understanding is that the Christians there are not opponents of the government. As commanded in the Bible, they pray for the government and are not in opposition to them. They are not trying to attack the government. They wish to exercise their right under the constitution to freedom of religion and to be allowed to conduct themselves in that way without hostility to the government.
Thirdly, looking at the future, can my noble friend tell us what further steps the UN special envoy, Professor Reynaldo Galindo-Pohl, is going to take about the situation in Iran? He made a damning report in November 1993 which hurt the Iranian Government. Will Her Majesty's Government ask him to enter the country and to investigate the allegations of torture and murder that are currently being made there? Will my noble friend try to check on whether the Iranian Government actually treat their opponents with justice and fairness?
As I draw to a conclusion, I should like to quote a couple of paragraphs from an article by Bernard Levin in The Times on 15th February, which illustrates a certain amount of what I have been saying. He writes:
"how insubstantial must the grasp on a religion be, if it has to be propped up by hangings and woundings and beatings and murderings? True, in centuries gone by, our forebears burnt heretics at the stake, or stretched them on the rack, or threw them into dungeons for the rest of their lives, all for the faith. But that is the point, surely? We are not in centuries gone by, but in this century, and very shortly we shall be in the next; how many more centuries have to pass for the mullahs of Iran to believe their own religion?"
I come to this topic as a Christian with humility and repentance for the wrong things that have been done by those who profess to be Christians, both in the past and in the present. I believe that we as Christians are by no means guiltless; but we need to press for justice where we can in every nation.
In the same article Bernard Levin refers to the death of Bishop Haik and states:
"Nevertheless, this evil satrapy of Iran should be called to account over the murder of the bishop, even though such denunciation would be ignored by the country's rulers".
These are important issues. To those in the Judaeo/Christian religion, all people, whatever their religion or faith, are respected because they are made in the image of God; all are part of the common humanity. But that was not the attitude of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, who published a book vilifying all non-Moslems in a way that I find totally unacceptable. We are to love our neighbours and to pray for those in authority that they should exercise justice and bring peace.1 pray that that will happen in Iran. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's response as regards the Government's policy.
7 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I greatly welcome the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, decided to introduce this Question and I appreciate the way in which he did so. Without doubt, Iran is one of the most repressive regimes in the world. Much of that was stated by the noble Viscount, perhaps in a more interrogatory way than I intend doing.
I too wish to comment on the case of Bishop Haik. It was a terrible case not just because he was a Christian but because of all the circumstances. He was the superintendent of the Assemblies of God Church in [ran and disappeared while on the way to the airport to pick someone up. On the morning of Sunday,30th January,11 days after his disappearance, the Tehran Office of Police Intelligence asked the family of Reverend Haik Hovsepian Mehr to report to the station in order to identify his body.
As Chairman of the Council of Protestant Ministers in Iran, the Reverend Haik Hovsepian Mehr had spoken out courageously against the persecution of Iranian Christians and the closure of the Iranian Bible Society, as well as a number of churches across Iran. Despite government pressure, he had refused to sign an undertaking promising not to allow Moslems into Assemblies of God churches— thank heavens he refused — and he also refused to sign a letter stating that the Assemblies of God enjoyed full constitutional rights as Christians in Iran. He had been campaigning for the release of Reverend Mehdi Dibaj, who, after nine years of imprisonment, had been sentenced to death for apostasy. As a result of international pressure, Reverend Mehdi Dibaj was released on 17th January. Only two days later Bishop Haik went missing.
There is, of course, widespread suspicion that the Iranian authorities were responsible for the death of Bishop Haik. I agree with the noble Viscount that there should be a thorough inquiry. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government have been active in making representations. During the past week I have written many letters to the Chargé in London and to Ministers and officials in Iran making my own protest against what has been done.
But, as the noble Viscount said, it is not just a question of the oppression of Christians. I wish to congratulate the all-party Parliamentary Human Rights Group on a report that it published yesterday entitled The Tehran Murder Machine, an account of terrorist assassinations by Iranian agents. It reminds us of the resolution passed on 17th August 1993 by the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. It strongly condemned:
"the continuing flagrant human rights violations of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including … the continuing execution of political prisoners and the assassination of opponents abroad".
The UN Special Representative on Iran, Professor Galindo Pohl, who was referred to by the noble Viscount, reporting on 8th November 1993, detailed:
"assassinations and attempts on the lives of Iranians living abroad, remarking that 'in the absence of conclusive data, the Special Representative has included in this analysis only those

1187
cases in which the participation of Iranian agents has been noted by competent judicial or administrative authorities, or by parliamentary bodies'".
The noble Viscount said that he had seen estimates showing that 95,000 Iranians had been killed in recent years. I have seen higher estimates but others have seen lower ones. If representatives of international organisations, such as the UN Special Representative on Iran and Amnesty International, were allowed to make inquiries we should know something of the truth of what goes on behind the closed doors and in the prisons in Iran.
The report of the all-party Parliamentary Human Rights Group deals especially with more than 100 assassination attempts made on the lives of Iranian dissidents living abroad. That is almost unprecedented. I know of no other country which on such a massive scale and with such organisation has assassinated people on the streets of foreign countries. Nearly 300 people have been killed or injured in such attacks, which are totally in breach of the law.
As chairman of the parliamentary group, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was greatly involved with the report and I hope that he will say a little more about it. I propose to concentrate on the way in which Britain can best use its influence to bring about change for the better. Of course, diplomatic initiatives are important in Tehran, in the UN, in association with our fellow members of the European Union, with the United States, and so forth. However, I wish to look a little more deeply into the matter. Since Ayatollah Khomeini's regime took power in Iran our policy towards Iran has been conciliatory. Following Khomeini's death, there were wide expectations in the West that Iran, under President Hashemi Rafsanjani, might adopt a more moderate attitude. Five years on, such hopes are seen to be largely illusory. The violation of human rights in Iran has continued unabated. The religious dictatorship has adopted a more active role in sponsoring international terrorism. I hope that the Minister will comment on that aspect of the regime. The decree to murder Salman Rushdie, the fatwa, has been renewed and the bounty for his head has been increased. Instead of it being withdrawn it has recently been re-emphasised.
At the same time, the Iranian regime has been actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles as well as accumulating chemical arms. In addition, the Iranian regime is strongly against the Middle East peace process, which is experiencing enough difficulty as it is. But here we have a constant, deliberate attempt to undermine the initiative. The Iranian Government consider themselves committed to destroy that process by helping extremist groups. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise on a global scale. Sudan is already in the hands of the fundamentalists and has become a platform for the support of terrorism in the region. Algeria and Egypt are increasingly facing the same problem. There is no question that the rise of fundamentalism in those countries has an objective base but it would be naive to neglect Iran's considerable provocative role in this respect. It would be equally naive to think that this evil problem will go away on its own.
1188
There is a difficulty in adopting a balanced policy which would not be misinterpreted as opposition against Islam. This would be a terrible thing for our country to be involved in. We have always enjoyed good relations with Islamic countries, and many of us have great respect for Islam and what it preaches. We would naturally wish to maintain those good relations. However, we should appreciate that the circumstances have entirely changed. Islamic fundamentalism is a strategic and real threat to friendly countries in the Islamic world, and we cannot come to a compromise with that.
I strongly believe that our policy towards Iran is at the heart of the problem. Experience has proved that our conciliatory approach has often been counter-productive in the past. Therefore, in my view we should adopt a decisive stance. It is not sufficient merely to condemn Iran's violations of human rights in the United Nations Human Rights Commission or in the United Nations General Assembly — a very small step. I believe that Britain must take firmer practical steps in that respect.
It so happens that, not knowing that this Unstarred Question was going to be on the Order Paper today, I went last week to Paris to meet Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, who was unanimously elected last October by the Iranian National Council of Resistance, a 350-member opposition parliament, as the future president of Iran. I found the meeting extremely illuminating and very reassuring. At a time when Iranian women are the prime victims of severe repression in Iran, the very fact that Mrs. Rajavi has been elected to the highest leading role in Iran is a reassuring factor, as it is clear that the opposition is a democratic alternative. I was very impressed with the people I met, with the constitution they have prepared, with the plans that are ready for the time, which we hope will not be too far off, when this disastrous and oppressive regime will fall by one means or another. Certainly, there is a great deal of dissent inside Iran, and it is growing.
It is not our job to interfere in internal affairs, but I believe that it is our job to understand and have contact with oppositions. I understand that there are certain countries that recognise the Labour Party as being the opposition in the United Kingdom and they freely come and talk to us. I know the circumstances are different, but I believe that we should recognise the value of a democratic alternative ready to take power if and when the circumstances arise, and that it is a democratic alternative which places great respect on the rights of women and those of religious and ethnic minorities, in addition to committing itself to conducting free elections not later than six months after the downfall of the clerical regime.
I believe that an active dialogue with the resistance, with its popular and religious roots in Iran, is the most serious step in confronting fanaticism and fundamental-ism and that that should form an inseparable part of our foreign policy. That will create the necessary balance in our relations with the present regime in Iran. If they know that we recognise the nature of the opposition and the constitutional role that it would play, I think it would be a healthy warning to the Government of Iran that in this moving world those who defy international human

1189
rights rules must expect that they will be challenged. We should therefore take the initiative and, concurrent with a more decisive stance against Rafsanjani's government, improve our relations with the National Council of Resistance for Iran. I believe that that is a constructive way forward.
There are other circumstances in which we should do the same thing. For instance, I have recommended that we should have a dialogue with the Dalai Lama and those who represent Tibet from outside, because there is a similar situation of total oppression in Tibet. I think it is healthy that the governments concerned should understand that governments such as our own are prepared to have not a formal but an informal and useful constructive relationship with those who stand in opposition. The governments concerned, the Chinese and the Iranian Governments, will not like it, but that is not our worry. They cannot expect to like it if they breach all the rules of civil conduct in the world coming towards the turn of the century. Those who breach human rights must expect others to recognise a constructive alternative. I hope that the British Government will consider this seriously.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I too should like warmly to welcome the debate which has been initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and to thank him for giving us this rare And useful opportunity of looking at Britain's policy on [ran and at the possibilities which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned of getting back on to a more amicable basis with them. I am very much in favour of closer links with the Iranian people, with whom we have historical ties of friendship and of mutual interest, although I think that, while this regime lasts, that is going to be very difficult, if not impossible.
The noble Viscount talked particularly about the persecution of religious minorities and the atrocious murder of Bishop Hovsepian-Mehr, on which I have written to the Government, as has the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I hope, as he does, that they are going to press for the fullest possible inquiry. But let me say first that I have no quarrel with the religion of the Iranian regime. I have no quarrel with fundamentalism as such. If people wish to believe that every word in the Bible or in the Koran is literally true that is their privilege. What I do not like, and what we must resist with all the strength at our command, is the use of fundamentalist doctrines for terrorist purposes against either the people of Iran or against those who oppose the Iranian regime abroad.
When you look at the murder of Bishop Hovsepian-Mehr in the context of all the other murders of dissidents against the Iranian regime abroad and the 92,000 executions which are being carried out by the regime, as the noble Viscount reminded us, you can reach but one conclusion; that is that the Government in Tehran have adopted a deliberate policy of using murder to eradicate their political opponents, not just at home but in every country where the victims of their persecution have sought exile. That is the conclusion of the report by the Parliamentary Human Rights Group
1190
which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was kind enough to mention. I shall go into that in a little more detail later on.
First, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that I entirely agree with him on cultivating better relationships both with the Iranian and the Tibetan opposition in exile, but I think this policy has to be generalised. I believe that the Foreign Office must devise mechanisms for doing that, as the United States is beginning to do with their Track Two diplomacy through the United Nations Institute of Peace. I wish that the Foreign Office would have a look at that experience in the United States to see whether parallel mechanisms could be devised here which would enable us, without committing the Government, to enter into dialogues with opposition bodies that are in resistance against dictatorships and regimes such as that in Iran.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that another interesting case is the Kurds in Northern Iraq with whom it seems to me the British Government have at least a speaking relationship?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, that is an interesting case. I agree with the noble Lord that it provides us with something of a precedent. One can think of many others such as the Southern Sudan resistance movement, the SPLA and the Kashmiris who have been involved with the dialogue started by the United States Institute of Peace.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, also mentioned some of the comments that have been made by the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and the United Nations Special Representative on Iran, Professor Galindo-Pohl. That supports the case that has been made in this report for saying that the Iranian regime is indulging in a campaign of systematic murder.
The Iranian Representative at the UN in his statement to the Third Committee in December 1993 complained about those references, but the Special Representative, in his more recent report of 2nd February 1994, said that he,
"cannot but mention cases in which there are statements by judicial, political or administrative authorities containing specific indications of the involvement of Iranian agents".
Perhaps I may mention one other authority. The Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, M. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, reported in December 1993 that,
"extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions continue to occur on a large scale in … Iran".
He says that he,
"received numerous reports concerning attacks against members of the political opposition to the Government outside … Iran. It has been alleged that those responsible are agents with links to the Iranian security forces".
I agree with the noble Viscount that we should ask professor Galindo-Pohl to follow up those allegations to see whether he can produce further evidence.
As we point out in our report, human rights violations are seldom provable to the standard that would be required in a court of law. In a letter to me, Mr. Douglas Hogg, says:
"It would be a very serious matter indeed if the Iranian government were shown to be behind these murders".

1191
I submit that the volume of evidence is sufficient for us to conclude that they are. I should like to know what the Government's attitude is going to be and what policy they believe we should adopt when it is proved, as we believe it is, that the Iranians have been adopting a consistent and deliberate policy of using murder as an instrument of policy.
We show that over the past 15 years over 100 assassination attempts have been made on the lives of Iranian dissidents living abroad in 18 countries. Nearly 300 people have been killed or injured in those attacks, half of which have occurred during the four-and-a-half years of Rafsanjani's rule, which gives the lie to those who claim that there has been some liberalisation since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini. The operations of the state terrorists sent out by Tehran have not been limited to Iranian citizens. The fatwa against Mr. Salman Rushdie has been reiterated by President Rafsanjani himself as recently as 2nd February 1993, and the reward offered for his murder increased to 2 million dollars, plus an unspecified additional sum if the person who commits the murder is engaged in arrangements for Mr. Rushdie's travels.
The Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Mr. Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri, said on the fifth anniversary of the fatwa that:
"every Moslem is religiously duty bound to kill him whenever and wherever he is able".
The British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union received an invitation from that gentleman to send a delegation to Tehran, although I understand that they very wisely pigeon-holed it. Several of the translators and publishers of his book have been subjected to terrorist attacks. The Japanese translator of the Satanic Verses was murdered in 1991; the Italian translator escaped an attempt on his life, as did the Norwegian publisher, and an arson attack was made on the hotel where the Turkish translator was staying in 1993.
The use of terrorism as an adjunct to foreign policy has developed into an organised and professional activity over the past 15 years. It has been used as a lever to gain advantages from western countries or to exert more pressure on surviving opponents of the regime. Many of Iran's diplomats have a record of previous service with the Guards Corps and other security organs. Hossein Sheik-ol-Eslam, Minister for Arab and African Affairs, Mohammadi Ehraari-Mostafavi, Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry, and Maalck, former ambassador to Switzerland and now a senior official at the Foreign Ministry, all played leading roles in the occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The UK refused Mr. Maalck as chargé d'affaires for that reason.
The Iranian regime has close links with organisations in other parts of the Middle East and north Africa which are themselves using terrorism to promote their political objectives. Among those are Front Islamique de Salut (FIS) in Algeria, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (General Command) in Syria and Hizbollah in Lebanon, all of which are financed by Iran. There is also co-operation with the regime of General Omar
1192
El-Beshir in Sudan, which promotes terrorism in north Africa and is spreading subversion in Egypt, Eritrea and Ethiopia.
It is important to understand that the doctrine of Velayat-e-Faghieh, or guardianship of religious jurisprudence, on which the regime is based, places Tehran above all earthly laws and rules in its own eyes. The regime claims authority from God, and this divine sanction justifies any activity which is considered to uphold the law of God, as they interpret it. Hassan Rohani, Secretary of the Supreme Security Council, says that Iran would not hesitate to destroy its opponents' centres of activity and assembly abroad, and adds that to do so would not in his opinion contravene international laws and human rights. This is not a personal view but a logical deduction from Velayat-e-Faghieh, accepted by the Iranian Government as a whole.
Therefore, we have a member state of the United Nations that is dedicated to subverting international law and carrying the infection of its own brand of religious terrorism into the four quarters of the globe. The inference of the Special Rapporteur's comments and of the General Assembly resolution which followed is that the Iranian Government are indeed organising an international murder machine. The United Nations has so far developed no mechanism for dealing with a member state which deliberately and systematically carries its violations of the right to life into other countries where its exiles have sought refuge, or where people write and translate a book that state dislikes. If the case against Iran is supported by that evidence, the task of countering the infection has to be addressed without delay.
Time prevents me from giving details of the cases in our report where evidence of Iranian state involvement exists, and I can only ask that the Government look at all the circumstances and draw their own conclusions. I also ask them to consult with our allies, particularly the Twelve, to ensure if possible that we agree on a far more robust stand against Iranian state terrorism than we have taken so far.
At the end of 1993, the French authorities controversially handed over to Iran two suspected assassins of Dr. Kazem Rajavi, an action they claimed was justified as necessary to protect their national interests. The German Government took steps in October to prevent the federal prosecutor from arresting Mr. Ali Fallahian, the Iranian intelligence minister, believed to be the mastermind responsible for several murders, including that of Dr. Sharafkandi. The pattern of assassinations described in the report, in which opponents of the Iranian regime were killed by terrorists, provides the strongest imaginable grounds for believing that those appalling crimes are planned in Tehran, and many well-informed sources directly accuse the regime; yet the international community has yet to present a solid and united front against those who threaten to spread their rule of the gun and the knife across the whole world.
Repeatedly the work of investigators is frustrated by the cowardice of western governments. They fear terrorist reprisals, such as those perpetrated in France in

1193
1986, or, even more ignoble, they allow the murderers to escape lest their prosecution and conviction might damage their commercial interests. In the long run, this is a dangerously short-sighted attitude, since it has the effect of encouraging the Iranian regime to believe they will suffer no real penalties for the export of terrorism. The epidemic of killings of moderate intellectuals in north Africa, the use of explosives against passenger aircraft and the repeated public threats against the life of Mr. Salman Rushdie all show that international terrorism not only undermines law and order but endangers freedom of expression. The need for the utmost firmness against the terrorists and their sponsors is obvious.
The international community must now take firm and decisive action against Iranian terrorism, as they have done against Libya on far less evidence. The UN Security Council should demand that Iran hand over the two alleged killers of Dr. Kazem Rajavi, so that they can be brought to trial in Switzerland. The trials of those who killed Dr. Shapour Bakhtiar in France and Dr. Sharafkandi in Germany should be completed as soon as possible and Iran should be called to account for the role of her agents in those and other crimes. The Security Council must make it clear to Iran that acts of terrorism will not be tolerated and that both the criminals themselves and their masters will face the penalties they deserve.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, first, I wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, for drawing the attention of your Lordships' House to recent developments in Iran. Apart from his sensitive and informative speech, we have heard two contributions which I found extremely interesting. I wish to add my concern at the abuse of human rights of Christians in that country.
The treatment of the Reverend Mehdi Dibaj— this was referred to by the noble Viscount— his imprisonment for nine years before being brought to trial, and his solitary confinement for two of those years in an unlit cell measuring only three feet by three feet, was a serious breach of human rights. The sentence of death on someone whose only so-called crime was to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour— he did that 45 years ago— was completely unjustified.
Any joy at his release was shortlived, being dispelled a few days later by the disappearance of the Reverend Haik Hovsepian-Mehr and his subsequent presumed murder. In December he had, as Chairman of the Council of Protestant Ministers and General Secretary of the Assemblies of God, met with the Ministry of Islamic Guidance for Minorities to protest that the rights of Christians had not been protected under the 1979 constitution. This action prompted the ministry to require all Christian denominations to sign declarations stating that they enjoy full constitutional rights as Christians in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Some churches, under coercion, signed the declaration but not the Assemblies of God and one brethren Church.
Copies of the declaration were faxed by the ministry to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in
1194
Geneva in an attempt to show that Iran's religious minorities enjoy full protection and fair treatment. The Reverend Haik then issued an invitation to either Professor Reynaldo Pohl, the UN special envoy, or a delegation of the UN Human Rights Commission to come and see for themselves. But now the Reverend Haik is dead.
These two cases are just the tip of the iceberg. The persecution of Protestants in Iran has been increasing for many months. Arrests, imprisonments, torture and church closures are becoming more frequent. Moslems have been forbidden to enter churches and Church services are not allowed to be conducted in Farsi. This affects all Protestant Churches which in Iran are largely composed of converts from Islam for whom it is natural to worship in Farsi.
Other restrictions introduced recently include the following. In May 1993 non-Moslem shopkeepers were ordered to put up notices announcing their religious affiliation. That brings back shades of Nazi Germany. In June 1993 all Christians were ordered to sign a statement declaring that they would not evangelise Moslems. In October 1993 religious affiliation had to be stated on identity cards which are essential for doing any business. Since 1988 six Churches have been closed down and another one has been closed except for one meeting per week. As we have heard, four years ago the Bible Society in Iran was closed down.
These decrees are moderate in comparison with demands from fanatic elements in Iran who are seeking the execution of all converts to Christianity who refuse to return to Islam. Islamic law— Shari' ah law— states that all male apostates should be killed. There are estimated to be at least 10,000 Moslem converts in Iran. Given that approximately 95,000 political prisoners have been executed since the revolution in 1979, the Protestant Churches take this threat seriously. It adds up to a dreadful picture. Human rights— especially that of freedom of religion which is a basic right recognised as such by Article I of the United Nations Charter— are being ruthlessly trampled on.
I hope that when the Minister replies to this Question, he will be able to say that Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can in the international community to get Iran to recognise its responsibilities to members of all religions. In particular, I would suggest that the Government should encourage the United Nations special envoy or a delegation of the UN Commission on Human Rights to go to Iran to find out the position of religious minorities there. As a test of the Iranian Government's good will, I believe that our Government should approach them to ask whether the Bible Society can recommence its activities in Iran. That would be a litmus paper as regards sounding out the attitude of the Iranian Government.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, for tabling this Question this evening and for giving us an opportunity to discuss these mainly distressing matters.
In Iran it remains an offence to sell the Bible. The offices of the Iranian Bible Society were closed in 1990

1195
by the state authorities, as the noble Viscount mentioned in his cogently argued opening address. Churches are also being forced to close by the state and three churches were closed in 1993, in Kerman, Ahwaz and Gorgan. In June 1993, the Iranian Government issued ultimatums, requiring churches to sign statements declaring that they will not evangelise Moslems. This was to include refusing entry to Moslems who wished to sit in on church services. The Assemblies of God were one of the few denominations which refused to comply and have since faced an escalating wave of intimidation from the Iranian authorities.
The superintendent of the Assemblies of God church in Iran and chairman of the Council of Protestant Ministers, Bishop Haik Hovsepian-Mehr, was brutally murdered in January this year. He was an outspoken advocate of religious freedom and was murdered only a few days after he successfully campaigned for Reverend Mehdi Dibaj, a Moslem convert to Christianity, who had been sentenced to death for apostasy. Mehdi Dibaj has since been released on the condition that he be available for further investigation if required. He had spent nine years in prison for apostasy, two of which had been in solitary confinement and he had had to endure a number of mock executions.
Bishop Hovsepian-Mehr was not the first Iranian Christian to die for his faith in recent times. In December 1989, Reverend Hossein Soodmand, a Moslem convert to Christianity, was executed for apostasy. He left a blind wife and four children. Bishop Hovsepian-Mehr had declared before his death that there was no religious freedom in Iran and had urged the United Nations Human Rights Commission to send a delegation to investigate the situation of the church there. The Jubilee Campaign reports that there is strong and widespread suspicion that Bishop Hovsepian-Mehr was murdered by the Iranian authorities because of his outspoken advocacy of religious liberty. When the Jubilee Campaign went to see the Chargé d'Affaires at the Iranian Embassy, Mr. Gholamreza Ansari, they were told that a villager had found the body of Hovsepian-Mehr but for about 10 days was to afraid to report it to the police. This contradicts the explanation given by the Government in Tehran, who claim that the police found the murdered bishop's body but for several days were unable to identify it. Where does the truth of the matter lie?
The Iranian Chargé d'Affaires also told the Jubilee Campaign that, with the exception of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Iran, Mr. Galindo Pohl, there would be no problem in having anyone else from the United Nations Human Rights Commission visiting Iran to investigate the murder of Bishop Hovsepian-Mehr and the situation of the church in that country. However, this appears to be contradicted by the fact that the present United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, made a request to the Iranian Government last summer, asking for permission to visit that country to carry out his investigations, but he has yet to receive any reply from the Iranian authorities and he has mentioned this matter in his recent report on religious intolerance.
1196
In conclusion, I ask Her Majesty's Government to encourage the Government of Iran to invite the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance to their country to enable him to carry out his mandate, which should include an investigation into the Iranian church with regard to religious freedom and the murder of Bishop Haik Hovsepian-Mehr.
7.40 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the break. I did not put my name down to speak because I was not sure whether I would be able to be here in time. I shall be brief, but I felt that it was important that someone should speak up on behalf of the members of the Baha'i faith in Iran who, since the Iranian revolution in 1979, have faced with enormous bravery the most terrible persecution and oppression.
The Baha'i faith arose out of the religion of Islam and now has adherents in more than 100 countries. A list of major tenets of the Baha'i faith reads like a prescription for the most civilised, tolerant and enlightened society one could imagine. Tenets such as the harmony of religion and science and equality of education for men and women are wholly unexceptionable, indeed laudable, to us. How is it, then, that such people have to endure such a degree and intensity of persecution?
Beliefs such as I have described are, of course, the very antithesis of the policies and attitudes of the Iranian Government, but not, I would imagine, of the religion of Islam itself. Can one imagine a situation in a civilised country in which people who kidnap and murder someone would escape the full penalty of the law because of the religion of the murdered person? That is what happened after the murder of Ruhu'llah Ghedami, a member of the Baha'i faith.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make clear in representations to the Iranian Government that they are keeping a close watch on the treatment of all groups of non-Moslems.
I shall finish by quoting from a letter from Mr. Adamson, the Secretary General of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom, to an official of Her Majesty's Government dated November 1993:
"The fact remains that Baha'is in Iran are persecuted solely on the grounds of their religious beliefs. Indeed, the Iranian Government's intention, as clearly stated in the Iranian Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council … document of 25 February 1991 … is to strangulate and uproot the Iranian Baha'i community. This has not changed.
"The situation of Bah'i will remain precarious until the [Iranian] Government recognises the right of the Baha'i community to exist as a distinct entity and allows the re-establishment of the Baha'i administration in Iran. The dissolution of Baha'i administrative institutions, as was ordered by the Government in 1983, is equivalent to uprooting cardinals, bishops, and parish priests in Christian communities".
7.42 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I hope that those of your Lordships who were anticipating at this stage an intervention by my noble friend Lady Blackstone (who unhappily cannot be present) will forgive me for not being my noble friend.

1197
The House will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, for according us this opportunity to discuss the situation in Iran and especially the tragic death of Bishop Haik Mehr, and for expressing so movingly what many Christians, and members of other faiths, in this country would have liked to hear said on their behalf.
I invite your Lordships for a moment to consider two aspects of the context against which this Question arises. Iran is undergoing an economic crisis. Oil revenues provide some 85 per cent. of the country's exchange earnings. Last year those revenues fell short by about 20 per cent. of what had been expected. The total international debt is the equivalent of about £ 20 billion, at a time when the regime is still ordering warships. Two consequences domestically follow from that external position. First, the spending boom, which has kept the more materialistic sections of the population happy, is endangered. Secondly, prices and unemployment are rising at an alarming rate.
Iran needs urgently to reschedule her external debts. But that may depend upon edging her way back into the mainstream of the international community. That requires some reversal of the impression which the regime has given over the past 15 years of being totally indifferent to how the rest of the world views its behaviour. It means revising its policies on human rights, its behaviour towards its neighbours and the position referred to by my noble friend Lord Ennals and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which it seems formerly to have relished as a centre for international terrorism.
So we have seen, for example, the re-establishment, amid eulogies to traditional good relations between Britain and Iran, of the Iranian embassy in London which was closed in such unattractive circumstances in 1980.
I referred to two aspects of the context. The second is that the regime is concerned to secure its own position domestically. There is talk of a possible takeover by the military. There is speculation about revolution centred on one or more of the groups in exile. A number of us hear from time to lime with gratitude from the National Council of Resistance, and its publications are an important source of our information about what is happening in Iran.
Furthermore, about a third of the population of the country are Azeris who, understandably, have some affinity with Azeris in Azerbaijan. There are Azeris in Azerbaijan who would like to enter Iran as refugees from the conflict there.
Fifteen years ago virtually every grouping within the country was looking for change. Peasants were suspicious of industrialisation, which had depopulated the countryside, drawn population into the cities, imposed a new, brash, western culture and destroyed the traditional certainties. They wanted to see the country purged of western corruption and the restoration of religion and purity. On the other hand, those who wanted to see Iran brought into the 20th century were tired of the repression and despotic rule.
John Simpson, in the Guardian of 1st February, wrote of a millenialism which swept the country with the return of Ayatollah Khomeini. He was virtually
1198
identified with the 9th century Imam Muhammed-al-Mehdi, whose return is foretold in traditional folklore, bringing righteousness and judgment. Unlike the majority of revolutions, that one was spared the need to bring about an immediate rise in material prosperity. It was welcomed because it promised something for which to offer service and sacrifice.
That ecstatic sense of a parousia has evaporated. Mr. Simpson describes how the chanting fundamentalist mobs are not typical of the population. Most people want simply to share in the material benefits of the modern world and to partake of normal enjoyments. The poor and dispossessed, who were promised a new respect, are tired of the unemployment arid perpetually rising prices. Those who cherish their religious faith have lost their respect for the majority of mullahs. Everyone is tired of the corruption. There is a widespread sense of disillusion, and of course half the population is too young to remember anything about the revolution.
Therefore the regime has to walk a tightrope between presenting a more attractive face to the rest of the world and preserving its position at home. Perhaps, on reflection, that is the wrong metaphor. A tightrope usually proceeds in a straight line. A crooked tightrope is outside the experience of most of us. But there are two complications. One is that if Iran cannot present the rest of the world with a picture sufficiently attractive to induce extensions of credit, that will exacerbate the government's internal problems. Secondly, its domestic population is not homogeneous. Those who incline to Islamic fundamentalism are unlikely to be attracted by measures designed to please the less puritanical elements in the population.
One can feel a flutter of sympathy with President Rafsanjani's dilemma. Normally, from this Bench, I would be encouraging the Government to respond to those advances. It would be good for Iran to be received again into civilised circles which might act as an encouragement to behave accordingly. If there were benefits for Britain's trade with Iran, that would be an additional argument.
However, that would be too simple a reaction. I agree with noble Lords who say that it ought not to be too easy for a regime with a record of being a bad neighbour externally, and with a reign of terror internally, to be accepted as a civilised member of the international community. History is compelling us all to concentrate on making the world a safer place. In the past few years we have had to address our minds to peace-keeping and to international action against terrorism, not only out of compassion for the immediate victims, but in our own interests. Uncivilised behaviour anywhere tends to export itself and to spread infection elsewhere. Amnesty International has recently issued a publication on human rights and peace-keeping making the case that there is no hard and fast distinction between the two. If Iran wishes to be received into full membership of the international community, it should be required to establish its qualifications for that privilege.
The most recent information we have on human rights, as a number of noble Lords have remarked today, suggests that the situation may be deteriorating rather

1199
than improving. That information is far from complete. When I was active in Amnesty, there were many regimes which would try to mislead investigators and to ensure a more favourable report than the facts would merit. But there were very few, however repressive, which refused access to Amnesty representatives. Iran is one of the few regimes which since 1991 has closed its door to Amnesty representatives either for discussions with officials or to observe Government trials.
It is fair to say that after what appears to have been years of delay designed to ensure that its record was not discussed in the United Nations Human Rights Committee, Iran submitted its periodic report in 1992. The committee considered that report and in July 1993 made its comments. It stated that it,
"deplores the lack of respect for due process of law, particularly before the Revolutionary Courts, where trials in camera tend to be the rule and where apparently no real possibility is provided to the accused to prepare a defence".
The committee stated that all complaints of torture and ill treatment should be properly investigated. It commented on,
"the extent of the limitations and restrictions on the freedom of religion and belief',
noting particularly that conversion from Islam, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords, is punishable as a special offence of apostasy— to which we could add the persecution of the Baha'i community. The committee deplored the extremely high number of death sentences. It referred to the,
"punishment and harassment of women who do not conform with a strict dress code".
It recommended investigation into the many cases of what prima facie are simply extrajudicial executions, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, my noble friend Lord Ennals and other noble Lords. It referred to the threat to Salman Rushdie. That is a truly appalling record and there is no time in this debate to refer to the individual cases set out by Amnesty International in its paper of November of last year.
However, as recently as 31st January, The Times referred to the murder of Bishop Haik Mehr which has been referred to by many of your Lordships. How he died is still not clear. Christian Solidarity International learned from his son that he had simply been summoned to attend the coroner's office to identify his father's body. He was not shown the body; he was shown a photograph. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, mentioned, there are conflicting reports of the 10 day delay before his family were informed. His offences appear to have consisted, first, in making representations against the impending execution for apostasy of the Reverend Mehdi Dibaj; and, secondly, in declining to subscribe to the public relations statement— it was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson— required by the regime from all the non-Moslem religious groups to the effect that they are not suffering any form of oppression. His justification for refusing to sign seems to have been amply demonstrated by his own fate. I echo what was said by my noble friend Lord Ennals and others.
We shall all be interested to learn from the noble Viscount, on behalf of the Government, how they view
1200
the situation; and in particular what view they take as to the prospect of the Government entering into a dialogue with those who are clearly in the position of an official Opposition. I wish to seize the opportunity of indicating from these Benches that there would be no great criticism if the Government were cautious in according to Iran full membership of the club, membership of which should carry with it some certificate of acceptability to the civilised world.
7.55 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we owe a considerable debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Brentford for raising this extremely important topic today. As a number of your Lordships have recognised, Iran is an important country with a significant role to play in areas of interest to the United Kingdom. It has long commanded international attention for its position on the Persian Gulf and on routes to India and China. Now it does so again as a gateway to the newly independent republics of Central Asia. I certainly have found that in the course of my own travels before taking the Queen's shilling.
Persian culture and Shi'a Islam— especially after the 1979 Islamic Revolution— have left their mark far beyond the confines of modern Iran. It is also a country with which we have important commercial and cultural ties, established over many centuries, and a political dialogue which, though not easy, is essential. I should like to return to that point. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords when I say that relations between the United Kingdom and Iran have their difficulties. The long history of foreign intervention in Iranian affairs has left an understandable legacy of suspicion in Iran. But the era is long gone when this country would wish to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran. The fate of Iran is for the Iranian people themselves to determine.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, the country has suffered much in recent years. I refer to the turmoil of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 and an eight-year war with Iraq. The challenges of economic reconstruction, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred during the course of his most interesting remarks, have imposed many strains and much suffering on the Iranian people. Despite that, in some matters they have shown that traditional Iranian hospitality is alive and well. They have taken a leading role in providing refuge for those fleeing from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a testament to the generosity of the Iranian people. Recently they have added to that burden by helping refugees from the fighting across their northern border in Azerbaijan, a matter to which the noble and learned Lord referred.
As noble Lords are obviously more than well aware, there remain a number of aspects of Iran's behaviour which are of more than concern to the United Kingdom and to the wider international community. Iran's poor human rights record has been highlighted by successive resolutions at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, as noble Lords have pointed out today, and at the United Nations General Assembly. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his concern — it is an anxiety of more direct relevance to the United

1201
Kingdom—with regard to the wholly illegal death threat to Salman Rushdie, a United Kingdom subject. It is a threat which I suspect is more redolent of the savagery of the Dark Ages in Europe than the behaviour of a people who have, given the world some of its greatest literature, painting and architecture. As noble Lords have pointed out, the reality of that threat was underlined by the recent attack on his Norwegian publisher. The reports of Iranian involvement in terrorism overseas, again referred to this evening by many noble Lords. only serve to reinforce our concerns on the point.
We understand and accept Iran's right to defend itself, as enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. After all, who can forget the horrors of the Iran-Iraq war and the neighbouring invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, a little later? Nevertheless, we are concerned that Iran's arms build-up should not threaten regional stability. Here I very much take the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. Her Majesty's Government view with considerable concern the acquisition of Kilo class submarines by Iran. We are in touch with other countries in the Gulf area on regional security issues, including the threat that that Government pose.
It seems to us that some of the weapons that Iran has bought recently appear to go far beyond the legitimate demands of self-defence. We and our European partners have made crystal clear to the Iranian Government that the extent to which closer relations with Iran can be developed— a point which a number of noble Lords made this evening— will be determined by improvements in Iranian behaviour in such areas of concern.
Perhaps I may turn to the particular points which noble Lords made during the course of this most interesting debate. I begin with a general point about human rights and Islam. It seems to me as a non-Islamic that what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said about his respect for Islam is widely shared in your Lordships' House. It is one of the great religions, one of the Religions of the Book. I wholly agree with what the noble Lord said about the desirability of having good relations with Islamic countries and the good record that we have for that.
It is worth pointing out that international standards of human rights and fundamental freedoms are enshrined in the universal declaration and codified in the two international human rights covenants. Those rights are universal. They transcend national, religious, cultural and ideological differences. I believe that the great religion of Islam should and does subscribe to that general proposition.
Therefore, the general abuse of human rights to which all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate — my noble friends Lord Brentford and Lord Ashbourne and the noble Lords, Lord Robertson, Lord Avebury and Lord McNair— have drawn attention deeply concerns all of us, including Her Majesty's Government. I hope that noble Lords are aware that we have made our anxieties extremely clear to the Iranian authorities on many occasions in the past and we shall continue to do so, both bilaterally and with our European partners. That adds strength to our efforts.
1202
We believe that action through the human rights machinery of the United Nations is an effective way of keeping up the pressure on Iran and we and our European partners, with that in mind, co-sponsored a resolution critical of Iran's record which was adopted at the 1993 United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We are taking an equally robust line at this year's Commission on Human Rights and fully expect this year's resolution to reflect our anxieties at all aspects of Iran's human rights record, including its treatment of religious minorities. I shall return to that in a minute.
I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for letting me have copies of two iterations of the remarkable document to which a number of noble Lords referred this evening. I read it with the greatest of interest and anxiety. I wish to make one point about the remarks that come out of it. The choice of an individual special representative is a matter exclusively for the Commission on Human Rights, through its bureau. In our view, it is out of the question for Iran to influence the choice. If the Iranians are so concerned at the information used by Mr. Galindo-Pohl, they should let him visit Iran to see for himself. I am delighted to hear expressions of approval from noble Lords of that view which we will endeavour to maintain at every possible opportunity.
In terms of the Christian persecutions to which noble Lords have referred, both we and our European partners repeatedly underline to the Iran Government the importance we attach to their record on religious minorities. Like many noble Lords, we have received several reports about the position of Christians in Iran from Christian groups in the United Kingdom and from the United Nations Special Representative. Our embassy in Tehran also monitors the situation. That is one of the benefits of re-establishing some form of diplomatic relations in the country.
Of course we are concerned about the recent reports of persecution, especially of the members of the Assemblies of God Church. The European Union, with our full support, expressed its concern to the Iranian authorities at the reported death sentence on the Reverend Mehdi Diaji. We understand that Mehdi Diaji was subsequently released pending further investigation of the court, and that accords with the understanding of many of your Lordships. We and our European partners have also told the Iranian authorities that we were more than disturbed at the circumstances surrounding the recent death of Bishop Haik Hovsepian-Mehr. The Iranians have told us that Bishop Haik's death is still being investigated and we shall continue to monitor the situation extremely closely. I am sure that noble Lords will be pleased to hear that Foreign Office officials attended the memorial service in London for Bishop Haik and that messages of condolence were read out on behalf of both my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble friend Lady Chalker at the ceremony.
I cannot let this evening pass without reference to the Baha'is. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, both referred to that and I am well aware of the outstanding record of the noble

1203
Lord, Lord Ennals, on the subject. As regards the Baha'is, we and our European partners have made a number of representations to the Iranian authorities, as I am sure your Lordships know. Most recently there were representations about the death sentences passed on two members of that faith, Messrs. Mithaqi and Khalayabadi. We are monitoring the situation extremely closely. I am sure that noble Lords are aware of the concern of the 1993 United Nations Commission on Human Rights on the subject.
Many noble Lords have also referred to the question of executions. I can only concur with your Lordships that the continuing high number of executions in Iran is extraordinarily disturbing. As noble Lords will be aware, this was also highlighted in the recent report by the United Nations Special Representative.
I turn my attention now to terrorism. I have already referred to the author Salman Rushdie, a British subject, and our anxiety about him. We have also noted with concern the recent indictment in Germany of an Iranian secret agent in connection with the killing of four Kurdish opposition leaders in Berlin last September and the reports of Iranian Government involvement in the 1991 murder of a close friend of mine, the former Prime Minister, Dr. Bakhtiar, in Paris. It would be a very serious matter if the Iranian Government were proved to have been involved, as my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office observed. But I add that we have good reason to be suspicious. We must await the outcome of the trial in Germany of those alleged to be involved in the Mykonos murders in Berlin and of the French investigation into the murder of the former Prime Minister, Dr. Bakhtiar. There is no proof as yet beyond reasonable doubt that the Iranian Government is involved in the murders of Iranian dissidents. Of course we would not like to compromise our own standards in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also referred to the question of German-Iranian relations. We have made known to the German Government our views on the visit to Germany last year of the Iranian intelligence Minister and our concern at the apparent involvement of the Iranian Government in the murder of the four Kurdish opposition members to whom I have just referred. It is equally worth saying to the noble Lord that we understand Switzerland's concern at France's decision to return to Iran two Iranians whose extradition had been requested by the Swiss in connection with the murder of an Iranian opposition figure in 1990. We have indeed— I am sure that noble Lords would expect us to do no less— made our views known to the French Government.
Iran is and will remain a major regional power, as I have already said, with an important role to play in contributing to security and stability. Iran's policies on major issues of the day are important to the international community, for example the Middle East peace process, Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Nagorno Karabakh and Afghanistan. The United Kingdom also has direct interests to pursue through its relations with Iran: a resolution of the Rushdie issue, improved human rights
1204
compliance and a commercial relationship which is of growing importance to both countries. In these circumstances— I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Ennals, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, in particular will agree— it is absolutely right to attempt to maintain a dialogue with the Iranian Government: our outstanding problems with Iran can much more easily be resolved if we talk to each other on something other than a basis of a dialogue of death. We and our European partners have said that this must be a critical dialogue with the aim of achieving a real improvement in Iranian behaviour across the board. As always in these matters, it does take two to tango. It is vital that the Iranian Government understand that if they are to benefit fully from membership of the international community, both politically and economically, then they must show by their deeds that they respect their international obligations. If I may say so, I suspect that this debate and its contents and contributions will have been read with considerable interest and approval in many quarters this evening.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I did not expect the Minister to answer the main purport of my speech, which was a dialogue with others than the Government. I think it would be sensible for me to write a letter to the Foreign Secretary following my meetings in Paris, and that I propose to do.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. All that I can say is that I listened to his suggestion— and indeed the suggestions of other noble Lords— about this subject. I would greatly encourage him to write to my right honourable friend along the lines that he suggested.

Northern Ireland: Opsahl Report
8.13 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenhamrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the Joint Declaration, they intend to act upon any of the suggestions in the recently published Opsahl Report on Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down this Question for debate for two reasons: first, it is a chance to debate the Opsahl Report on Northern Ireland or, as it is very properly entitled, A Citizens' Inquiry. It has been debated in the past six months in the Dail in Dublin and in the European Parliament. But before this evening it has not been debated at Westminster. I am very happy that we have the opportunity to repair that omission.
Secondly, this Question gives the House a chance to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland at what is a very timely moment. Although we deal with a good deal of Northern Ireland legislation in this House, often at this sort of hour of night, we only rarely have the opportunity for a more considered discussion of the continuing crisis in the Province. I am very happy to see from the names of those noble Lords who put their names down to speak this evening that a considerable weight of experience and insight will be available to us. In the three years during which I had the responsibility

1205
to speak from these Benches on Northern Ireland matters, I noticed that whatever Northern Ireland debates may lack in quantity they invariably make up in quality.
I should like to say a few words first about the origins of the Opsahl Report. Torkel Opsahl, who was a distinguished Norwegian human rights lawyer, agreed to chair what was a broadly based and extremely eminent commission which had been established by the independent citizens' group, Initiative '92, to continue and to crystallise the process of public consultation about the future which it had initiated in 1992. There were many good people involved in that process. But I should like to single out for special mention Mr. Robin Wilson, Mr. Andy Pollak and Professor Simon Lee, together with the Joseph Rowntree charitable trust which helped finance their work. Sadly, as some noble Lords may know, Torkel Opsahl died last autumn and has thus been unable to see the effect that his report has had.
For those of us who find that the official political leadership of Northern Ireland is too often populist in appeal and attitudinising in style, it is very good to see genuine civic leadership emerging in Northern Ireland, responsible and far-sighted, drawn from both traditions, and confident enough to take the initiative. Incidentally, I fear that the somewhat cool reception that this report received from Northern Ireland politicians has much to do with some jealousy at this stirring of the grass roots, as with the resolutely ecumenical approach of the commission itself. The commission received 554 written submissions, and it held discussions and hearings all over Northern Ireland.
It is a very difficult report about which to generalise. It is something of a plum pudding of a report; it is stuffed with nuggets of information and insight. I do not pretend to agree with every one of its recommendations, but I agree with its general thrust and I certainly defy anyone who cares seriously about the future of Northern Ireland not to take this work seriously. Certainly for those of us who believe that the creation of a civil society in Northern Ireland, with a less one-dimensional politics, is part of the solution that is needed, this initiative has been very heartening indeed.
One recommendation received a notably chilly response from the Government when the report was published in May last year. It was the recommendation that informal channels of communication should be opened with Sinn Fein with a view to persuading the IRA first to move towards a de-escalation of violence and then eventually to a ceasefire, thus facilitating both a return by Sinn Fein to the fold of constitutionality and participation in talks about the future and a drastic reduction in the level of security forces deployed in Northern Ireland. I think we can all understand better now what was the Government's sensitivity last summer, since it emerges that this is precisely what they themselves had been doing at the relevant time, and indeed subsequently.
I should like to deal with two other specifics from the report. The first I find very useful. I do not know whether other noble Lords who have read the report share this view. The report lists seven notions about the
1206
future of Northern Ireland which it is believed should be discarded by anyone who wants to get anywhere. I shall recite what they are. The seven useless notions, according to the Opsahl Report, are: first, that Northern Ireland is just like every other part of the UK (a useless notion); second, that either community in Northern Ireland would agree to independence (a useless notion); third, that the UK will withdraw under pressure of violence (another useless notion); fourth, that the republic will somehow renounce the aim of Irish unity (another useless notion); fifth, that Irish unity is a realistic prospect in the foreseeable future (another useless notion); sixth, that majority rule could be reinstated in Northern Ireland (a non-starter); and seventh, that the unionist community will accept an administration for Northern Ireland which implies an executive role from someone outside Northern Ireland.
It is useful to accept reality by discarding those notions. That could be a first step on what is a very narrow path out of the ravine. Perhaps I may add one more useless notion of my own; namely, that government in detail from Westminster can be anything more than a short-term expedient. Paternalism does not help people in coming to terms with their own shared reality. If we are to move on from posturing to problem-solving in Northern Ireland, a greater measure of local self-government is essential.
There is one specific Opsahl proposal on which I should like to detain your Lordships for a moment and on which I shall press the noble Baroness hard. I believe that it is crucial to establishing the conditions on which devolved government and executive power sharing could have any chance of working. It is the proposal for a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland, which features prominently in this report. The suggestion is that it should be a Bill of Rights probably based on the European Convention on Human Rights.
As the Minister will know, that is not a recommendation unique to Opsahl. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights virtually every year from 1977 onwards has been consistent in recommending a Bill of Rights. The year before last, in 1992, it proposed incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights as the way to do it. Interestingly, it proposed that, regardless of what happened in the rest of the United Kingdom. In a society where there is so much division, it is noteworthy that the proposal for a Bill of Rights is one which all parties accept and most parties positively support.
In the light of that, I believe that the inaction of the Government has been baffling. As a long-term advocate of the measure, I have recently been greatly heartened both by the reference of the Irish and British Governments at the time of the Joint Declaration to the need to respect the rights of all in developing ways forward; and by the specific reference of the Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew, in his recent speech, two weeks ago to the Birmingham University Debating Society, to the entrenchment of human rights in Northern Ireland as— I am more or less quoting him — perfectly practical and a step forward which could be sensibly envisaged today. That is most encouraging. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies, she will be

1207
able to say whether the Government will at last be able to overcome their fears of setting a precedent for the rest of the United Kingdom— I believe that that is what has inhibited them in advancing the proposal for a Bill of human rights— and whether they can now help by setting what would be a climate of mutual respect for further talks. I ask her to be as specific as possible when she replies to that point.
Finally, I should like to say a few words on the situation as a whole. We have a very healthy tradition of bipartisanship on Northern Ireland matters in this House and in another place. That is right, given the sensitivity of the problems in the Province. But within that spirit of bipartisanship, I fear that in recent months the Government have advanced three steps and retreated two steps. In other words, there has been a small advance, but nothing like the advance that people had been led to expect and hope for.
I believe that it was at the beginning of February — the noble Baroness will know— that the Secretary of State promised that he would put down proposals in two weeks' time. Four weeks have already gone by since he made that commitment. I suggest to her that, with the battle lines being drawn in Northern Ireland for the European elections, we shall see many weary weeks go by before constructive inter-party talks are resumed. The talk of peace before Christmas— it is difficult to remember now— looks more and more like the glitter of discarded decorations and tinsel which I fear it always was.
Perhaps I might venture to give two pieces of advice to the Government in their very great problems of advancing the cause of peace and political progress. First, I believe that they should use the admirable Joint Declaration, which is indeed admirable and has substantially advanced the position of both the British and Irish Governments. But I wonder whether they should use the Joint Declaration as a basis for what I call incremental negotiation and abandon the all-or-nothing approach. The principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed seems to me to be one which makes it almost impossible to achieve any form of progress in Northern Ireland.
The second piece of gratuitous advice which I shall venture to give to the Government is that I believe that the Government should never again get themselves into the position of appearing to put an accommodation with the terrorists as a higher priority than accommodation between the peaceful and constitutional communities of Northern Ireland. I fear that that was a great mistake. The round that we are just leaving has given far too much to Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness without getting anything whatever in return. In the process it has distracted from the real task of making the two communities in Northern Ireland find ways of coming together.
I give that advice, but I recognise that the Government labour hard and we all need patience in this matter. The Opsahl Report is a candle in a dark world. It is yet another demonstration of the most hopeful aspect of what often seems to be an intractably difficult situation. I believe that there is an increasingly robust
1208
determination on the part of the citizens and residents of Northern Ireland to make a better and more sensible future for themselves. In that mood the British Government should build and in that task we must all wish them good fortune.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I welcome the debate tonight which takes place at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Holme. Picking up his words, we get a great deal of Northern Ireland legislation in this House in the form of orders, all of which are very important, but rarely do we have a chance to look at the broader pattern. However, I could wish, as when we meet in Dublin and London with the Southern Irish politicians, that there were more Unionist politicians of the North present. Without them we get nowhere and without the republicans and nationalists we get nowhere either. We can talk until the cows come home and will not solve the problems of Ireland or Northern Ireland. That does not mean that we should not play our part in the slowly developing process which has gone on for many centuries and particularly in the past 20 years.
Tonight the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is on one side of the divide, though he manages as always to straddle it, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, whose father and grandfather played such a notable part in Northern Ireland, is on the Unionist side. I want to remind myself that we are asking the Government whether they intend to act upon any of the suggestions in the Opsahl Report. I shall take my cue from that.
The report is a remarkable document. I know well only two members of the commission: Eric Gallagher, a Methodist, who was one of the Feakle ministers of religion who met the IRA in 1974 just before Christmas; and Lucy, Lady Faulkner, who a long time ago was at one time private secretary to Lord Brookeborough. I greatly respect those two people in particular because I know them. As I said, the report is a remarkable document. It is not for immediate action and not in every case for action, but the wisdom of the report is great. It influences and should influence the steps that are to be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, listed what I call the political realities— the substantive proposals— that were put down in Opsahl. I shall not go through them all. I shall pick out those that help my argument. First, majority rule in Northern Ireland in whatever form is not currently a viable proposition. The nationalist community has no obligation to agree to it and has the critical mass to prevent its imposition. The Unionist community would not accept an administration of Northern Ireland that gives an executive role to anyone outside the United Kingdom.
So there are two vetos and whatever arises on this side of the Irish Sea— or St. George's Channel, depending on which community one comes from; they seem to use whichever they want in that respect— we must find an accommodation between them. The statement went on to say that, while Northern Ireland was a constituent part of the United Kingdom, it is not like any other part. Taking that a step forward, one often wonders whether there is a way of drawing more

1209
realistic boundaries so that that statement would not be as true. But there is not. I had in the office an orange and green map made of Northern Ireland with the aid of a computer. It was not a pleasant orange and green with nice lines so that one could redraw the Border, however silly the border turned out to be after the Irish troubles, after the First World War. I remember saying to my noble friend Lord Fitt in the kind of conversation one has, not really meaning it but testing out a discussion, "Why not let County Armagh go into the South?" My noble friend told me in no uncertain terms that that was not on. I must say that I tried it on with a Southern politician who told me what I could do with County Armagh. But that is another matter. There is no simple answer.
In regard to the Joint Declaration, I approve of the statement that there is no selfish, strategic or economic interest. There is certainly no economic interest to the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of value. However, there was a great strategic value in the war. The airfields were a great help in the Battle of the Atlantic, which we nearly lost and about which my noble friend Lord Fitt knows a great deal. There was no strategic advantage in the Cold War, in my view. The submarine base at Londonderry closed a long time ago. The Coastal Command, as it was called, the airfield at Ballykelly, went a long time ago and there was no Cold War value in it despite what people said. The bases had been shut a long time ago and the Ulster workers' strike made sure that a number of them of a supply nature were closed down pretty quickly afterwards because they had been shown to be useless.
The way forward is difficult. It is easy enough to put the sprag in the wheels as to what one can do; but it is difficult. I notice this week that the Unionist Party statement, Blueprint for Stability, made its view clear on the future of Northern Ireland. It wants an internal solution to the Northern Ireland situation. The Irish Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, said no; Mr. John Hume said no. Whether we like it or not the step taken today— a logical step by the Government— to set up a Select Committee makes good sense. The only point is that it is not welcomed by the Nationalist community, certainly at this point of time when the discussions and agreements are yet to be concluded.
Therefore in terms of timing, taking it easy seems to be the best approach until after 9th June. An "incremental" approach is the phrase which was used. It has been tried before; it is a slow step-by-step approach. We must never forget that Dr. Paisley is an extremely powerful man. He gets elected, and with the biggest vote, which is more than the provisional IRA do. We have no representatives in the Irish Doyle, which did have one Member of Parliament at one time. It makes Dr. Paisley a much more powerful, person— because he is an elected representative— than either Sinn Fein or the IRA. There is no way that he will move far and neither will others in Northern Ireland until the European elections are over.
So there are two vetos. I am certainly not suggesting that there is an easy way forward. I found something the other day of which I was previously unaware, though other noble Lords may have come across it before. I was
1210
looking at the new book by Tim Pat Coogan on de Valera. He would not be the least surprised if he ever read what we said here and I regard him as very much a republican sympathiser. In the book on de Valera he raised the question of why de Valera had closed hi. s mind to the needs of the Unionists, given the victory that had been won by the Nationalist Republicans in the South after the First World War. And he told a story. He said that before he finished as President he invited representatives of Erskine Childers' family to his house in Dublin. Erskine Childers had been put to death by the British Government.
De Valera gave a private dinner for the family of Erskine Childers and after the dinner he ordered the servants to leave the room. It was said,
"Then, alone with the family and speaking with obvious emotion, he told his hearers for the first time that Erskine Childers had written a letter to him on the night before his execution. In it he had warned de Valera that his greatest challenge would be Northern Ireland. Childers had advised him that the Northern Protestants could not be coerced, saying that they were a special people with special fears and ideals which needed to be understood and allowed for. De Valera told his listeners, who included Erskine Childers junior, that he deeply regretted not having followed Childers' advice".
However, it is not only that the South ignored for many years the position of the Northern Unionists in that part of Ulster, in the six counties. It is also the other way around. The Unionists forgot the specific position of the Nationalists. So if there are two vetos it will only come from the two vetoers that each understands the position of the other. The fact that de Valera realised too late the position of the Ulster Protestants I hope does not mean that that situation will continue. Reading the Joint Declaration one can see that a great change has taken place in the South at any rate over recent years.
I want to raise just two other issues. On the military side, in terms of the future, I have no doubt that the long-term aim of the Government should be— and I believe still is— to reduce the role of the Army. We have depended on the Army, particularly in the past— not so much now because of the different role of the police. The police force is largely Protestant though in my day it had up to 17 per cent. Catholics in the RUC, as my noble friend Lord Fitt will recall. But the number decreases because of the threats on their lives. Who will join the RUC and then go home to a Catholic area afterwards?
Nevertheless, the police must take over. I can only quote from one section of a White Paper, which I believe was extremely well written. It was written in July 1974 and in it I wrote,
"The effectiveness of any police service sterns from the fact that it lives within the community which it serves and draws its strength and support from that community".
I said further that,
"Nothing would transform the security situation more quickly than a determination by the whole community to support the Police Service".
I said that if that happened it would have an effect on the emergency powers in Northern Ireland, including detention— that went a long time ago— and,
"It would also enable the Army to make a planned, orderly and progressive reduction in its present commitment and subsequently there would be no need for the Army to become involved again in a policing role".

1211
The determinants of that are the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. The IRA could remove the Army from Northern Ireland in six months if it stopped the violence, because the police cannot deal with it by themselves. In that respect I raise one other point. In the summer of last year — time marches on— I went again to the London theatre to see Juno and the Paycock. I had not seen it for years and I looked at it with new eyes. The play showed the violence in the Republic of Ireland after the 26 counties got their independence. The number of casualties was far greater than when the British were there. Civil wars are always bloodier than ordinary wars. That was true of the United States in its civil war. In the play one saw the violence that took place. I believe that if there is to be a political breakthrough in the years ahead the violence will not go away. The violence will still go on afterwards.
My advice to the British Government and to the Irish Government is not for now; but they ought to be talking about what they would both do if the Joint Declaration bears fruit. They would both have to deal with violence because the political ways forward that I hope will come will not prevent the killings by the paramilitaries on both sides. They will go on. The new government in the North, if that is the way it is going to happen, will have to deal with it as well. But they will not be able to deal with it themselves.
I welcome Opsahl. I welcome the Joint Declaration and wish it good fortune in the months ahead. But think always of the unknown situation that may arise. Unknown it may be to us at the moment, but nevertheless, in some form, it will be there. The violence will continue and the job of a government is to deal with it.
8.41 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for giving us the chance to debate recent developments in Northern Ireland. To the two topics mentioned in the Question must be added the Ulster Unionist party's paper Blueprint for Stability, which was launched on Monday.
I should like, first, to look at the Opsahl Report and then come back to the Joint Declaration and the Blueprint for Stability. It is certainly possible to say that the Opsahl Report seems to contain something for everyone but I think that there will be nobody who could accept all the conclusions. They vary from, as can be seen in Chapter 10, paragraph 1.2, a Westminster model government to the endorsement in paragraph 2.2 of a proposal that,
"the security forces and the IRA each should make exploratory unilateral moves towards reducing the violence".
I wonder what the security force chiefs would think of that. It is very naive. Who causes the violence? The security forces have not killed anyone since the declaration was declared. Even the IRA know that if there is a cessation of violence on their part the activities of the security forces will change dramatically. We debate that every year in the emergency provisions.
1212
One of the interesting facts is the number of people from such diverse backgrounds who have contributed to the report. It shows that there is serious peaceful and constructive political awareness in the Province. However, it begs the question: where are some of these people when it comes to social and political activities in Northern Ireland as opposed to putting their views to a commendable but powerless citizen's inquiry? There are many who, it would seem, continue to opt out, and that must change if we are to have a healthy, thriving society.
On page 111 the report talks about the desire for a more accountable government. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us how the Government view this and what if anything they will do to bring it about? On page 112 the report talks about a commission to be set up by the two governments to put forward views. My view is this. Please let us not have another debating forum to bring forward, for the umpteenth time, the same ideas all over again, raising hopes of yet another "peace by Christmas" or some such thing. The two governments are already talking and submissions were requested from the Irish Government last September in connection with Strand 2 talks. Most Northern Ireland parties have put in submissions but it is my understanding that our Government are still waiting for the Irish Government to respond even after the marvellous but fully expected sporting results at the Twickenham summit! Let us finish one thing before we start the next.
I am very happy to see that Opsahl supports changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. Whether that is possible is another matter. As to training of politicians, I am not quite sure, looking at the governments at the moment, which, if any, to use as a role model.
Page 114 of the report deals with my pet subject. I support the point that people and groups should get together to,
"contribute to an improvement of law and order".
Stop shouting from the sidelines and get more involved.
I could go on commenting for hours on the report since it covers 450 pages and contains many other good points on subjects such as human rights and justice. I would, however, make a general point on cross-Border co-operation. Everything which has been said over the past 10 to 20 years would make people believe that there never were any economic or cultural links. That is quite simply not true, although there is, and was always, need for improvement. After all that is one of the main aims of the European Community within its own boundaries.
I should now like to look briefly at the Joint Declaration. Many might say it is a failure and is dead. I do not fully agree. I feel that it has had limited but significant successes but I think that, so far as the IRA is concerned, it may have run its course. It is notable that for the first time an Irish Government have declared their true views of the IRA and they have done this to the world. Worldwide, and especially in America, people can no longer pretend that, by giving money and support to the IRA, they are supporting the aims of the Irish people and the Irish Government. I believe that that is a real achievement, although we continually underestimate the importance of international opinion.

1213
Another success is more directly in relation to the IRA and Sinn Fein Their aim was a united Ireland by any means— and it still is— but because of the Union and the so-called Unionist veto they resorted to the violence, destruction and murdering that we have seen over the past 25 years. Both Prime Ministers have said, and most people— even President Clinton it seems— agree that there is no reason left for the IRA to continue. However, they do continue just as before: there have been more than 40 incidents since the declaration; among them the murdering of two friends of mine, Constables Drew Beacon and Ernie Smith in the local village of Fivemiletown.
I believe that the violence continues for the following reasons. The IRA are terrorists. They are not freedom fighters. They have a stated aim which I believe they thought was almost unobtainable and so they could continue with their main aim forever; racketeering, fraud, protection rackets and every possible way of making huge sums of money illegally. The declaration has wrong-footed Sinn Fein and the IRA by saying that, with reference to an all-one Ireland, both governments will abide by the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. That is not a Unionist veto and Sinn Fein cannot reasonably deny this right which the world applauds. However, it undermines Sinn Fein and the IRA because, regardless of the parties they support, not only do almost 100 per cent. of the people other than Roman Catholics support the Union, but, shock of horrors for the IRA, according to an Irish Times poll done by Coopers & Lybrand as revealed on 3rd December, only 14.7 per cent. of all people support a united Ireland and only 17.7 per cent. support Northern Ireland under joint sovereignty. This is not the first such poll and they all give similar answers. So Sinn Fein and the IRA are left with a heavy democratic defeat or admitting that the real justification for their horrendous activities is lucrative fraud and racketeering. They are now trying to find an aim but there can be no justification for terrorism.
11 wish that they would go down the democratic road and accept the ballot box instead of the Armalite. The key then — and a danger to Sinn Fein as a political movement— would be the SDLP. Should they play their cards right then Sinn Fein would virtually lose all support. However, the SDLP looks not a little split with John Hume getting too close to Dublin and Sinn Fein for many of his party members' liking. John Hume seems to think that the SDLP vote is in support of his all-Ireland Nationalist view when every poll tells a different story. Many people vote for the SDLP on religious grounds or/and because they are socialists. He does not seem to accept that only 32 per cent. of Catholics look to a united Ireland, and that is split between his party and Sinn Fein. Therefore, it is my opinion that Sinn Fein and John Hume's policies cannot survive in the long term.
I have one other point to make about the cessation of violence by the IRA. Shooting and bombing is by far the most tragic activity of terrorism, but it is not the only one, as I have already mentioned. The financial part involves far more time and people in petty and large criminal mafia-style operations. If they were to cease violence an interesting problem would be posed as to
1214
how the lifestyle of those people could change from living on their ill-gotten gains. In addition, in a peaceful environment there would be much more evidence forthcoming to convict them. There is a great deal of pressure from the grass roots. Those people will not want violence committed by others to stop and leave them vulnerable.
I will now turn to the Unionist Blueprint for Stability for just a moment. The first point is that the press have labelled it as pulling the plug on progress. I do not believe that is true. The three-strand circus was terminated by both governments in 1992— not by the Unionists. As far as I am aware, Mr. Molyneaux's party still stands by its undertaking to talk given to the Secretary of State on 26th March 1991. At the moment there are no such talks envisaged and they are still talking to their own government. They will no doubt consider it if and when it arises. The Irish Government are largely to blame for the stalemate, as I have said" for not having tabled their proposals, which everybody is waiting for.
I believe that there is a great deal of common sense in the Blueprint, but I am not going to go into it in detail. Apart from the assembly proposal, which would have a certain amount of opposition, especially from John Hume, who would possibly boycott it, the key to this, as I have said before, is the unfortunate Northern Ireland Act 1974, which, by its annual re-enactment, provides instability. It should be longer term, but that is for another debate.
The value of the remainder of the conclusions is that all the aims are achievable because the structures already exist and the SDLP is already taking part— for example, the local councils and Westminster. Such things as more accountable power to councils and the Select Committee which we have just heard about should work very well. In closing, I ask my noble friend the Minister to respond not only to the Opsahl Report, but perhaps briefly to the Unionist Blueprint.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, is to be commended for bringing the Northern Irish issue once again to the floor of the House. Over many many years there has been a whole series of reports which have sought to inquire into the position in Ireland. They have come forward with recommendations, many of them controversial. But at the end of the day none of those reports or recommendations was accepted by any significant section of the Northern Ireland community. The Irish Forum was accepted by the Nationalists but totally rejected by the Unionists. The Irish Government and the Nationalists in Northern Ireland regarded the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement as a good victory; it was regarded as a terrible defeat for the Unionists in Northern Ireland.
Here we have another report. I am very happy tonight that we have had a speech from a former Secretary of State in Northern Ireland. I believe that there are now eight or nine ex-Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland in this House and when we debate Northern Ireland they are always notable for their absence. It appears that once they leave Northern Ireland they want to forget all about

1215
it. That is why I am so happy to see my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees here this evening. He was there at a very volatile time for Ireland. He will remember that 20 years ago, in March 1974, we read in the press that the Loyalist extremists were getting together to cause an industrial strike which would bring to an end what I regarded as the most hopeful political development since the creation of the Northern Ireland state; namely, the power-sharing executive which we had created in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees was there. He saw, as I did, all the bitterness, violence and hatred generated by the Sunningdale Agreement. I have never had any doubt in my mind, and to my dying day I shall always cling tenaciously to the belief, that that executive could have remained because the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, albeit reluctantly, would have accepted power sharing. From the contacts which I had with hundreds of people in the Protestant community, I know that they would have been prepared to share power with the minority population, but under no circumstances were they prepared to accept what was then the Council of Ireland proposal.
Perhaps there was no logical reason for them to take such an attitude. But, in a situation when one's whole way of life, ethos and culture has been thrown into the melting pot, reason does not prevail. Those people were frightened. They were very fearful that the Council of Ireland was the thin end of the wedge which would drive them into an Irish republic. These words were spoken by one of the SDLP assembly men at that time; those who were opposed to the Council of Ireland proposals— namely, Dr. Paisley, Mr. Craig and Harry West (as they were then). They were running up and down having all kinds of meetings in Northern Ireland. They were saying that the Council of Ireland proposals were the thin end of the wedge. Unfortunately, one of the SDLP assembly men went to a students' debate at a university in the Republic. He was challenged by someone in the audience that the Sunningdale Agreement really meant nothing. The actual words he used were, "Do you not realise that the Council of Ireland proposals are the vehicle that will trundle the Unionists into a united Ireland?". When that statement was reported in the Belfast newspapers the next day it in fact signalled the end of the executive.
As I say, since then we have had numerous reports. I was a member of that executive and I again repeat that I am totally convinced that an accommodation can be found in Northern Ireland between the communities— what people call the "internal solution". I would rather have an internal solution which may encounter great difficulties and obstacles in its lifetime than wait for years and years until there is some other development in the cross-Border situation.
I left the SDLP in 1979. I had formed that party. I left it because it was becoming clearly evident to me that that party was more concerned with Irish nationalism than it was with social democratic concepts. When that party was formed it was called, at my insistence, the Social Democratic and Labour Party. I do not believe anyone in these islands now would refer to it as being
1216
social and democratic. It is a constitutional nationalist party. What is worse, it is a constitutional nationalist party which still supports and succours another political party which is not constitutional; namely, Sinn Fein, the spokesmen for the greatest crowd of murderers that we have seen in Irish history.
After I left the SDLP in 1979, the next hope that there could have been to bring the parties together was the assembly created by Jim Prior, who was then Secretary of State and who is now Lord Prior in this House. When the results of the elections were declared we saw for the first time a coalition of Sinn Fein and the SDLP. They said that they were not going to take their seats in that assembly and that they were going to boycott it. So anyone can boycott. People talk now of the Unionist boycott, but the Nationalists have also had a boycott during the past 20 troubled years. That Assembly failed because of the non-participation of the Nationalists in Northern Ireland.
Sometimes I get fed up listening to myself repeating this, but one has only to read Hansard to realise that in 1985 I stood in this House when everyone else except me was saying what a wonderful innovation the Anglo-Irish Agreement was and how it would bring peace to Northern Ireland. The Foreign Office here and those responsible for foreign affairs in Dublin got their embassies to work together. I was inundated with all sorts of congratulatory messages from all over the world, even from darkest Africa and the jungle, telling me what a wonderful thing the Anglo-Irish Agreement was. The only one who did not write to me or congratulate the Government on it was Idi Amin. Everyone told us what a wonderful thing the agreement was, but I stood in this House and said that it was not wonderful at all because I was born and reared in Northern Ireland and I know the feelings of the two communities.
That 1985 measure did more to cause a great division in Ireland than anything else. It totally alienated the majority community. People wondered whether it would help to do away with the alienation of the Catholic Nationalist community, but it alienated a far greater proportion of the people of Northern Ireland.
If we jump over many years, many speeches and, tragically, many deaths in the 10 years from 1982 to 1992, we find that Peter Brooke then became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I do not know how he did it, to whom he listened or what civil servant came up with the phrase, "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". I am inclined to think that it was John Hume. Where in the name of God that came from in relation to Irish politics, I do not know. You do not use that formula. That is a formula that can lead only to the defeat of the whole operation— "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"— because the Sunningdale Agreement showed us that we could have an agreement and power-sharing in Northern Ireland although we could not agree on Strand 2. By the way, Strand 3 does not really matter. There will be no difficulties between the sovereign Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland. They will have all sorts of happy relations, particularly now that both are members of the European Union. So, there is no difficulty with

1217
that. It is Strand 2 that will cause all the difficulties. It has done so in the past and will undoubtedly do the same again in the future.
I now turn to something that I bitterly resent. I resent it as someone who is involved in politics. I resent it bitterly as an Irishman. I resent it as a Catholic. I resent it as a human being. I refer to the claim that is made by Sinn Fein to speak on behalf of the Nationalist people of Ireland. Sinn Fein gets under 2 per cent. of the total vote in the island of Ireland. It represents no one. Sinn Fein is the spokesmen of a behind-the-scenes organisation which nobody has met: the seven-man Army Council of the IRA. They claim that they are the legitimate government of the people in Ireland, but they have never had any votes. They have never had any support. They refuse to emerge into the daylight to let people see who they are, yet those are the people who are dictating to the whole island of Ireland. They have less than 2 per cent. of the vote.
In 1992, Sinn Fein's well-known spokesman, Gerry Adams, who formerly held the seat of Belfast, West, was defeated in a legitimate democratic contest by Dr. Joe Hendron of the SDLP. I thought that there was a glimmer of hope to be seen when the result of that election was announced. But what did we see arising from that? We saw John Hume, the leader of the SDLP, beginning to have confidential meetings with Gerry Adams, the leader of an organisation that apologises for the most vicious murderers who ever contaminated Irish soil. I bitterly resented that.
However, John Hume can now be credited with the fact that he dragged Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams from the political gutter and put Gerry Adams into a position where he is now claiming some credibility as the leader of an organisation that is seeking peace in the island of Ireland. Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein would have stayed where they should have stayed if it had not been for the intervention of John Hume. So, a constitutional political party is giving support and succour to a party which represents nothing except a seven-man Army Council of the IRA. When people in Ireland see that, they wonder what John Hume is about and what he is trying to do.
Something that has not been mentioned tonight but which has been mentioned since 1992 and particularly in the run-up to the Anglo-Irish Declaration is the question of whether anyone has seen the Hume-Adams document and proposals. What is in it? Why are they so reluctant to make it public so that people in the island of Ireland, the United Kingdom and further afield can see what they were concocting among themselves? I have heard rumours to the effect that the Government have seen the document. I have heard that the Irish Government have seen the document. I have heard that John Hume has the document, as have others. Why not make that document, which has caused such controversy, available so that everyone can see it? I believe that that document has caused more trouble and more bitterness in the island of Ireland than anything else. It has elevated Gerry Adams and given him all sorts of credibility.
Is there anyone here who would not believe that it was John Hume who made representations to the Kennedy family, asking them to make representations to
1218
the President of the United States to allow Gerry Adams into America? He went there proclaiming that he was only there to bring about peace. We saw the hysteria in America. Those people did not even realise what Gerry Adams was doing at home. I believe that it was a particular disservice of John Hume, the alleged leader of a constitutional Nationalist party, to get involved to such an extent.
Since the Downing Street Declaration billions of words have been written and hundreds of television interviews have been given. In some of the television interviews which gave credibility to Sinn Fein and the IRA the interviewers did not acquit themselves very well. It was sickening for me to sit and watch the party which represents murderers proclaiming that it wanted peace.
What is the active position today? The Government should take note of it. Perhaps I may take as an example a newspaper interview that was given by a Sinn Fein activist, as he was called. When interviewers do not want to identify such people they describe them as "a senior member of Sinn Fein" or "a Sinn Fein activist". I have an idea who this particular activist is. A report of the interview appeared in the Irish Times on 25th February and stated:
""The key to it all has been calling for clarification. When we call for clarification, we are effectively calling for negotiation. We are asking the British to give us what we want, what they know it will take to end the war— and that is a withdrawal'.".
Nothing could be clearer than that. That is what they want. Is it any wonder that that frightens the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland. The newspaper report continued:
"Although he recognises that Sinn Fein was unlikely to make substantial electoral gains in the Republic, the speaker said that the lifting of Section 31 had helped 'humanise' republicans for southern audiences and was important in terms of the propaganda war".
Again, that is explicit and we understand the aims. The report of the interview continues:
"By 'spinning things out', Republicans had reduced the dramatic impact of the Major-Reynolds initiative … the declaration wasn't 'worth the paper it was written en—.
I totally disagree; I believe that the declaration was a result of the two Governments getting together and trying desperately to find a formula which would bring some form of sense into Northern Ireland.
The Government should take note of the most important part of the article, however, which was written by Suzanne Breen. After asking questions, she writes:
"The republican activist accused the SDLP deputy leader, Mr. Seamus Mallon (who has continuously stressed the similarities between Hume-Adams and Major-Reynolds on self-determination) of 'hampering the peace process' and deeply embarrassing his party leader, Mr. John Hume.
"The Hume-Adams agreement was between 'Sinn Fein and John Hume, and not Sinn Fein and the SDLP'.".
There we have it. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, was right in saying that there is great dissatisfaction in the ranks of the SDLP at what has been happening between John Hume and Sinn Fein IRA.
There are four SDLP Members of Parliament at the other end of this building. They include the MP for South Down, Eddie McGrady, the MP for West Belfast, Joe Hendron, who has been shabbily treated by his own party and is in danger of being defeated by Gerry Adams

1219
come the next election, and Seamus Mallon. Seamus Mallon is a man of great integrity and credibility and he questioned the closeness of the affair between John Hume and Sinn Fein. All three MPs have expressed grave reservations about the conduct of John Hume and Sinn Fein. The Government should ask the SDLP what it sees as the future for Northern Ireland. Is it a constitutional political party? As was said by my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, we are running into a period when we shall fight a European election. What will Sinn Fein and the SDLP say on their election addresses? Surely, they cannot say that they are fighting for different objectives, because they have been so closely aligned during the past two years, and particularly since the announcement of the declaration, that people will find it hard to differentiate between the two. I advise SDLP members to be very careful because Mr. Adams, as the newly-created statesman, may gain extra votes — more votes than John Hume. The election is run on the basis of proportional representation and we may find Gerry Adams in Europe.
That is the position in which we find ourselves. The declaration has been totally and absolutely rejected by Sinn Fein. I agreed wholeheartedly with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and was able to throw away a whole page of my notes. For all its claims to be a party of freedom fighters, of Irish patriots, Sinn Fein represents gangsters and hoodlums, the scum of the earth in Ireland. Young lads who are in that organisation have been born since the outbreak of the present troubles in 1969. They are engaged in protection rackets, robbery and thieving. Is there any way that Sinn Fein can go to them and say, "We have accepted this declaration"?
Perhaps I may put it even more dramatically. On the other side of the Armargh border there is a one-shot sniper. There are many ideas about who he may be and how he must get paid for being such an accurate sniper. He shoots from the Republic of Ireland, from about a quarter of a mile away, into Northern Ireland. From that distance and with whatever weapon he is using he has killed 10 members of the security forces through the neck and through the head. Can you imagine any member of Sinn Fein saying "This declaration is all right. We will go down to this sniper and say, 'Thank you very much. There is your P45. '"? Does anyone really believe that people who have been engaged in such murder and violence are going to accept the declaration?
On the day that the declaration was announced in this House I deliberately stayed away because I would have said then what I am saying now. I never believed that there was any possibility of Sinn Fein and the IRA accepting that declaration. I can say it now because of the time which has elapsed, and it must be completely obvious to anyone who has any interest in Northern Ireland that Sinn Fein is not a factor in the future of Ireland. Sinn Fein consists of 1.5 or 2 per cent. only.
I am sure that the Taoiseach, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, Mr. Reynolds, feels as much despair and disappointment as I do, and as does everyone who seeks peace in Northern Ireland. I believe that there will
1220
have to be a security crackdown both north and south of the border. There must be no bolt-hole for murderers to seek sanctuary and escape justice for what they have done in Northern Ireland. The Government will have to take that as a main reason. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, was totally right in saying that alongside that we must take the declaration as a starting base and build on it gradually. It must be gradual, taking into account all the fears and suspicions that exist in Northern Ireland. We must build on it gradually, but in the name of all that is sensible in Northern Ireland forget about the three-strand approach. The three-strand approach, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, means in effect that nothing will ever be agreed under those parameters.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in recent speeches this debate has been used as a hook on which to hang various thoughts on the situation as it is and as it might be in Northern Ireland. I should like to return a little closer to the subject of the report, which I welcome, as I welcome anything which adds to Parliament's knowledge of the hopes and fears of people in Northern Ireland.
It is some time since we have had as comprehensive an exposition of these views as can be found in the Opsahl Report. To that extent and on that basis I find it very encouraging. It is a report that should commend itself to members of the Government, not only those in the NIO but those in the Cabinet Office as well. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to say that she and her colleagues have not only read it but that it is informing their thinking on Northern Ireland. As has been pointed out, no one will like all of it and some will not like any of it. The noble Lord may laugh, but nevertheless it is there and I believe that it could well inform their thinking on Northern Ireland.
I am sure that noble Lords will remember what is almost certainly an apocryphal story from the trenches in the First World War. A message was passed by word of mouth down the trenches, "Send reinforcements, we are going to advance". This finally arrived at battalion headquarters as, "Send three-and-fourpence, we are going to a dance". Most views coming into Stormont, and still worse to London, have been through so many hands that it is inevitable that on the way they occasionally become muddled and misconstrued.
We had an example of that the other day on the subject of the IRA apparently wishing to know how to tone down violence. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, referred to that. I am not blaming the middleman, whoever he may be, whether councillor, doctor or priest, or possibly a whole chain of them who make up the conduit, but I believe that this happens and that we should take a report such as this, if not at face value, certainly seriously. We should do more than a little lateral thinking. I do not say that the Opsahl Report contains everything that is sweetness and light, far from it; yet it shows an overwhelming desire for peace and fairness.
I was struck too by the idea of a gradual ratcheting down of violence on all sides, including on the part of

1221
the security forces— although my noble friend Lord Brookeborough seemed antagonistic towards that— and by the idea that there should be training of politicians. I should welcome the views of my noble friend Lady Denton.
At least two parts of the report make depressing reading. The first is Chapter 10. The first substantive part refers to the fact that the commission believes that if the current or resumed round of political talks should fail, the British Government should take various steps. It is almost as though the commission expects the talks to fail. I should not be so sure about that.
The Government have had their ups and downs, but I do not believe that a man who comes away from Maastricht with not one but two derogations is a poor negotiator. He is a man who saw that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was deeply mistrusted by the majority in Northern Ireland and he negotiated the Downing Street declaration late last year. And he made sure that that was accepted in Parliament by the representatives of that majority. He came up with an acceptable form of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Therefore, he is no slouch when it comes to negotiations.
In my time in Northern Ireland there were no formal meetings with Unionist MPs. I was not even allowed to go to a concert at Belfast City Hall, so vehemently did the councillors feel about what they saw as being let down by the Government. "Betrayed by the Foreign Office", is how they expressed it to me. It is ironic that just as I left the MO that opposition was fading. But if my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had got his declaration just slightly wrong, we should have been back in the same soggy morass.
Therefore, I remain hopeful. None of us is close enough to the action to see exactly what is going on, but prejudging that man is best left to the ephemera of the newspapers and not to this House or, indeed, to the other place.
I found depressing also the evidence of Sinn Fein and especially an outsider's view of it given in the last chapter. We read that it was an opportunity for Sinn Fein to propose conciliatory initiatives, but all that emerged was that Northern Ireland could not be made a stable democratic entity and that the solution was an all-inclusive democratic framework. I am not sure how those two sentences can be put together but the members of Sinn Fein achieved that. On being questioned, the commission was answered in slogans rather than by arguments: only the British Government could break the log-jam of Unionists "sitting on their hands"; "Negotiations would bring peace, not peace negotiations". To me, that is the most depressing line of all. They are still stuck in a time warp in what is called, in the horrendous jargon of Northern Ireland, "bombing their way to the conference table".
I am sufficiently charitable— perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, would say that I am green enough— to believe that they are more intelligent than that. But so long as those aphorisms continue to issue from their lips, so long will they be unacceptable to any negotiating table.
My initial reaction to some of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is to say that if Sinn Fein is irrelevant
1222
to the future of the developments in Northern Ireland in the way that we now see them, so too is the IRA. I really cannot believe that.
There is a third thought running through the report which I find wrong rather than depressing, not only in the report but also in the thinking of commentators on Northern Ireland, including the Government. You would have thought that by now all the politicians, both in Northern Ireland and Westminster, would have reached the conclusion that to have a regional government in Stormont— a phoenix rising from the ashes— was a non-starter. But no; everyone seems to be totally hooked on what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, described as— although he put a particular gloss on it — a history of failed policies. The noble Lord may be right. There may eventually come a time when an internal solution along the lines of a regional government, whether in Stormont or anywhere else, could come about, but I would venture to suggest that we are miles away from it at the moment. A much more satisfactory development was the announcement today by my right honourable friend Mr. Newton that there would be a debate on the setting up of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland affairs.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, I believe that this is the right approach and it is probably the right time to suggest it. However, a little bird whispered to me that the Labour Party is not happy with this at the moment, and perhaps never will be. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will explain his party's reaction to the proposal when he speaks in a moment.
But of course the report is about lots more than political development, as the conclusions show. It has always seemed to me that as regards the multi— faceted problems of Northern Ireland and doing something about them, it may seem to us that small steps are involved but it is rather like standing under the decaying Gardens of Babylon where at any minute a piece may drop off and knock one flying. The suggestion which is not new— indeed my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross advocated it in his previous report— that terrorist interviews should be televised is a case in point. There is no future in televising them if the pictures will not be seen. There will inevitably be demands for the interviews to be shown at trials' and for them to be viewed by defence lawyers. If the offence was a one-off — as normal offences tend to be on this side of the water — that would not matter. But as the suspects I am discussing are members of a team, the word that a particular police officer was involved, or perhaps that a particular suspect had revealed more than other members of the team wished him to reveal, would result in an almost automatic increase in violence both to the officer and to the suspect, albeit at the expense of civil liberties.
Another aspect that strikes me is the concept of jealousy, and not only that of the Unionists or the SDLP either. For example, the Republic, being a less favoured area, has done well out of the European Community, or the European Union as we should now call it. Hence, the result of the Maastricht referendum in the Republic came as no surprise at all. Northern Ireland on the other

1223
hand, although it is a less favoured area of the United Kingdom, does not have the same advantages of direct funding from the European Union. Everything goes through London, and the United Kingdom as a whole is anything but less favoured. Although considerable extra moneys go from Whitehall to Belfast, based on a complex formula involving morbidity, policing and many other factors, resulting in around 40 per cent. extra in public spending per head higher than in the rest of the country, the additionality rules mean that that expenditure cannot be identified as European Union money. I think the time has come for the Government to find a way round this. That said, I am sure I shall be told that this is yet another chunk dropping from the Hanging Gardens.
The Housing Executive in Northern Ireland has achieved great things for the good of many people all over the Province since its inception. The stock of unfit housing has fallen from just over 14 per cent. in 1979 to under 8.5 per cent. today. The Housing Executive has righted many of the wrongs done to the minority within its sphere of influence. When I first went to Northern Ireland 20 years ago, the Falls Road and its immediate surroundings were a shambles, suffering from years of discrimination and neglect. Today the boot is on the other foot and it is the Shankill Road which is the more depressed of the two. Housing is another area where times have changed and where a different sort of jealousy rears its head.
I could go on referring to each conclusion one by one. However, like my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, I shall resist the temptation to do so at this late hour. I shall contain myself by urging everyone with even the slightest desire to improve the situation in Northern Ireland to read and consider the report, even though they then damn it to Hell and back. I await the force of gravity of my noble friend Lady Denton with more interest than usual.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I should like to pay my personal tribute to Professor Opsahl, who died so recently after carrying out this work.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for giving us an opportunity to reflect on matters concerning Northern Ireland at rather greater leisure than is normally possible. I feel a sense of something approaching shame that there are so few of us present on these occasions. It is always the same noble Lords. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that of those who have held high office in Northern Ireland only my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees is present, is an extremely good one.
I have tried to put my mind to the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, put down. It is intended to provide an opportunity not for grandiose statements or empty platitudes, but for detailed— and I hope constructive— questioning of what the Government have in mind. It seems to me, and I believe to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that the very least we owe to our colleagues in Northern Ireland is a decent questioning of the Government's intentions. I stress, as
1224
I know the Minister accepts, that this is not done in a partisan way and all of our questions are intended to be helpful.
It seems to us that the real achievement of the report is that it has recorded views from a very wide spectrum of opinion in Northern Ireland, not all of which have been apparent or vocal in political dialogue in the past. That point echoes the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to the subject. I entirely agree with him that there will be no one in this world who agrees with everything that the report offers by way of conclusion and recommendation.
Our stance is that internal settlement of itself is not necessarily the solution to the long-term problems. Although it is relatively recent, the report itself has been partly overtaken by events. It has been overtaken in part by the Joint Declaration. Speaking for myself, whatever one's views about the personalities involved, it is right to recognise and record that both the Taoiseach and the United Kingdom Prime Minister have taken risks, which are signs of courage. Whether their courage is rewarded in the end should not obscure the fact that what they have done has been risky.
What is to become of the three strand policy? On 1st March this year Mr. Molyneaux recorded the view that his party would not engage in three stranded talks because that would be as big a fiasco as it was last time. Dr. Paisley's view is well known, and is to the same effect, but would probably be rather more bluntly expressed.
If Mr. Molyneaux maintains that stance after the European elections and therefore the three strand policy cannot continue, what will the Government's approach be? Our hope would be that no party in Northern Ireland would be able to derail the negotiations and the progress that has been made so far, limited though it has been.
I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said. It seems to me that the specific questions need to be directed at particular conclusions and recommendations. As noble Lords who spoke earlier said, they are fairly limited. The bulk of the report, not surprisingly, is a recitation of submissions, and the recommendations do not start until page 111.
There is a very important question in Conclusion 2.4. That is the recommendation that a Bill of Rights should be incorporated into domestic legislation. It is noteworthy that the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have this in common: neither of them has incorporated the European convention into domestic legislation.
In relation to another aspect which has overtaken the Opsahl Report, it is also interesting that earlier this week Mr. Molyneaux, in his blueprint, specifically recommended the introduction of a Bill of Rights into Northern Ireland domestic legislation. It seems to us that its incorporation into Northern Ireland, as a part of the United Kingdom, would not be sensible or practical. If a Bill of Rights is to be introduced, it should be introduced for the whole of the United Kingdom. I see great practical and legal difficulties in any other course. Again without being tendentious, we would welcome the Government's views about the recommendation of

1225
the Opsahl Report together with its endorsement— or the arrival at that point by a different route— of Mr. Molyneaux's
If a Bill of Rights were to be incorporated domestically, it gives protection to citizens of various camps. Whatever are the views of the Government in this country, have there been discussions with the Government of the Republic about those matters, in particular on the incorporation of the Bill of Rights? No one expects confidential discussions at this stage to be disclosed. But these are matters of quite broad principle on which we should like answers.
One of the bedevilling features, as we see it, about Northern Ireland is that there is deep suspicion, sometimes well-founded, that negotiations are continuing about people's futures on the basis of subterfuge. I do not wish to put these matters too highly. Are discussions continuing with representatives of Sinn Fein, either directly or indirectly, by people authorised by or on behalf of the British Government? Many people in Northern Ireland suspect that there are. Those suspicions may be ill-founded or well-founded but they do nothing to aid the cause of reconciliation.
Is there a timescale in mind if there is no unambiguous acceptance or rejection by Sinn Fein of the joint declaration? It does not seem to us that those who live in Northern Ireland can be left in limbo for ever. The alternative of all-Ireland unification is not ruled out by the Government of the United Kingdom. It has not been ruled out since November 1990 when Mr. Brooke made the famous statement about no selfish strategic or economic interest. If there were to be all-Ireland unification, on what constitutional basis would that be? There are indications in the Opsahl Report that a federal constitution for a united Ireland needs to be considered. Have the Government been discussing such details with the Government of the Republic?
The answers to those questions are important and may affect the response of those in Northern Ireland from whatever political camp. If there were a united Ireland, has there been discussion about the basis of voting? Should it be proportional representation? Would there be entrenched safeguards in an all-Ireland constitution as well as the incorporation of a Bill of Rights?
I accept that noble Lords opposite may think that those are premature questions. I respectfully do not believe that they are. I am of the view, although I hear dissent from behind me, that those are questions which must be addressed. The issues will not go away, and to pretend that they will does a great disservice to the people of Northern Ireland.
What are the Government's views about the broadcasting ban? I refer to Recommendation 1.5. It is a legitimate view to hold (I hold it myself) that the broadcasting ban on Mr. Adams and his colleagues has played into their hands. It gave Mr. Adams the best propaganda coup and victory on his visit to Washington that he could possibly have looked for.
Paragraph 1.5 of the Opsahl Report recommended that the Irish Government reconsider the broadcasting ban. That has been done. Whatever one's views about
1226
Mr. Adams and his colleagues— again, I hear dissent from behind me, and I dare say that many of the doubts are shared by all of us— is it of ultimate practical benefit to hand him that propaganda weapon on a plate so that he gets away with saying things in interviews time and again which are never effectively challenged? The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to that. Mr. Adams can go to the United States of America, a country which has entrenched constitutional rights about freedom of speech, and say, as he said time and again, "I am not allowed to be heard in my own country". What is the Government's view on that at this stage?
These are questions of detail, but I hope honouring the spirit of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Holme. On paragraph 2.6, have the Government any view on the Diplock courts, the single non-jury judge? The suggestion there is not to go back to juries, for obvious reasons, but that there should be one or two assessors sitting with the judge in the Diplock courts. What is the Government's view about the recommendations for the improvement of inquest procedures which have undoubtedly— whatever political view one has— caused great distress and concern to a number of people in Northern Ireland with their delays and inefficiencies?
What is the Government's view about paragraph 2.6(d)? It is the suggestion that there should be an independent review commission on exactly the same lines as were recommended in the Royal Commission of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, on criminal procedure in this country. In effect, the Government have been silent about whether or not England and Wales will have an independent review body. Have they come to a conclusion about Northern Ireland? I take the question of my noble friend Lord Fitt. Have the Government of the United Kingdom seen a document or documents which could fairly be described as the Hume-Adams proposals? If yes, is it to be published?
The question of the Select Committee, it seems to us, needs to be approached with caution. It depends on what will be its composition, which at present is not known to me. I do not think that it is known to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, because he helpfully indicated that there is to be a debate in the other place quite soon about its composition. We wish to see the composition. We would not want it to be a device which would cause further suspicion in certain sections of Northern Ireland, nor would we wish it to be used simply as a device to stall and cause no further progress to be made.
Those are the questions that I have sought to put to the Minister. I repeat that they are not put in any tendentious sense, particularly coming from one who does not live in Northern Ireland and will not collude in the indecency of trying to make things worse there rather than trying to be helpful. Whatever our views and differences, that is the one point that unites us on this occasion: we all have a genuine desire for some improvement for people who have suffered far too much for too long.
9.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I should like to add my thanks

1227
to those of others to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for enabling us to debate this extensive and unique report. I also endorse his view that when it comes to Northern Ireland debates what is important is not the quantity but the quality of the participation. I start by expressing my gratitude for the messages of support for the Joint Declaration which I have heard this evening.
The work of the Opsahl Commission has proved valuable in stimulating the submission of views from a wide range of individuals and organisations. The commission itself made a number of recommendations, some controversial, others which have provoked dissenting comment, as tonight's debate reflects. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, the Northern Ireland political parties generally gave the report a cool reception.
The Government believe that the main value of the report lies in the way that it has enlivened and developed informed public debate throughout the community in Northern Ireland and outside. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will be pleased to know that we believe that it provides an important source of ideas, emanating not only from the commission itself but from the many submissions made to it.
I know that the Secretary of State was pleased to be presented with a copy of the report. He also met members of the commission last November and was interested to hear of the various responses to it. He was then able to explain the state of progress in the political talks at that time— though, as has been said on several occasions tonight, the speed at which those move on means that as soon as one is briefed something else has happened. He also commented on the report in some detail during an Adjournment debate in another place last November. The report was also debated in the Irish Senate, when it provided a platform for a wide-ranging debate on Northern Ireland issues.
The recommendations are not just addressed to government, but also to the Churches, the Northern Ireland political parties, the trade unions and the Irish Government. The viewpoint of Her Majesty's Government is just one among many in this area.
The report's main conclusion is that, if political talks fail, the Government, in consultation with the Irish Government, should establish a commission to study the situation and to make recommendations for further consultation with political parties— and if necessary, directly with the people of Northern Ireland.
On the face of it, that seems a plausible objective. It is, however, premature. The talks process is continuing. Although round table talks have not taken place since November 1992, the talks process has nevertheless continued in the form of private bilateral meetings with the Northern Ireland parties and meetings with the Irish Government. The opinion poll on the Opsahl Commission report showed that the majority questioned in Northern Ireland believed in the importance of the talks; and we shall continue to promote them in every practical way. We are at one with the Irish Government on that. Both governments remain committed to the talks process based on the Statement on 26th March 1991. The Joint Declaration by the Prime Minister and
1228
the Taoiseach set out a balanced statement of principles for the future. The statement complemented and underpinned the talks process, which addresses all the main relationships. It provides a firm foundation for future political development. Only recently, when the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach met on 19th February — the meeting that was referred to by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough as the "rugby summit"— they reaffirmed their joint commitment to the talks process.
The Government have noted that the report refers to the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland and to the widespread desire to have a government and administration which is more accountable to the people in Northern Ireland. That view has been expressed to the Government by many people, and it was raised this evening by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I hope that the noble Lord will be pleased to know, as will my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, that for our part we fully share the desire to see greater responsibility returned to Northern Ireland's own locally elected representatives. That is enshrined in the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
However, as the report recognises, for any new structures to be both fair and workable, they must command wide support throughout Northern Ireland. That means that all the relevant relationships must be addressed. The best forum for that is a talks process involving the main constitutional parties and the two governments, based on the Statement of the previous Secretary of State on 26th March 1991.
Another recommendation that has been raised this evening is that the Government should open informal discussions with Sinn Fein with a view to persuading the IRA to move towards de-escalation in the level of violence and eventually to a cease-fire. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, pointed to the exchanges between the Government and the IRA last year as evidence that such discussions have already taken place, or that they would be only another small step which a government should be prepared to take.
I must say to noble Lords that that argument is deeply flawed. As my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State said in another place, the Government had a clear duty to respond to the message from the IRA last February that the conflict was over. The consequent exchanges spelt out, as the Downing Street Declaration has done since, that the first step must be a permanent end to violence— not a de-escalation but a complete end. Then and only then can Sinn Fein expect to begin to play a part in the ordinary democratic life of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the issue of the Government's views on the talks. As my right honourable and learned friend explained in another place on 29th November, while it is useful to have a means of communication by which messages could be exchanged indirectly between the Government and the Provisional movement, such a chain could function only if its secrecy were respected on both sides. Accordingly, we do not propose to divulge any further information about messages sent or received or to comment further

1229
save— I would stress this— to give the assurance that any communications from Her Majesty's Government will be consistent with their publicly stated policies.
The issue of a Bill of Rights which was brought forward by the report has been raised this evening by several noble Lords. Her Majesty's Government take the view that a Bill of Rights falls within the remit of the political talks process. In his speech at Birmingham on 23rd February the Secretary of State said that among the possible features of a political accommodation:
"there might well be some form of entrenchment of human rights to provide additional built-in safeguards against discrimination and disadvantage. That is widely supported already".
Several commentators have recognised that a Bill of Rights is one possible way to strengthen the protection of human rights. It is one of several possibilities. That has been the Government's position throughout the political talks. A Bill of Rights is not the only way to achieve better protection of human rights. Our objective — effective practical measures which build confidence and trust in future political arrangements— means that we must be willing to explore that possibility.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. This is an extremely important point and I want to be sure that I have understood what she said. Am Ito understand that if the talks were to arrive at the view that there should be a Bill of Rights, however expressed— as a charter of rights or the entrenchment of the European Convention on Human Rights into at least Northern Ireland law— if that were a conclusion of the parties to the talks, the Government now have no objection of principle to that and would not stand in its way? Would that be correct?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps the noble Lord will let me continue and I shall clarify the Government's view on this matter. As I said, the message of the speech made by my right honourable and learned friend in Birmingham was that some form of entrenchment of human rights is perfectly practicable. A Bill of Rights is one form of entrenchment which is known to raise difficult issues. Nevertheless, we are prepared to examine it as a possibility.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, identified, devising a measure for Northern Ireland alone, especially if it is based on our international obligations, raises further problems. Is it really practicable to create a measure which allowed legislation applying throughout the UK to be challenged in only one part of the UK? More importantly, it is unclear whether a Bill of Rights could effectively be framed for Northern Ireland alone and deal with the full range of human rights issues, many of them covered by Westminster legislation.
Several practical questions need to be answered: in what ways would incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law significantly strengthen existing safeguards against abuses of human rights? In what way would they build confidence in constitutional arrangements?
We may have to devise some additional forms of human rights protection to add to the package of measures that the Government introduced over the
1230
period of direct rule. But the availability on paper of additional legal remedies is of less practical value than the creation of a healthier political system. While acknowledging the value of ideas which will help to build confidence and trust between the political parties, we believe that we are more likely to make effective progress by giving priority to the need for lasting constitutional arrangements being addressed in the context of the political talks involving the two governments and the main constitutional parties. But I hope I have given the noble Lord some reassurance that, as my right honourable and learned friend said, there is a possibility of discussing this issue.
I want to address one other point raised by the noble Lord. He was anxious that my right honourable and learned friend had promised to bring forward proposals to give focus and direction to further talks. I can say to the noble Lord that the Secretary of State recently met the leaders of the three parties who have been engaged in bilateral discussions with the Government and showed them a document containing our ideas across all three strands of the talks process.
Perhaps I may refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, which, as usual, was filled with wisdom and experience. It made me conscious that my direct relationship with Northern Ireland extends to exactly six weeks. I agree with much of what he said regarding policing Northern Ireland and the need for the Armed Forces. The Government would like to see the maximum support for the RUC from all parts of the community. We also look to the day when the violence ends and the current security measures, including the use of the Armed Forces in support of the RUC, become unnecessary. I heard messages of some pessimism from noble Lords as to when the end of that violence could be foreseen. I trust that they will not mind if hope that they are proved wrong in their pessimism.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough commented on the political proposals that are awaited from the Irish Government. The position is that both governments agreed in September to work on a framework to allow further progress on the talks. Work on that framework is continuing and, following the recent meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, to which the noble Lord referred, it is proceeding with renewed emphasis. Progress will be reviewed at the next intergovernmental conference.
I was delighted to hear my noble friend encourage people in Northern Ireland to become involved in the process of returning to law and order. Perhaps I may add a personal comment that I was extremely impressed by the involvement of the community and the voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland which I believe sets a standard throughout the whole UK as being of great leadership. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, covered the scene as no one else could. In regard to the worry that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, about which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, was also concerned, the Government take the view that it was a sensible maxim to adopt at the time that the talks process began. Whether it will apply to future multilateral talks will be a matter for all those who participate in them.

1231
Perhaps I may also take the opportunity to comment on the Hume-Adams document. The Government have not seen anything purporting to be the Hume-Adams agreement. Noble Lords then raised the question of publication. Publication of any such document would be entirely a matter for those who produced it. But I would stress that we have not seen anything purporting to be that. We have studied carefully what the leader of the UUP said on Monday. His party took the decision to present certain proposals in the Blueprint for Stability. That is a matter for them. One noble Lord raised the fact that there is now an agenda which is based on the European elections. We should bear that in mind. We were very glad that Mr. Molyneaux said on Monday that contact will continue on the same basis as before.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale raised the complicated question of European Union funding for the Republic and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has Objective I status and will be receiving about £ 1 billion in structural funds over the period up to 1999. In addition, Northern Ireland receives public expenditure — the subvention— from the United Kingdom Exchequer of £ 2.3 billion for 1992–93, maintaining parity with Great Britain standards for health, education and other public services. As Minister with responsibility for agriculture, it is certainly my intention to make sure that my voice is heard in person in Brussels on behalf of our farmers and our fishermen. I believe it is important— and the Minister of Agriculture agrees— that we should make quite certain that Europe is aware of the needs of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked a number of detailed questions about the substance of discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government. I stress in answering that I understand the manner and nature of his asking the questions and I accept totally that it is not based on a desire to attack but to deal with the subject in a way that all of us involved in Northern Ireland feel it should be dealt with. By convention, the detail of the discussions is confidential. I would remind the noble Lord of the widespread view that a united Ireland is unlikely for the foreseeable
1232
future. Specifically, I would also answer that it has been reaffirmed by Her Majesty's Government that the broadcasting ban here should be retained. But I note with some sympathy the comments made by your Lordships on the responsibility, or perhaps the lack of it, of some of the interviewers who have participated in interviews with Gerry Adams in the past.
On the three-judge court issue, the Government have said repeatedly as a matter of principle that they do not accept that the standard of justice is lowered in any way because only a single judge is presiding. There is no evidence to suggest that the present system has led to perverse judgments or a lowering of standards.
Many points were raised. We all have reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that the House has found time to discuss and debate issues relating to Northern Ireland in a rather fuller manner than the normal order procedure allows. I have found it valuable as a relatively new Minister. I shall of course look closely at Hansard and shall write as soon as possible to noble Lords on any specifics I have missed.
We all recognise the difficulties in resolving the problems which exist in Northern Ireland. We all have great anxiety and love for the Province. That can probably be said for all Members of your Lordships' House. Northern Ireland has lived in the shadow of terrorism, both Republican and Loyalist, for too long. There is a desire for peace. I was delighted to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, that my visit to Cookstown last night and West Belfast this morning, would not have been possible in his time. That was news that pleased me.
There is also a yearning for political progress. The Opsahl Report provided a valuable contribution to the public debate. This House may be assured that the Government will continue to place Northern Ireland at the head of their priorities. We set no time limit for a solution but we are committed to continuing to work steadily towards our goal of a widely acceptable political accommodation aimed to secure peace and stability which Northern Ireland so truly deserves.
House adjourned at six minutes past ten o'clock.