Lords Sitting of 17 October 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the lard Bishop of Norwich.

Kashmir
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what occasions they have asked the Indian Government to provide details of the cases in which members of the security forces have been sentenced for crimes committed in Kashmir, and what replies they have received.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we have frequently encouraged the Indian Government to provide details of such cases. They have told us that 75 members of the security forces were given prison sentences between 1990 and September 1994. Non-custodial action, including dismissal, was taken against a further 133 members.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the Indian authorities' new approach to be welcomed, in that Mr. Shabbir Shah was released from custody last week following the earlier release of Yassin Malik? But is it not of the utmost importance that members of the security forces are not seen to enjoy immunity for the crimes they have committed against the civilian population of Kashmir over the past few years? Bearing in mind that something like 34,500 have perished, including 4,700 deaths in custody, since 1989, does the Minister think that the 75 prison sentences are wholly disproportionate to the scale of atrocities committed against the civilian population? Will the Minister therefore press the Indian authorities that as a sign of
2
their more open attitude now they should publish details of the charges against members of the security forces and the sentences imposed upon them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is right to say that we welcome the new approach taken by the Indian authorities. We do not believe that anyone who has committed the type of crime to which the noble Lord referred should be immune from prosecution, but that is a matter for the Indian authorities. The noble Lord asked about publication and so on, but that is something that we must leave up to the Indian authorities. They are becoming increasingly open, and when the delegation of six Members of another place visited in September they were given free access. I hope, too, that there will be a continuation of the transparency that has started and that there will be as much action as possible to bring those who have committed crimes before the relevant authorities.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in the light of the increasing openness on the part of the Indian Government, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have managed to elicit any further information from the Indian Government about the 200 or more disappearances that have been catalogued by Amnesty International in Jammu, Kashmir and the Punjab?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness the exact answer that she seeks, but Amnesty International's report, after its visit in January, was a comprehensive report, and the Indian Government have told us that it will be allowed to make further visits elsewhere in India on a case-by-case basis. There are continuing discussions between Amnesty International and the Indian Government on that, and I believe that is to be welcomed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, when I became a Minister in the Commonwealth Office, almost

3
30 years ago, one of the documents that I was asked to peruse was a paper on the
problems of Kashmir. What are the prospects for a settlement of that problem?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I well remember when the noble Lord became a Minister some 30 years ago. I believe that it was the beginning of my great interest in foreign affairs. I, like him, wish to see a real solution to the problems of Kashmir. What we have said is that it is important that a genuine political process should be established in Kashmir. The Indian Government have recently declared their intention to hold elections in Kashmir next year. We welcome that effort. We hope that the elections will not just be seen to be free and fair but that they will actually be free and fair, but it is much too early to judge when we shall see a full resolution of the problem.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, will the Minister comment upon recent encouraging suggestions from the Indian authorities that they are at last considering a solution which will be equitable to all interested parties in this dispute?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the Indians are giving increased attention and commitment to doing that, but it is not for us to interfere. We can give them guidance if they ask for it. We have consistently encouraged both sides to resolve their differences through bilateral negotiations. We are willing to use our good offices to help if they wish us to do so. I can only say that the signs are much better than they were, and we wish them well in resolving the matter.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I visited Azad Kashmir last year and that I was also in Kashmir for the Indian side this year? In the light of the recent elections in South Africa, and what has happened in Northern Ireland, does the Minister feel that an initiative might be taken by the Commonwealth to seek to resolve this problem, which is a major flashpoint?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who has long experience of such matters, for all that he has done. I am not in a position to say whether there is a specific role for the Commonwealth. However, the Indian Government have taken on board the importance of good government, which is one of the philosophies pursued by the Commonwealth. If any further work can be done to resolve the situation through the Commonwealth I have no doubt that the Secretary General will take that action.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Chief Anyaoku and the Foreign Secretary have from time to time offered their good offices to help to reach a solution but that that has not been welcomed by the Indian authorities? The Minister welcomed free access. Will she press the Indian authorities to go a little further and allow Amnesty International to visit Kashmir and to make a report on its findings? Will she also press the Indian High Commissioner in this country at least to
4
reply to letters addressed to him by the parliamentary human rights group, and in particular the repeated request to be allowed to send a mission there?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, discussions about further visits and access to Kashmir are taking place between Amnesty International and the Indian Government. I believe that we must leave that in their hands. As regards intervention by Ministers or the Commonwealth Secretary General, not only did the Foreign Secretary have discussions with the Indian Foreign Minister in July, but in March the Prime Minister discussed human rights and the situation in Kashmir, in particular with the Indian Prime Minister. We take opportunities to raise in private all such matters. It is for the Indian Government to respond. Undoubtedly, they respond better to those of us who seek to show understanding of the difficult situation. In our discussions with them we shall not let go of the problem but will continue to press it.

The Disabled: Discrimination
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many responses they have received to their consultation paper on discrimination against disabled people and what proportion of these responses was critical.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we have received more than 900 responses to the consultation, which closed less than three weeks ago. Analysis will take some time and it is too early to attempt to draw any conclusions.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I hope that it will not take too much time. Is the Minister aware that paragraph 2.9 is the most remarkable in the consultation paper because the Government have performed a U-turn and at last have admitted that the "reasonable aspirations" of disabled people cannot be met by voluntary action alone? Will the Government now admit that these aspirations cannot be met by legislation which fails to include education, transport, indirect discrimination and Britain's 2.75 million small firms? In such a situation millions of disabled people will continue to be discriminated against, and that will be perfectly legal.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord invites me to prejudge the results of the consultation and our deliberations upon it. I do not intend to do that. During the next few weeks we shall be looking at all such matters and coming forward with what I hope will be sensible solutions which will help disabled people, as we have helped them vigorously and to a considerable extent during the past 15 years.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend expect support for replacing the quota scheme, as it is impossible for all employers to reach the level of 3 per cent. because only 1 per cent. of the population is

5
registering as disabled? Does my noble friend agree that during the past 50 years the 1944 Act has nonetheless served its purpose because it was mainly intended for young war disabled people who had their working lives ahead of them—and I was one—and that those who are still alive are past retirement age?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making the point that the quota system provided for in the 1944 Act was introduced in a different working and disabled environment. Whether or not we replace the quota system and the way in which we tackle the employment prospects of disabled people are important matters that we are currently considering.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind that fit people are being paid wages as low as £2 per hour, has the consultation paper produced any evidence showing that disabled people are being exploited by being paid even lower wages? If so, will the Government seek to deal with that matter as quickly as possible?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord must table a Question before I can respond to him in the detail that he expects. As a result of their disability, desire or other factors, many disabled people want or can only obtain work which is for less than a full working week. That is certainly part and parcel of the pattern, but it is also the pattern of many able-bodied people who do not want to work full time.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one reason why so many people do not register as disabled is that the}/ feel that it will disadvantage them when they apply for a full-time job?
Secondly, will the Minister reconsider the point which he made—I thought rather unfairly—to my noble friend Lord Ashley that my noble friend was wishing him to prejudge the issue? Does the Minister accept that there is now a great deal of strong and considered feeling? It is helpful that the Minister's document points in some way towards a more encouraging way forward. However, I hope that he will not allow this matter to slip. Will he recognise that now is the time to come forward with a really positive proposal which will encourage those who have been campaigning so hard for a proper and effective piece of legislation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government will be able to let this matter slip. In view of the number of noble Lords who are interested and (he extremely vociferous lobbies outside, I believe that the Government will come forward with proposals in the reasonably near future.
As regards the general point, the Government have an excellent record in this sphere. Expenditure last year on disability benefits represented some £17 billion, which is a three-fold increase in real terms over what it was in 1979.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Government rejected the Berry/Ashley civil rights Bill on the grounds that it was "exorbitantly costly" for
6
employers. Is the Minister aware that the Employers Forum on Disability has now responded to the consultation document saying:
"Anxiety regarding exorbitant costs would seem to reflect: inadequate understanding and analysis of the benefits generated by bringing disabled people into society as taxpayers and consumers; a lack of understanding",
on the part of the Government,
"of the business case for such reforms; a failure to place expenditure within the appropriate long term scale; and lack of direct experience of disabled people contributing in the workplace"?
That is the voice of the employers and they go on to criticise the Government. Will the Government therefore accept that they defeated the civil rights Bill by attributing views to employers which they clearly did not hold?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness has found a quotation which seems to support the model Labour Party's new view that the points of view of business and industry must be taken into account. That is the point that we have made all along. That is a factor that we shall put into the balance when we decide what sort of action we must take to help disabled people. We must balance the advances that we can make with the costs to business, industry and the taxpayer.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, to what extent do the Government intend to respond to the representations made to them about this paper? If the overwhelming majority really want more wide-ranging proposals, will they get them?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, again, I believe that the noble Lord is trying to persuade me to prejudge our decisions as a result of the consultations. We shall take into account all the documents that we have received in response to the paper which we put out. As I said to the noble Baroness, we shall have to balance what comes in from the various pressure groups, which of course will wish us to go a long way, with the problems which that might cause to the economy at large and to the public purse.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I please ask the Minister—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I believe that we should move on to the next Question.

Health Spending
2.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United Kingdom spends a smaller percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) on health than most other European Union nations; and whether they have plans to

7
remove present restrictions on spending at least up to the level of average European Union health expenditure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the OECD's figures take no account of the different definitions of health spending that are used nor of the greater efficiency and effectiveness with which the UK uses its resources.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. But is she not aware that, in spite of those differences, the fact that we are 19th out of 26 in the recent examination of health spending in Europe gives cause for concern? Does she recognise that, while it is certainly true that our method of financing gives us a certain advantage, if we were to move from our present 6 per cent. up to the average of about 8 per cent., in reality that would bring us into the top half? I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a position from which we should never have resiled.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do think that this is a spurious argument because internationally there is no accepted definition of health. If one looks at the Netherlands, for example, it includes expenditure on private nursing homes; and other countries include social services. To concentrate on the amount that we spend, ignoring the efficiency and effectiveness with which resources are used, ignores our responsibility both to patients and to taxpayers.
The fact is that the NHS treats more patients than any other country and twice as many per bed as in Germany. We do not have the costly system which exists in countries such as France where large numbers of clerks need to be employed to process patients' claims for charges which they have paid for health services. Only three other EC countries provide free and universal access to both GPs and hospitals. Our record is very good.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in 1979 we spent £22 billion and in real terms we are spending here a total of £35 billion? That is an increase not of 6 per cent. or of 8 per cent. but of 57 per cent. in real terms in this country. Is that not a fine result?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right, and of course we have also given a cast iron commitment in our manifesto that spending will continue to grow.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is the case that the National Health Service is an efficient organisation and it always has been? Will the noble Baroness explain therefore why the Government have spent the past few years messing around with it? In particular, will she explain why their interventions have been based on American ideas in view of the fact that America, which has a market-driven system, is
8
universally regarded as having the least efficient system of health provision in the world? Why do we not stick to our own methods instead of undermining the service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, our system is very different from that which exists in the USA. I thought that the noble Lord was trying to draw an analogy with the USA. I am saying that our system is very different. If one looks at the system in the USA, there are between 30 million and 40 million people who are uninsured and who have no access to health care.
However, the OECD document praises our reforms. It says that the improvement in the annual rate of efficiency gains has been considerable; that we have had a surge in hospital activity, including a doubling in the rate of increase of day cases; that the success of fundholders as purchasers is to be applauded; that the focusing of DHAs' attention on local health needs and priorities is to be commended; that the initial encouraging indicators regarding the performance of trusts is also good; and that in our The Health of the Nation policy we lead the world.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, while the case can always be made out for increased spending on our NHS, will my noble friend endorse the fact that we need to ensure that the increasing resources which this Government have made available to the NHS are spent wisely and efficiently and that that requires good management? We are lucky to have so many dedicated and devoted managers in the health service backing up and supporting the clinical staff.
Will my noble friend take this opportunity also to repudiate in the clearest possible terms the absurd and wholly inaccurate and alarmist assertion made by Labour's shadow health minister in an article in the Evening Standard today that Guy's Hospital is to close? It is not closing. Indeed, the very expensive building to which she refers in the article is to be used broadly for medical care as was always planned.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right in his assertion that the National Health Service needs good managers. In fact, managers have delivered many of the reforms, albeit that they represent only 2 per cent. of the NHS workforce and 3 per cent. of expenditure on salaries and wages.
With regard to the future of Guy's Hospital, there is nobody better placed than my noble friend for he is the chairman of the board and clearly knows what lies in the future.
I believe that it is very wrong that the Labour Party should make those allegations when one realises that it was the Labour Party which cut NHS spending by 2.8 per cent. in real terms, the only real-terms cut in total NHS spending in recent history. It was the Labour Party which cut capital spending when it was in power by nearly 30 per cent., whereas we have increased it by over 70 per cent. in real terms. It was the Labour Party which cut nurses' pay, whereas the Conservative Party has increased nurses' pay by 52 per cent.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, do not the figures from the OECD simply confirm the criticisms of the health service and its spending which have been

9
made by experts in the field, including doctors and nurses? Therefore, would it not be as well for the Government now to accede to the request that I made before the Summer Recess; namely, that we have a Royal Commission into the working of the health service so that there can be no doubt as to who is right and who is wrong?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in its economic survey which was published in July of this year, the OECD said:
"The NHS was and is a remarkably cost-effective institution. It achieves comparable health outcomes with other large OECD countries".
There is no doubt that, compared with the rest of Europe, we use our resources extremely well and that the health of this nation is improving.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister give the same assurances to Baits Hospital as she has just given as regards Guy's?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, the future of Barts Hospital is still subject to consultation. No decisions will be taken until that process is complete.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister recognise the fact that it is very easy to score party points on such an issue? However, if she will look at the Southampton study, about which she is aware, and study the report of the Financial Times on it she will see that on the balance of argument the United Kingdom is falling sadly behind. Can we look at it from an impartial point of view as it is matter of universal concern, rather than being given wholly biased figures such as those produced by the Minister this afternoon?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no body more impartial than the OECD, and it has given this country a clean bill of health.

Demonstrations: Planned Disruptions
3.3 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to adopt measures to prevent those planning deliberate confrontations with the police from taking part in peaceful demonstrations.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): No, my Lords. There are already sufficient powers which provide a range of measures to deal with those planning acts of violence.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, surely it would be quite easy to distinguish, in the first place, between a peaceful protester and someone carrying a CS gas canister, a brick or a pointed stave, and to exclude such people from the demonstration. Further, has my noble friend the Minister any information on a publication entitled, Keep it Spikey, which has been described by the police as,
"a blueprint for a riot"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not always easy for the police, in advance of a protest procession, to know precisely who will be carrying the gas canisters and who will be lobbing the bricks. Where the police have advance warning, measures are available to them to take action. However, they have the most incredibly difficult task and the level of provocation —as, for example, on October 9th—is sometimes very serious. Indeed, the police are still in the throes of dealing with that incident.
I am afraid that I need reminding of my noble friend's second supplementary question.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I referred to the document, Keep it Spikey.
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords, I have the document with me. All I can say is that the literature that was passed round by Class War in advance of the protest on October 9th is really quite dreadful. Again, it could be subject to charges by the police. However, it is for the police to take such a decision.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that it is already the practice of the police to draw to the attention of the organisers of such demonstrations the likelihood—and sometimes chapter and verse on numbers of demonstrators—that there are those whose only purpose is to be violent and to disrupt the activity? Further, does the Minister share my view that it is for the organisers to consider carefully whether they are able and willing, through their own stewarding, to contain those activities? If they do not do so, should they not carefully consider whether they should continue to use the demonstration as a means of giving effect to perfectly proper political activities? Finally, will the Minister invite the police to make more explicit to organisers of demonstrations their obligations and responsibilities in that respect?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. I believe that we have a proud reputation in this country for allowing free and peaceful protest. I can also say that the police have a very proud record of working with such organisations to ensure that there is proper stewarding and that the routes are properly worked out. Indeed, on 9th October the police had a good deal of discussion with the organisers of the march. But, sadly, as often happens with such marches, the occasion was marred. A small number of people set out with the intention of being violent and put in peril innocent participants who were trying to make a perfectly legitimate protest in respect of something about which they care deeply.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with deference to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is it really a matter exclusively for the police? Should it not perhaps concern my right honourable friend the Home Secretary? The police have very limited remits and are subject to permission being given by the Home Secretary.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I understand it, the police have the powers to deal with public order and have a whole range of measures available to them.

11
Therefore, it is not for my right honourable friend to involve himself in the operational matters of public order. My right honourable friend has a part to play if the Commissioner of Police wishes to apply for consent from him to ban a march. In that case, my right honourable friend does indeed have a role to play.

Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Iraq and Kuwait.

Northern Ireland: Recent Developments
3.8 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Much has happened over the past few weeks in Northern Irish politics. It is, therefore, clearly useful that the House should take the earliest opportunity to discuss the latest developments. They are important and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his initiative in suggesting that the House should discuss such matters— a sentiment with which Her Majesty's Government wholly agree.
I also hope that the late change in the business has not unduly inconvenienced too many of your Lordships. I shall try to be brief. There are many who wish to speak and there is other business for the House to consider this evening. Therefore, if your Lordships will allow me, perhaps I may suggest that we ought to try to impose some sort of self-denying ordinance as to the length of speeches. I shall try to set a good example in that respect.
As noble Lords know only too well, the past 25 years have seen spilt an horrific quantity of United Kingdom blood and United Kingdom treasure. Neither has the Irish Republic emerged from the troubles entirely unscathed. It is only right that any British Government should put the peace of Northern Ireland at the top of their agenda. After all, Ireland has been the graveyard of many a Westminster political career. Therefore, I am sure that the whole House will admire the courage of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for ignoring that uncomfortable historical fact and seizing an opportunity when he saw it. The Joint Declaration by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach last December created the conditions to achieve an end to all paramilitary violence. It set out the principles which both governments believe can provide a basis for peace and for a political settlement—the principles of democracy and consent. The Joint Declaration indeed received widespread support. Sinn Fein and the IRA have been unable to achieve their objectives militarily and the Joint Declaration left them isolated. It showed them that the only way forward was by peaceful
12
means—by persuasion through political argument. Her Majesty's Government therefore welcomed the announcement by the IRA on 31st August of,
"a complete cessation of military operations".
But I feel that nevertheless we ought to be clear what peace means. It does not mean giving in to the IRA, for one very simple reason. The majority of people in Northern Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic, Unionist and Nationalist, believe in parliamentary government rather than political change brought about through violence. When they committed themselves to parliamentary government those people renounced other means of achieving their political objectives, whether the club, the flintlock, the Armalite or indeed high explosives. If ever the affairs of the Province were to be settled with Semtex instead of the mere acrimony of party politics, no good reason would remain for the people of Northern Ireland to continue to put their faith in our traditions of representative government.
That is surely one reason why it was so important for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to make the commitment he did to holding a referendum, to give the people of the Province the chance to accept or to reject the terms of any political settlement that might emerge from multi-party talks. Without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland the Government will not adopt any proposals that emerge from such talks. Had such an undertaking not been given, I have to tell the House that I, for one, should have been most unhappy. What is clearly more important indeed is that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister would himself have been most unhappy.
Her Majesty's Government have been criticised in some quarters for moving too slowly towards accepting the bona fides of the IRA. I must say I am astonished that such criticism should be made. After all, subjects of the Queen, police, soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Queen have been subjected for 25 years to the horrors of a particularly nasty guerrilla war conducted by at most a very few hundred gangsters wrapping themselves in the Irish tricolour and in doing so defiling it. It is entirely reasonable for us therefore to exercise due caution and to ask for some evidence that they accept that the only way the Province should be governed should be by peaceful and parliamentary means. Not to be cautious would be to raise perhaps false hopes needlessly and would be to play a cruel trick on the people of Northern Ireland who after all, as this House knows perhaps more than most, have endured so much, so courageously for so long, and indeed on the security forces whose skill, bravery and restraint are, as I am sure the House will agree, beyond praise. It is only fair too that we should apply the same degree of caution to last week's declaration from the Loyalist paramilitaries, which nevertheless I believe saw another extremely important part of the jigsaw falling into place.
We ourselves of course have begun to respond to the encouraging calm that has descended on the Province. We have opened a number of border crossing posts; our soldiers now wear berets instead of helmets; and, perhaps more important still, we have lifted the broadcasting ban so that now supporters of terrorism must expose themselves to what I believe Mr. Enoch

13
Powell has called "the power of debate". Indeed, before any party can take part in the processes of parliamentary government we would expect it to comply, too, with the accepted canons of the Westminster model of parliamentary government. This means not just that electors should vote, late or early, only once. It means that parties and their associates should not hold stocks of weaponry stashed away in case the voters do not support them. It means that they should leave the maintenance of law and order to the police and to the courts and should themselves support the law.
When as a result of their words and deeds, and more particularly in this instance their lack of deeds, and when we can be confident that the IRA has given up violence for good, we are prepared within three months to enter into exploratory talks with Sinn Fein. These talks would examine the practical consequences of the ending of violence. They would examine the basis on which Sinn Fein would be admitted to political talks and they would be a means of exchanging views on how, over a period, Sinn Fein might play the same role as the existing constitutional parties in the public life of Northern Ireland.
Your Lordships will also be aware that over the past 12 months we have been engaged in two parallel sets of discussions. The first set has been with three of the main constitutional parties in the Province. The second has been with the Government of the Republic with the object of reaching a shared understanding of what characteristics a settlement should possess if it is likely to attract broad support in the Province.
The latter set of discussions has, I know, set all sorts of alarm bells ringing in unionist minds. I use the word "unionist" with a small "u" to cover many members of my own party, as well as others. I, perhaps more than many Englishmen, understand that. After all, there is no point in hiding the fact from your Lordships that I was one of those very few who voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement in another place in 1985. However, I remind your Lordships that the Government's interest is to find common ground between the interested parties that can form the basis of a settlement we can put to the people of Northern Ireland. We are not—it is worth emphasising this—in the business of cooking up deals or seeking imposed solutions. The Ulster Unionist Party and other parties will be participating in any talks leading up to any proposal for a settlement. The Ulster Unionist Party has been engaged for the past 12 months in the bilateral discussions to which I have just referred. It has an opportunity to resist proposals it regards as unacceptable, and the people of the Province will have what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister called "the cast iron guarantee" of the referendum. Indeed, my right honourable friend the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party was quoted last week as saying,
"there is no possibility of us being betrayed".
I do not know about your Lordships, but I hope that reassures the unionists with a big "u" and a small "u".
Finally, many who support the Union—my noble friend Lord Tebbit I think is one and I am sorry to see he is not in his place today—have expressed the fear that all this is a smokescreen. Under its cover we are thought to be proceeding down a slippery slope of small
14
concessions to the Nationalists which, when the smoke clears, will reveal us to have conceded de facto joint authority in Northern Ireland as a half-way house to complete unification. I was delighted therefore when on 25th April last Mr. Spring, the Irish Foreign Minister, said,
"Joint authority is not being considered".
Indeed such an authority cannot and will not form part of any settlement, covert or otherwise, so long as the people of Northern Ireland reject it. And indeed there appears to be no foreseeable prospect of their accepting it.
The House will know—many of your Lordships better than I —that the people of Northern Ireland have made a great contribution to the United Kingdom in both peace and war. Most of them undoubtedly wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom, a desire which I believe is by no means limited to the Protestant side of the Community. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said at a certain party conference in Bournemouth last week:
"we are glad of it: it is a strength and an inspiration".
We are not indifferent to those sentiments. However, if the people of Northern Ireland come to want to leave, although nobody would be more sorry than I, we would wish them Godspeed and would not stand in their way.
Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to secure a lasting peace; but it must be a peace which is properly obtained. I have tried to emphasise this afternoon that there have been no secret deals. However, for such a peace to last it must be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, both Unionist and Nationalist. Both parts of the community must feel that they have a proper stake in society and a fair say in decisions that affect their lives. The principles of even-handedness, agreement and consent which are exemplified in the Joint Declaration will continue to be our guide.
We have made a start. We can only hope for success. We ask for the prayers of all to help us towards that success in the weeks and months to come.
Moved, That this House takes note of recent developments in Northern Ireland.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
3.21 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House started his speech, he referred to the fact that I had asked for this debate. That is true. It seemed to me to be sensible that at this stage this House should examine what has happened and the prospects for the future.
I say in no spirit of rancour to the noble Viscount that I wish that he had given us a more generous overview of where the Government now see the prospects. He reminded us that he was one of those who voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. One respects him for the vigour and continuity of his views. Having heard his speech this afternoon, I can understand why, holding those views, he voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

15
Perhaps I may begin by giving the Government credit (which they deserve) for what has happened so far in relation to Northern Ireland. So far the negotiations, such as they have been, have gone well. I believe that credit deserves to be given, and I am happy publicly to give that credit.
I should also like to give some credit to somebody who was not mentioned by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House; namely, John Hume. We do not know precisely what happened in the discussions between Mr. Hume and Mr. Adams. I have not seen the famous document which both of them are supposed to have signed, and I do not know whether the Government have had sight of it. But there is no doubt that Mr. Hume played a considerable role in changing the atmosphere and in producing a situation in which the IRA could make their declaration.
The only certainty about affairs in Northern Ireland at present is that they are moving. Change is not only taking place, but it seems to be accelerating. Yesterday the sight of Mr. Ervine of the Protestant paramilitaries and Mr. McGuiness for the IRA on the same television programme, although not yet in the same studio, was a sight which I did not expect to see happening quickly. Indeed, it would have been inconceivable a few weeks ago.
The news last week that the Protestant paramilitaries were giving up their campaign of violence was extremely welcome. After all, it is the first time in many years that Northern Ireland can look forward to a period in which sudden death is not the normal day's news. It therefore behoves us now to look at the situation as objectively and dispassionately as we can. We owe the people of Northern Ireland our analysis and our judgment as well as our prayers and our hopes.
The first issue that has to be addressed is the genuineness or otherwise of the ceasefire. It seems to me that, so far as the Protestant paramilitaries are concerned (as, indeed, they have said), provided the IRA ceasefire holds the likelihood of a resumption of violence by them is small. If that is so, the question remains whether one can now accept the permanence of the IRA's cessation of violence. The fact that the word "permanent" has not been used is probably now not very important. Indeed, as time passes and the ceasefire continues to hold the non-use of that word becomes increasingly less significant. Last week the Secretary of State said that there was now a presumption of permanence. I prefer to say that there is now a presumption of the continuation of non-violence.
On the other hand, the statements made by Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuiness, which I found disturbing, are also significant. We must not forget them when we consider the totality of the situation. What Mr. Adams said to the Boston Herald 10 days ago was disturbing. He said that no one could guarantee:
"that two or three years up the road, if the causes of conflict aren't resolved another IRA leadership won't come along".
Mr. McGuiness, when asked whether the ceasefire was permanent, contented himself with saying rather tritely:
"nothing in life is permanent".
16
That is true, but it does not advance the political process a great deal.
Therefore, I believe that the Government have been right to be relatively cautious in their acceptance of the words used by Sinn Fein. But, as I said earlier, words now matter less than deeds. It may be that within the ranks of the IRA itself the possibility of the use of the word "permanent" had provoked a major political row. We do not know, and I am happy to say that I have no means of inquiring. However, the longer the ceasefire exists the more one is entitled to treat it as being permanent.
The Government have said that exploratory talks will be held within three months after they have sufficient indications that the IRA intends the ceasefire to be permanent and there has been "a period of verification". It has been said that the period of verification has already begun and that the Government are waiting less for a specific form of words from the IRA than for a feeling that Unionist opinion is ready for those talks to begin. If that is so then, again, as more time passes without violence, and particularly after this weekend, that approach becomes less demanding. While the Government were right to be cautious in their response to the IRA ceasefire, it is also right that today we should be cautiously optimistic about the possibilities of those ceasefires holding. We should therefore now look forward to the next stages in the peace process rather than over-analysing what has already taken place.
I should like to say a word about the security forces. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House was right— and I echo his sentiments—to pay tribute to what the security forces have achieved over the past 25 years. It is great, and their contribution has been massive. I do not think that this is the time for scaling down the security forces in Northern Ireland. It is right that the Government again should be cautious as to the way in which they approach the question of how many soldiers are needed in Ulster. I am sure that it is also right that the Government should reject any suggestion of demilitarisation of Catholic areas alone, as some Nationalists have demanded. That would be not only divisive, but I believe that it would be totally unacceptable.
However one looks at the situation in Northern Ireland, the Province is still deeply divided. I was shocked the other day to find that well over half the population of Northern Ireland live in wards that are more than 90 per cent. Catholic or 90 per cent. Protestant. Ever since its creation people in Northern Ireland have been divided in their national allegiances. Those divisions express themselves in voting, culture, education, and also, until recently, in overtly discriminatory treatment of one community by the other. Economic inequality still exists in Ulster and there is no point in denying it. There are strong disagreements over policing and the administration of justice. Thus although the threat of violence may be removed, we are still faced with the realities of those divisions. It will take generations to overcome that legacy of history. However, the best opportunity of so doing almost certainly lies in economic terms. If Northern Ireland were to become more prosperous, if job opportunities

17
were greater and more equally shared, then some of those ancient divisions and antipathies might begin to abate.
There are still far too many arms on both sides in the Province. Somehow in the course of the negotiations such arms have to be brought under better control. Do the Government insist on a surrender of weapons and explosives by both sides, or at least on mutual and balanced disarmament? Do the Government foresee that as an issue to he raised in the negotiations in the short-term; and, if so, how? Indeed, I ask the Government this question: is that insistence to be a prerequisite to the negotiations even beginning? That is an issue upon which we are entitled to ask the question and to receive an answer.
There is still much to be done, but at least now there is a real prospect that some of those issues may be tackled against a background of peace and for that we are, and should be, extremely grateful.
The two Governments are in the process of preparing a framework document. Perhaps I may say this to the Government. They should not expect to be able to please all sides. Indeed perhaps the best outcome—-at least to start with—would be that dissatisfaction with that framework document should be evenly spread. It is far better that all sides should feel mildly dissatisfied rather than that one should feel grossly so. Perhaps I may say one further word of caution to the Government. Do not be too optimistic on the political side. It is unlikely that the problems in Ireland will be solved in the short term. We are at the beginning of a process. We are nowhere in sight yet of a solution.
However, when the framework document emerges— and I shall be grateful for more information about it from the Minister who will wind up—the issue of acceptability of any proposals by a majority of the people in Northern Ireland is, in my view, fundamental. The majority, as well as the minority, in Ulster have rights. One should never forget those rights. The principal right that the majority has derives from the fact that it is the majority community and that therefore it is entitled to have its approval sought. I do not believe that Government could conceivably accept an obligation to persuade the Protestants in Ulster to accept a united Ireland. Mr. Bruton, the Fine Gael leader, writing recently in the Irish Times, stated:
"The only united Ireland worth having is one that is not only consented to, but is actively desired, without coercion of any kind, by all the major communities on the island. That is what I am working for. Anything less than that would bring tragedy and strife to the whole island. That is why I so strongly object to the Sinn Fein idea that the British should do the 'persuading' for them. Not only is this concept dangerous in its practical implications, it is unworthy of any self respecting Irish person. It is a form of inverted colonialism. It is, quite literally, shameful. We must be men and women enough to do our own persuading, without threat, coercion or outside pressure from Britain, from America or anywhere else".
I find that argument totally convincing.
For centuries Ireland has been a divisive force in British politics. Perhaps it is true that the English have never truly understood, or perhaps really tried to understand, Ireland or the Irish. Perhaps it is true that the memory of 1916 is still too alive on both sides of the Border. But it is also true—and that is the importance of
18
today—that for the first time in generations there seems to be a glimmer of an opportunity to produce a lasting settlement. Perhaps this time Ireland really is at one of those crossroads in history about which people talk, perhaps too glibly. But, if it is, I hope that we have learnt the lesson that a settlement in Ireland can come only from the Irish themselves. It certainly cannot be imposed by Westminster or, for that matter, Dublin; and certainly not from Washington. The process is now launched; and for that we should all be profoundly grateful.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, perhaps I may add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for suggesting the debate, and to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for acceding to it. For those of us accustomed to discussing Northern Ireland in the interstices of parliamentary business at strange times of the night, it is useful to be able to do so in peak time, as it were. It is also a particular pleasure to hear the noble Viscount, with his personal and ancestral interests in the issue, introduce the debate. Many noble Lords will have listened to what he had to say with particular interest, given his long commitment to the affairs of Northern Ireland.
It is sometimes said in Belfast that an optimist is someone who has not heard the news. I believe that this is one of those occasions when the news is good. We are allowed to be hopeful, and to feel a sense of opportunity not just for Northern Ireland but for Anglo-Irish relations, which have been bedevilled for so many centuries in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, described.
We should give credit to the paramilitaries who have stopped shooting. We should give even more credit to those intermediaries, some highly visible like Mr. Hume—the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to him— and many more who remain invisible but who have worked so hard to bring about this truce—this cessation of violence which we hope is something more. This development has been a great success for the two Prime Ministers. From these Benches I should like to pay a quite unqualified tribute to what the Prime Minister and Mr. Reynolds have achieved together. They have advanced a long way along the path to peace. It would be appropriate, too, to mention the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his team, and Mr. Dick Spring who has played such a notable role as Irish Foreign Minister.
I emphasise the understanding between the Governments. No negotiation—we now look forward to a process of negotiation—works unless there is a centre at the heart of it which holds together. That is the lesson of South Africa and the Middle East; it is the lesson that we should learn. Negotiations cannot succeed without a centre—a place where the agreement that has been constructed matters more than the misgivings of the nervous and the militant on the respective wings of those concerned.
In Northern Ireland that centre should be constituted by Mr. Hume and Mr. Molyneaux, the leaders of the SDLP and the official Unionists, and by the coming together of the Unionist and nationalist positions in

19
realistic discussion and realistic negotiations. But, of course, both those gentlemen face outward to the world, to their respective sponsors, to the United states and to their respective communities. We have not yet reached the point where they face towards each other to talk to each other and become the centre about which I speak. The only centre of these putative negotiations is the two Governments. In that context it seems to me more important than anything else that the two Governments hold together.
I am one of those who takes the view that the Joint Declaration is a major step forward in Anglo-Irish negotiations. I believe that the declaration is more realistic than the Anglo-Irish Agreement which preceded it. It seems to represent a firm basis for progress. However, it is worth while spelling out what that declaration means because it is the deal that dare not speak its name. It needs spelling out to avoid the negotiating process becoming one of mutual misrepresentation.
I believe that the Downing Street Declaration means that the unity of Ireland becomes a legitimate but long-term aspiration which is achievable only peacefully, by consent. Mr. Reynolds himself has put the timescale at more than 20 years, but it may be much longer than 20 years; it may never come. It may be achieved so far ahead that the context, both European and global, will have totally changed by the time that it does come.
Those who want the unity of Ireland as an immediate objective have a painful step to take, which is to accept that it has become, instead of an immediate objective, a long-term aspiration. But—and this is an enormous "but" —the Unionists, safe behind their referendum, to which the noble Viscount referred, have themselves to come to terms not only with the legitimacy of the aspiration for the unity of Ireland but with sharing power in Northern Ireland, protecting the rights of the minority in Northern Ireland and finding new forms of pan-Irish co-operation, particularly on the economy and infrastructure where there are such great steps forward in prosperity to be achieved, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said.
One only has to voice that obvious trade-off as explicitly as I have done to see how steep the hill ahead still is. It is good that we have reached this point, but anyone who now gives way to optimism has not heard the news, has not heard the entrenched attitudes that exist to be overcome. They have not realised that the Joint Declaration, in the terms in which I have just described it, presents hard challenges to both communities. So we need all the more convergence and initiative at the centre between the governments.
I can understand what has gone on over the past seven weeks, the case for role-playing, with the Taoiseach "cementing" Mr. Adams into the peace process and with Mr. Major reassuring Unionists and Loyalists. But the definite sense of caution in the United Kingdom is now palpable. I for one, as spokesman for my party, have been anxious to support the Government in their caution. I think that there has been every reason to be cautious about the IRA; but the time has now come
20
when the Government should use a little less caution and be prepared to move the momentum forward. After all, it is now nearly seven weeks since the IRA ceasefire.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that if people do not voice the right words, then one must judge them by their actions. Their actions have been of maintaining the ceasefire. Now, crucially, the Loyalist paramilitaries have followed suit. The Loyalist paramilitaries must themselves have made their own judgment of the seriousness of the change of strategy by the IRA. Mr. Molyneaux has clearly made that judgment because he thinks that the time has come to move on to the next stage. So I think that the Government ought now to consider changing gear. First, they should accept that however natural the suspicions we all share about Sinn Fein and the IRA leadership, the ceasefire represents a serious change of strategy, at least on their part.
If the Government decide in the near future that the IRA and Sinn Fein are serious, could they not wind the clock back and take the time which has already passed into account so that talks can start in five weeks from now? That would mean talks before Christmas, rather than losing momentum with a further three months' probation. Let us just dwell on that. The point of the three months was to establish that they were serious. Let us not double count. Once we have decided that they are serious, once we have decided that this is for good and for real, why can we not get ahead and get the process moving before Christmas?
Thirdly, and I think most important, is that Mr. Major and Sir Patrick Mayhew should move on from questions of process, which have consumed us ever since the ceasefire was declared, to issues of substance—the disarming of paramilitary organisations to which both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord referred, matched by prudent, step by step measures of demilitarisation. I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said about the IRA not becoming the de facto civil power in Nationalist areas. It is vital that that should not happen. But by the same token, the Government need to look carefully—as I know they have over many years without much success—at the composition of the RUC which is so overwhelmingly Protestant in its membership that many Catholics doubt it. Of course, we all know the reason for that: Catholics who tried to join it have been lent on by the paramilitaries, the terrorists. Now, in the situation of the ceasefire, any activity which tends to deter people from joining their own civil police force in a civil society should be looked on particularly askance.
Further, the time has come to consider a comprehensive review of all emergency security legislation which impacts on human rights. The great danger is that we take the security issues one by one; they seem to be concessions to the IRA rather than being a response to the new situation. There is a great danger in this country, as several noble Lords know: the Official Secrets Act was introduced as a temporary measure during the First World War and yet it is still with us. The danger is that after some of the emergency legislation is needed, it hangs on in a perpetual twilight.

21
How much better that the Government should look at it comprehensively, rather than item by item in response to the new situation as it develops.
Most important of all, I believe that a draft of the framework document for the future government of Northern Ireland should be published for early discussion by the politicians and people of Northern Ireland. We should recognise that the name of the game is not enthusiasm. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, we cannot expect either community to respond to the framework document with enthusiasm. We are not seeking enthusiasm, we seek acceptance. If we are to have peace in Northern Ireland, pretty well everyone will have to accept what is from their point of view the second best. The sooner they are able to accept that reality, the better.
What will that framework document say? It will say something, I hope, about devolution. It is preposterous that we are considering the detailed governance of Northern Ireland in this House and another place late at night, as we do. Those are issues that should be decided by Northern Irish people in Northern Ireland. We need devolved government in Northern Ireland. We need devolved government on the basis of some system of sharing power between the two communities. Let no one tell us that it cannot be done, it has been done in Holland and Belgium and it can be done in other places. We need a Bill of Rights that enshrines the legitimacy of both traditions and protects minorities. When the noble Baroness replies, I should be interested if she would address herself specifically to the prospect of a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. I speak as someone who has long been committed to a Bill of Rights in the United Kingdom; but I do not think that that argument should be used on this occasion. It is one of the few measures that unites all parties in Northern Ireland, it is generally acceptable in Northern Ireland and could form part of the solution there. I should be interested to know whether the Government are prepared to act on the matter.
What we are really looking for in the framework document is the outline of a constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland. Rather than going down the path, which is a cul-de-sac, of joint authority and involvement by the Irish Republic and the government of Northern Ireland, I wonder whether we should rather think of the role of the Irish Republic being that of guarantor of the new constitutional settlement.
I urge the British and Irish Governments to be positive and clear with Mr. Molyneaux and Mr. Hume respectively. I urge Mr. Molyneaux and Mr. Hume to determine to make the compromises that are necessary for peace.
One of the sad aspects about Northern Ireland of which the noble Baroness will know is the extent to which so many active middle-class people have given up politics and dropped out, upset by the raucousness of the political debate and the extreme sectarianism. They have gone to enjoy contented professional and business lives in suburbs where they do not see much violence. If nothing else, let us hope that now the process of rational discussion is moving forward, they will be attracted back into the political process, both in local government
22
and in government for the Province. It is particularly important that the voice of non-sectarianism be heard, as well as of the formal representatives of the two communities. The Alliance Party has made such a contribution. We should think of the role of integrated education. We should address ourselves to people who do not care to be lined up forever in a column that is labelled "green" or "orange".
Peace, power-sharing and mutual respect will not in the end be created in Northern Ireland by politicians or by constitutional devices, however fundamental those are. They will be created by a change of culture, by a gradual, long-term, incremental sense of moving away from the culture of victimhood that is shared by both communities and by starting to create the new era of confidence and co-operation which I now believe is within our reach.
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for making this debate possible this afternoon.
As an Ulsterman and a native of Belfast, I find it somewhat moving and a cause of great thanksgiving to be able to speak in such a debate as this, which for the first time in 25 years is being held against a backdrop of non-violence in Northern Ireland. It is personally moving for another reason, and I hope your Lordships will recognise the unique position in which I find myself. As I look round this House today, I see many noble Lords who, as former Secretaries or Ministers of State for Northern Ireland or as Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland, have served my homeland with political distinction and personal courage. I welcome the opportunity that is provided by this debate of expressing genuine gratitude to them, and indeed to all those who for the past 25 years have been working tirelessly for peace in Northern Ireland.
The cessation of violence on the part of the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries is to be warmly welcomed, but it is, as it were, the "copper bottom" on the strenuous efforts for peace on the part of trade unionists, industrialists, Church and community leaders and those small but significant communities, like Columbanus and Corrymeela, to name but two of very many, which have not only held the vision of peace but have practised it across the political, sectarian and religious divide.
It is not my intention to make a lengthy speech. Such is the experience of Northern Ireland affairs contained within the membership of this House that I want to listen eagerly to, and learn from, the wisdom that will be revealed during the course of the debate. I shall restrict my comments therefore to just two matters about which I feel most strongly. The first concerns what I believe to be the wider context and true perspective in which this debate is being held. I refer to the Downing Street Declaration, which other noble Lords have already mentioned.

23
Misguided people in the USA may project onto the Sinn Fein leader of the role of peacemaker and miracle worker. But to my mind the true miracle workers in this matter are the Prime Ministers of this country and the Republic of Ireland. They are the true focus of hope.
The media has tended to emphasise the so-called "Adams factor". But the truth of the matter is that in Northern Ireland Mr. Adams, as president of Sinn Fein, represents only 10 per cent. of the voting population and in the whole of Ireland less than 5 per cent. Unlike John Hume, who, whatever reservations some of us may have (and some of us do have reservations), will come to the forthcoming discussions with an honourable and consistent record of seeking peace, Mr. Adams, by contrast, carries in his pocket the coinage of violence.
"Give peace a chance" has been a repeated refrain and an avowed aspiration over the years. The British Prime Minister and the Irish Taoiseach have responded positively, skilfully, sensitively and, I believe, successfully to such an aspiration. It is they who represent the feelings and hopes of the people of these islands. For the vast majority of the population and all the political parties, with the exception of Sinn Fein and the DUP, support the Downing Street Declaration.
What now needs to happen is a commitment on the part of all people of goodwill to make that declaration work. It needs to be clothed with some form of local assembly. It needs to be clothed with certain necessary reforms, for instance in the realm of law and order. It needs to be clothed with a non-threatening North-South co-operation—with both sides co-operating under the umbrella of consent. Along with the promised framework document, it needs to be implemented without either undue haste or unnecessary delay and with the sensitivity and skill that will forestall the twin dangers of pan-nationalism and pan-unionism.
That brings me to the second of the two matters on which I wish to speak. Over the years successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland have declared that the ultimate resolution of the so-called Irish question has to be found among the Irish people. I believe that to be the case. But those who watched the brief American television clash between Mr. Adams and Mr. Maginnis will have seen a preview of the difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the discussions that will follow the publication of the framework document. Despite what Mr. Adams says, Britain needs to be a facilitator rather than a persuader in these matters. And, to be frank, the task ahead is an onerous one. So far as the IRA is concerned, the armed struggle may have exhausted itself but the struggle itself is not over. There are very many unresolved issues. How easy, for instance, will it be for the Official Unionist Party (let alone the DUP) to sit down with Sinn Fein after what has happened in the past 25 years? If mainstream unionism and mainstream nationalism (in the form of the SDLP) have found it impossible to work together in the past is that situation likely to improve when Sinn Fein is added to the mix?
That is the measure of the task. That is why all who are engaged in it will need our prayers, understanding and practical support. It is an immense challenge. Both
24
communities will be in need of constant reassurance. When unrealistic objectives are not met there will be the usual rhetoric of betrayal. (Dare I mention who will make the rhetoric?) Real interests and possibilities for constructive ways forward will need to be found. Progress will not be possible without change and compromise. Ahead are dangers, risks and wonderful opportunities for creative ways forward. As a senior Irish Church leader has said:
"A new situation exists. We are moving on and we need new maps and new compasses".
But, at the end of the day it is the people of Ireland who will create the environment that will lead to a lasting peace. It was Archbishop Robin Eames who said, a few weeks before the IRA ceasefire was declared,
"An end to violence is a vital step—but only a step, so much more remains to be done. Attitudes will have to change, grievances real and imagined will have to be faced honestly and openly and people will have to learn that the real healing of our community is about much more than an absence of violence".
Sectarianism has been a poison that has seeped into every part of life in Northern Ireland—and the Church has not been free from it. If the present opportunities for lasting peace are to be grasped and built upon, the evils of sectarian attitudes, actions and words must be faced with an implacable determination to eradicate them as fully as possible from the Ulster scene.
It is sectarianism that has permitted and encouraged the politics of confrontation. It has warped the minds of paramilitaries. It has hindered community growth. It has fed fear and uncertainty about the future. It is a problem that cannot be solved by governments. It is a challenge that must be faced by every section of Ulster society. It is certainly a challenge that must be confronted by the Churches in Northern Ireland.
They will find every encouragement to do so through the competent, passionate and courageous leadership of Archbishop Robin Eames, Cardinal Cahal Daly and their fellow Church leaders. They recognise, as we must, that the real mountain to climb is the establishment of the peaceful and just society, to which an end to violence is a wonderful beginning but still only a beginning.
There is a generation of work to be done. There is a spiritual, practical and political task to be accomplished. The prize of lasting peace is a vital one. The spectre of a return to the horrors of the past 25 years is too terrible to contemplate. As the Archbishop of Armagh said in a recent statement to the people of the Province:
"It is a time for Christians of all traditions to renew their faith and confidence in Almighty God that peace with justice for all their traditions can become a reality, if under God we can step forward with a new confidence in each other."
We are only too aware of the complexities and difficulties of the days ahead. There is little room for complacency. There is every need for realism; but our realism must be balanced by hope.
In the days immediately following the ceasefire a message was faxed to the Secretary of the Irish Council of Churches from his counterpart in South Africa. It was an expression of goodwill and prayerful support. It

25
spoke of the grace of God experienced in the midst of the frustrations and difficulties as they set about the task of reconstruction in that land. It ended with the words:
"We can wish our fellow Christians in Ireland no more than to wish for a similar experience of the grace of God at work among the people of that split nation. For this we shall continue to pray. May God strengthen the hands of the peacemakers".
We have seen one miracle this year in South Africa. Just possibly we may be seeing another in Ireland. I am sure that all people of goodwill will join in the prayer: "May God strengthen the hands of the peacemakers".

Iraq and Kuwait
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Iraq-Kuwait which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend Mr. Douglas Hogg, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the situation in the Gulf. I apologise for the absence of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. He is accompanying Her Majesty the Queen on her state visit to Russia.
"Over the past two weeks we have once again witnessed a serious threat by Saddam Hussein to the state of Kuwait and the stability of the Gulf. On 7th October numerous Iraqi troops, including two divisions of the Republican Guards, began to move towards the Iraqi border with Kuwait. At the same time the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council and other Iraqi Ministers made a number of threatening statements against Kuwait and the United Nations inspection teams.
"In response to a request from the Kuwaitis made on 7th October under the terms of our bilateral defence co-operation arrangement, HMS "Cornwall" arrived in Kuwaiti waters on 9th October. HMS "Cardiff has now joined her. Six Tornado aircraft have been deployed; these are in addition to the six previously in the region and engaged in patrolling the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. Her Majesty's Government have despatched the Spearhead battalion to Kuwait. The total number of UK troops on the ground in Kuwait now numbers over 800, building up to over 1,000 by the end of this week. Over 2,000 personnel will be deployed to the Gulf area.
"In the face of the vigorous action taken by Kuwait's allies, the Iraqis are withdrawing their troops. However, it is too soon to say that the threat has completely subsided. Iraqi troops must return to the positions they held before the start of the present crisis.
"As the House knows, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary visited the region from 11th to 14th October. He and the US Secretary of State met the Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Co-operation Council in Kuwait. There was general condemnation of Iraq's latest actions and agreement on the need to prevent a repetition. There was also widespread
26
concern for the continued suffering of the Iraqi people at the hands of their government. We share that concern. The Iraqi Government has rejected the United Nations offer to allow limited oil exports in return for humanitarian aid. The immediate implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712 would bring huge humanitarian benefit to the Iraqi people.
"In order that sanctions can be lifted, Iraq must comply with all relevant UN resolutions, including the unambiguous recognition of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait and an end to the repression of its civilian population.
"The Iraqis must not again pose a threat of this kind. We therefore welcome the unanimous adoption on 15th October of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 condemning Iraqi actions on the Kuwaiti border, demanding the immediate withdrawal of troops recently deployed near the border, and further demanding that Iraq does not use again its forces to threaten neighbours or United Nations personnel. This is an important first step. The Iraqi regime must understand that the international community has both the authority and the will to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. On these Benches we welcome the decision reached in the Security Council on Saturday evening and support Resolution 949 of the Security Council which requires Iraq to pull back from the zone close to the Kuwait border.
However, what is not entirely clear from the Statement is whether that means all Iraqi troops or just the Republican Guards, the elite forces, as was reported in some newspapers. For those of us who have been unable to obtain a copy of the UN resolution, can the Minister clarify the position? Under the resolution, will any Iraqi troops be able to be deployed near the Kuwait border or none?
In the Statement the Minister said that the Iraqis were withdrawing their troops. Can she give a little more information about their current positions? How many troops have now returned to positions held before the start of the present crisis? How many are still in a position which poses a threat to Kuwait?
Turning to the position of the United Kingdom troops, I repeat the Question put by my noble friend last week in a PNQ. Under whose command and control will they be? Is it to be a NATO command structure? In her reply last week the Minister said that the matter was being discussed in Kuwait at that time. Presumably she can now give the House the answer.
Can the Minister also indicate what action is being taken to eliminate the need to keep British troops in Kuwait on a long-term basis? We support the move to take action to deter Saddam Hussein from aggressive action against Kuwait; but we would find it helpful to know what further diplomatic pressures are being

27
exerted on Iraq to recognise the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait. For example, could the Minister report on the latest initiatives of the Russian Government in that respect?
No mention is made in the Statement of what will be the position of the UK Government should there be a need for military action against Saddam Hussein. Is it not vital that in such a case there should be a further United Nations resolution? The French and Russian Governments appear to share that view, believing that there should be no pre-emptive strike without a further resolution. The American Government appear to take a different line. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government's position is?
Perhaps I may make our position on these Benches clear on the subject of sanctions. We support provisions which will allow Saddam Hussein to sell limited amounts of oil in exchange for humanitarian aid. The suffering of the Iraqi people is of Saddam Hussein's own making, not that of the United Nations or of members of NATO. There seems to be some misunderstanding about that in the British press and perhaps the Government can do a little more to try to clear that up.
I make it absolutely clear that we support the Statement's position in relation to sanctions. They should be lifted only when Saddam Hussein complies with all the relevant United Nations resolutions, including the unambiguous recognition of Kuwait's sovereignty. We regret only that the Government saw fit to allow the selling of arms to Saddam Hussein and hope that they may have learnt some lessons from that. With respect to the immediate action being taken, we support the Government in the position as set out in the Statement.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we from these Benches also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which is no doubt issued today due to the fact that the Commons have just returned from an extended Recess. Nevertheless, it gives us the opportunity to have a slight update on the position and for that we are grateful.
In general I have nothing to add to or detract from what was said by my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth at the time of the Private Notice Question last week. I shall therefore confine myself to the additional information contained in the Statement. My questions revolve around the adoption of Council Resolution 949 and the negotiations that took place around that time. I believe that we should go on record—I am sure it will be welcomed on all sides of the House—in commending the excellent job done by Sir David Hannay in the Security Council. He was present during the difficult time when it appeared at one stage as though the alliance was going to start fraying at the edges; when the Russians in particular seemed to be straying from the straight and narrow. Great credit is due to him and his staff for getting the show back on the road.
I concur with what the noble Baroness said in relation to misunderstandings in the British press regarding the ability of Saddam Hussein to obtain humanitarian aid in connection with sales of oil. It is important that that
28
should be stated more clearly, not only in the British press but also to ensure that the press in the Arab world understands what the position is. The danger of misunderstanding among Arab countries in the Middle East is extremely serious. We must remember that at some stage in the future, when Saddam Hussein moves off the scene, we hope to be able to resume our good relations with the people of Iraq with whom this country had a close association for many years. Unfortunately at the moment it appears as though we in the West are deliberately targeting our attacks on the people of Iraq when, as we know, that is far from the truth. However, that is not always apparent in the Middle East.
The difficult situation has been met with determination, patience and some very good thinking on the part of the British Government and the Security Council, and that is to be welcomed.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. Let me try to respond to their questions as quickly as possible. I will furnish the noble Baroness with a copy of the resolution after our discussion this afternoon, but let me say this. In the key part of the resolution, which comes under Chapter VII of the Charter of the UN, the Security Council condemns the recent military deployments by Iraq. Secondly, it demands that Iraq immediately complete the withdrawal of all military units recently deployed to southern Iraq to their original positions; it demands that Iraq does not again utilise its military or any other forces in a military or provocative manner to threaten either its neighbours or United Nations operations in Iraq; it demands that Iraq should not redeploy to the south the units I referred to in the second point or take any other action to enhance its military capacity in Southern Iraq; it further demands that Iraq co-operates fully with the United Nations Special Commission; and, finally, it decides to remain actively seized of the matter. I hope that that clarifies Resolution 949. It also answers the point made by the noble Baroness in regard to Iraqi troops returning to their former positions.
In relation to the position of the Russian Government, I understand from the Statement that was issued after the visit of Foreign Minister Kozyrev to Baghdad on 13th October that the Russians will support a fixed probationary period for the operation of long-term monitoring after Iraq officially recognises the sovereignty of Kuwait and its borders. I understand further that Mr. Kozyrev is addressing the Security Council this afternoon in New York and we shall know more about their position following that speech. We understand that Russia believes six months is an adequate time for verifying the Iraqi intentions. It agrees that the situation must be reviewed. But we should be a little wary of predetermining the length of the probationary period for that ties up our own troops and those of America, France and the Gulf states if we have to wait six months to see whether Iraq complies.
The noble Baroness asked what our forces were doing. I can say that they have taken up positions which will contribute to the defence of Kuwait, if that were necessary, and they continue to exercise with Kuwaiti and American forces. They will remain in the Gulf for

29
as long as they are required to underpin regional security. The UK forces will remain under national command at all times but, as in the Gulf war, the units may be placed under the control of US commanders for day-to-day tasks as the situation requires. I do not see any insuperable problems with that as we have been through all that before.
The noble Baroness further asked, as did the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the Government make quite clear not only to the British press, but also to the press across the world, that we expect full compliance with all the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. She agreed that what has happened in relation to the Iraqi people is entirely the responsibility of Saddam Hussein himself. As I said when responding last week to the PNQ, Saddam Hussein rejected two United Nations offers to allow limited oil exports in return for humanitarian aid. One was the 706/712 mechanism and the other was the flushing out of the Iraq-Turkey pipeline which Turkey desires but which Saddam Hussein refused to do. Either of those options would have brought huge humanitarian benefit to the Iraqi people. I agree with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord and I can say that we have attempted to make these matters quite clear to the press. But, as she will be aware, it is not always the facts of a situation that are printed.
Perhaps I may say further that diplomatic pressures continue. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his comments in relation to the British Ambassador to the United Nations, Sir David Hannay. Throughout the time that he has been in New York he has been coping with elements of the Gulf situation in a most forthright but understanding and effective way. We do indeed owe him a real debt.
There is much to be done to ensure that the people of Iraq obtain the help that they need. We shall continue to support the efforts of the United Nations and non-governmental organisations which are allowed to operate in Iraq. But the plight of the Iraqi people can be rectified only when Saddam Hussein accepts Resolution 706/712 and all the other resolutions.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has answered the questions. However, she has not answered one particularly important question regarding the British Government's position with respect to the need for a further UN resolution should military action be required against Iraq.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness and to the House. I believe that another resolution may be needed but no decision has been taken. Certainly, if it clarified the situation in some way that was necessary, we would have no objection to that. But the most important point is that at this moment we do not believe a further resolution is needed. Should that become necessary I am sure it will happen forthwith.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not a fact that while the present emergency has been successfully
30
overcome—and Her Majesty's Government have been very helpful in so doing—the situation will remain dangerous as long as Saddam Hussein is there?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend in his comment. The Iraqi National Congress has been making efforts to form a united representative opposition to Saddam's regime. We cannot decide the future for the Iraqis but we certainly can make sure that we remain in contact with them and help them to try to assert their democratic rights.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the relevant UN resolutions include those requiring the Iraqi Government to lift their blockade of the Kurdish regions and to stop attacking and persecuting the Marsh Arabs?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer is yes in both cases.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Government point out to the Russians that, if a time limit is imposed, as they have suggested, of, say, six months after the compliance of Iraq with the resolutions and the acceptance of the frontiers, that will make life very easy for Saddam Hussein because all he will have to do is wait until the six months expire and the troops have all gone home and then renew the threat again?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, on that point I agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, one point arising out of the Statement bothers me a little. It calls for a further resolution before any steps are taken under certain circumstances. We know that getting such a resolution often takes a lot of time. If things happen which mean that that delay could be dangerous, I would not like to feel that we are committed under all circumstances to getting another resolution before we can act.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I did not intend to imply to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in answering her question that we had to have a further resolution. We believe that we could take action at the present time under the previous resolutions and Resolution No. 949. But there may be a change in the situation and therefore the noble Baroness was quite right to mention that. That might be necessary. However, I can assure my noble friend that, with Sir David Hannay at the helm in New York, I have no doubt that we will be all too well prepared should the need arise.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give an indication of what steps the Gulf Co-operation Council has been taking to help Kuwait, whether in deployment or financially, and whether there will be any assistance with the additional costs which Her Majesty's Government will bear on deploying the forces to the theatre?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know that the Gulf Co-operation Council has already agreed

31
on burden sharing in principle. It is still working on the details since the meeting which was attended by the Foreign Secretary on Wednesday of last week. The total cost has yet to be quantified but I may say that our troops are receiving generous support from the host nation. Recalling the generous contribution made by our Gulf friends in 1991, I am quite sure that they would do no less on this occasion. There are still matters to be worked out but there has been no reluctance whatsoever on the part of the Gulf Co-operation Council to support what the Americans, ourselves and others are prepared to do in defence of Kuwait.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Statement which raises some interesting points. I should like some clarification on one point particularly and would ask her to comment on another one as well. Last week we were concerned to hear on the Private Notice Question that no command and control mechanisms were at that time in place. This afternoon we are informed that less than half of the spearhead battalion has arrived in theatre 10 days after the initial request from Kuwait. What is the explanation for that apparent tardiness? Why did it take a spearhead battalion—presumably a rapid reaction battalion—10 days to get less than half its men to the theatre of action, bearing in mind that in 10 days at an average of 10 miles per hour a tank force could progress 2,500 miles, which, far less Kuwait, would take it well into Saudi Arabia? My second point was not mentioned in the Statement but it has been reported in the press that the United Nations resolutions under which sanctions are imposed on Iraq have been complied with by the Iraqi regime and therefore the legitimate basis for sanctions no longer pertains. Given that it has been reported in the press, I am sure we would all welcome the Minister's comments on that report.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I find the noble Lord's questions somewhat surprising. I made it quite clear this afternoon that we had agreed last week that UK forces would remain under national command at all times but that they might, as in the Gulf war, be placed for certain duties at certain times under US command. The noble Lord went on to criticise what he thought was the tardiness of the deployment of the UK forces. It is perfectly true that there are nearly 1,000 spearhead troops—ground troops—in position but he may remember that when I answered the PNQ last week I told him that within 48 hours of the request from Kuwait we had already deployed HMS "Cornwall" and HMS "Cardiff was already under way at that moment and in fact had arrived almost before I had finished answering the PNQ. Given that there are some 30,000 United States troops being deployed in the region, our men are getting there with the equipment they need. And of course there are the 12 Tornados and other support aircraft. So there was certainly no tardiness in the deployment of the UK forces.
The noble Lord asked about United Nations sanctions. Iraq has not complied with the UN sanctions. Saddam Hussein continues to have an abysmal record on all these matters. We have made that clear time and
32
again, as I did in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, earlier this afternoon. Let there be absolutely no doubt. It is Saddam Hussein who will not comply with the United Nations resolutions. Sanctions will not be lifted until the Iraqi regime ends its repression against its own people in line with Resolution No. 688 as well as its aggressive action against Kuwait.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble friend two questions. Does she not agree that regrettably the pigeons seem to have come home to roost in as much as this horrible man has held the allies to ransom? He can take whatever action he seems to want to take, at any time, and thereby cause considerable inconvenience to the West. Does she not agree that had the policy of hot pursuit been permitted to General Schwarzkopf at the time when he had this tyrant on the run we would not be in this position today? On the surrender of Iraq, General Schwarzkopf accepted the signature of surrender from some underlings of this man rather than from Saddam himself. If we had insisted on doing that at least he might have been taken into custody and made to answer for the revolting war crimes which he is believed to have perpetrated. May we be reassured that, if by any chance we have to face or enter into hostilities again with this rotten man, these principles will be remembered and perhaps put into effect?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am mindful of what my noble friend says. However, in these situations it is extremely easy to have what I term 20-20 hindsight. At the time there is no doubt that those who were in command of the situation believed that it would not have been right to have pursued Saddam Hussein to Baghdad, because that is what would have been involved. I know that there would have been a very different situation in this country had we, the Americans, the French and others suffered substantial casualties, which undoubtedly would have been the result of trying to get to Saddam Hussein who remains to this day so completely protected by the revolutionary guard that it would be a very major task indeed. I believe that my noble friend underestimates just what that task is. I note what he said about Saddam Hussein's signature, but I was not privy as to why General Schwarzkopf took somebody else's signature. I shall try to find out and let my noble friend know.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps for a minute I may introduce a slightly discordant note into these exchanges. There is no good reason why the noble Baroness should remember that I was one of few Members in another place who was very doubtful about the action that was taken at the time of the Kuwait-Iraq conflict. Is there not the danger at the present time that we are about to become involved in a tragic farce? There is absolutely no possibility, as Sir Peter De La Billière said, of Saddam Hussein obeying any United Nation's resolution. Can the noble Baroness picture a situation where Saddam Hussein withdraws his troops to their original bases, we bring home our troops and the French

33
and Americans go home, and Saddam Hussein moves forward again? The situation will continue like that unless there is a different approach to this problem.
I have admiration and respect for the noble Baroness, but we cannot go on saying that the death of children through a lack of medicine—while we know that that is the responsibility of Saddam Hussein because of his actions—can be excused by merely saying that it is Saddam Hussein's fault. We must really have another look at this question to see whether there is some diplomatic method through which this matter can be solved.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, given that the noble Lord has been obviously doubtful about the action taken by the allies for as long as three-and-a-half years now, I am anxious that I should learn from him what his possible solution is since nobody—I believe that I speak for all sides of the House in saying this—has come up with any better solution than that deployed by the allies. So I invite him to come and tell me quietly and privately what his ideas are and if they are feasible we shall look at them.
As regards the noble Lord's last point, it is ridiculous to talk about the West being responsible in any way for the state of the children of Iraq. The United Kingdom alone has contributed over £66 million to the United Nation's aid programme. I have just set aside another £10 million this year for drugs and help to those who are most vulnerable. However much the outside world gives, there is no way that all the people who need help will get it when Saddam Hussein himself has been spending Iraq's foreign currency on military procurement, ostentatious construction projects and luxury items for his entourage. That is a sure sign of the blatant disregard which he has for the ordinary people of Iraq, whatever we may do.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one further question of the noble Baroness since the Back Benchers seem to have had their turn. I read a report today saying that there has been the transportation of chemical and biological weapons to those areas where troops are presently deployed in Basra and Nasiriyah. This report comes from a source which is not necessarily reliable; namely, the Supreme Council for Islamic Resistance in Iraq which is based in Tehran. But since this rumour is floating about, it should either be killed or something should be done about it.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I too have seen the report, but I know no more. I can only say that we shall look into it. If there is anything that I have to tell the noble Lord I shall write to him.

Northern Ireland: Recent Developments
4.35 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, perhaps we may return to the subject of Northern Ireland. I start by reiterating what has been said by every speaker so far and that is my delight that there is now no violence going on in Northern Ireland after so many years. That is the
34
greatest pleasure and delight to everybody. I am sure that everyone will join me and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in paying a tribute to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in this regard. He alone among Prime Ministers over the past years has created conditions in which this situation has arisen. Enormous credit is due to him.
However, it is also fair to say that credit is due to successive British Governments over the past 25 years, of whichever party, because they have at last got it into the heads of the IRA that the British people will not give way to violence. A great many people have made that mistake over many centuries, but they should know by now that we do not give way to violence. The real pity is that it has taken so many years and cost so many lives—many of them innocent lives—to get that message through to the IRA. However, that has been accomplished and now we are all looking to the future.
I also agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that the first essential for the British Government is to establish the real thinking behind the IRA and Sinn Fein. Many voices are saying, "The shooting and the bombing have stopped; you must get on with political discussions immediately". Those voices come from Ireland, overseas, from the United States, and from Mr. Adams. All kinds of people are saying that, but I believe that the Government are right to be cautious.
Perhaps noble Lords will consider the following. Which of us would be happy to sit down and conduct negotiations with somebody who has been trying to get something from us by force but who then says "Well, I would like to talk about it instead" yet who refuses to say that he will start again if he does not get everything he wants? I believe that that is called blackmail, is it not? Is not blackmail demanding money with menaces?
Mr Adams is not demanding money, but he has made plenty of demands. Nobody can deny that the menaces are not there. The IRA has enormous quantities of weapons stashed away somewhere. Furthermore, they have a large number of people who are skilled in using those weapons. They are still about. Who knows, but that they may one day say, "We are going to start again". That is why I believe it is absolutely essential that the Government are satisfied that the real intention of Sinn Fein and the other paramilitaries is to talk, to see whether progress can be made and to accept, if necessary—and it will be necessary—a way forward which will not give them everything that they want. If the Government can so satisfy themselves—and I hope that they can—then, as the right reverend Prelate said a moment ago, the real difficulties start.
A great many people seem to think that this trouble has been going on for 25 years. Oh no! Not 25 years. Not even 70 years. Not long after I was appointed to Northern Ireland I was having an informal conversation with some Ulstermen. They were not political activists, just ordinary Ulstermen pursuing their careers and businesses in the ordinary way. I said to them that I did not know how long I would be their Secretary of State. I did not know whether it would be two years, three years or four years. I said that I did not know how much I could do in that quite short time to solve a problem

35
that as far as I could see had been going on for 400 years. One of the Ulstermen interrupted me. He said: "Oh no, Secretary of State, not 400 years; 800 years". Whether he was right or not, I cannot say, but everyone knows that the political differences between the two traditions are long-standing and wide.
One of the disadvantages of the differences being so long-standing is that these difficulties are more or less ingrained into the people from birth. I am sorry to say that there is another one that I would mention. It is that many people are frightened. I do not mean frightened of being shot or blown up. The Ulster people are much too robust and brave for that. They carry on with their ordinary lives and have done for all these years despite all those difficulties. What I mean is that they are frightened of the future.
People of the nationalist tradition are frightened that one day the British Government will succumb to the voices that come from this country—I am sorry to say that some of them come from my own party—and say, "Oh, you must run Northern Ireland just as if it were Sussex or Derbyshire". In other words, they must have local authorities with a great deal of power. The nationalist tradition had that as well as Stormont. They know that what happens if one does that in Northern Ireland is that they are discriminated against. There is no doubt about it. In the days of Stormont and the straightforward system of electing local authorities, they were. I am sorry to say that even when I was there 15 years ago it was still happening.
Local authorities in my day had, and they still have, very little power, but I can think immediately of two examples where a Unionist-dominated local authority sought to exercise its tiny powers against Catholics. That is only 15 years ago. So it is no wonder that those people of the nationalist tradition in the Province who fear that that may happen are frightened. On the other hand, those of the Unionist tradition too are frightened. Although they do not need to be, they are, because they think that one day a British government will say, "We wash our hands of the whole lot of you. Join the rest of Ireland and get on with it".
As I know, and as I am sure all my predecessors and successors know, in Northern Ireland one has to start every speech by saying that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland will not be changed except by the will of the majority. If one does not say that, one is asked why one does not say it. In fact it must be clear, I would hope, to everyone that that is never going to happen. It has been reinforced most recently by the Prime Minister. I am glad to see that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party agrees with that. But my point is that for those two reasons those two traditions are frightened of the future.
If you are frightened and you are in a moderately safe place, even though it may not be as comfortable as you would like, and someone asks you to move, you do not, do you? You stay in your hole because it is safer. When these discussions take place, everyone will have to move a bit. No one will get everything that they want. Everyone has to move, and persuading frightened people to move is very difficult. So I think that there is no
36
question about it: these discussions, when they take place, as I hope they will, will be very, very prolonged. Anyone who believes that the discussions can solve so long-standing a problem in two or three months will be gravely disappointed. I hope expectations that that can be done will not be built up because that will not help, it will only hinder. The discussions will take a very long time.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have to dig deep into his reserves of patience. Luckily he has them. I know that My goodness, he will need them. I cannot foresee or tell the Government what the outcome of these discussions should be. As the right reverend Prelate and others have said, this must be to a large extent for the people of Northern Ireland themselves. It is not for me or any of your Lordships. All that we can do is to thank heavens that the atmosphere is such that the discussions can, I believe, start soon, and give every support that we possibly can to those conducting them.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I too welcome the opportunity to participate in this most important debate following the announcements by Provisional Sinn Fein, the Provisional IRA, and the combined Loyalist military command, to cease all operational hostilities. First we should give credit and thanks to Ministers, both in the Republic and the United Kingdom, to the Province's politicians and to Church leaders in Northern Ireland. There is, as a result, unbounded national relief. The possibility of a permanent peace has been an unbelievable happening to those in Northern Ireland. We all hope sincerely that we have seen the end of Provisional IRA and Ulster Volunteer Force terrorism in our country.
The Official Opposition in Parliament have recently reaffirmed their historic commitment to the unification of Ireland by consent. They support the principles contained in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which states that there can be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of its people and that it is for the people of Ireland alone to exercise their right of self-determination, and they welcome the Irish Government's recognition that that right must be exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
I believe that every word of that statement will be endorsed by Her Majesty's Government. That is of paramount important at this crucial time of peace-seeking. It is now clear beyond doubt that Parliament stands four square behind the democratic principle of that self-determination, and that there is a clear bipartisan policy on that stand. Therefore neither the Provisional IRA nor the Ulster Volunteer Force can exploit any differences between the main political parties if and when the constitutional talks begin.
It is also patently clear that Provo terrorism's goal of a united Ireland is unlikely to be achieved and, in the Taoiseach's words, not even in a generation's time. I believe not in the foreseeable future. With that being understood by all political parties, and that fact

37
gradually sinking in to the minds of the Provisional IRA's hawks, the cautious attitude of Her Majesty's Government is eminently sensible.
We must not underestimate the great problems that lie ahead. So far, a ceasefire has been declared by the Proves and the Loyalists. This could well be only a temporary halt in the Provos' campaign. The advent of peace in the Province is dependent upon them. The Loyalists have been the reactors, and their recent increased militant reactions could well have forced Provisional Sinn Fein to the negotiating table. We must also bear in mind that no permanent ceasefire has so far been announced. Gerry Adams will not use the word, because he cannot guarantee it. Provisional Sinn Fein has not laid down its arms. The Provos are on a command of wait and see, fingers on triggers and safety catches, and sitting on an arsenal of 1,000 Kalashnikovs, two tonnes of Semtex, machine guns and rocket launchers.
The UDA and the UVF waited six weeks before making their cessation announcements, fearing that the Provos' statement could well have been another tactical weapon, a device for rest and consolidation. Some still believe it will prove to be that. But I believe that the Prime Minister's announcement of a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland has undoubtedly helped. Therefore, will the Government discuss disarmament first and prevent the threat of a renewal of violence from hanging over the talks? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have a pistol at his head, the Provisional Sinn Fein will want to make progress for the Provos; constitutional concessions or else. If there is a "working assumption" that the ceasefire is real why not all disarm—the Provisional IRA and the Loyalist military groups—and call upon the INLA to do the same? I believe that the first call should be, "Lay down your arms".
The Provisional Sinn Fein must be made aware of the feelings of the majority of the electorate. Northern Ireland is a democracy, not a dictatorship. Provisional Sinn Fein could have campaigned democratically to increase its political profile and democratic strength peacefully and without the violence of its military arm. It is still free to do so and if its policies gain political credence its democratic strength will be enhanced. That is the democratic path that Provisional Sinn Fein should now announce and take.
We—and especially the Americans—must recognise that the Provisional IRA is not the Irish Republican Army but a military breakaway group whose objective is to obtain a united Ireland by force; Brits out of the Province first and then take on the South. That was hinted at by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. The Provisional IRA has still not renounced that objective. Furthermore, the Irish National Liberation Army is another splinter group of the Provisional IRA and has been determined to prove more militant than the Provos. It is not interested in constitutional talks, no announcement has been made of a ceasefire and it remains a loose and dangerous cannon in the Province.
38
Where do we draw the line showing that terrorism does not pay? The loyalists have seen that Provisional Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, has successfully bombed its way past the ballot box. What will their reaction be if Provo advances are made? They are still suspicious of secret deals. How will the UVF and the UDA be involved, especially knowing that their concern that a foreign country is interfering in their country's affairs? They will want to be involved. If the talks founder, if the Provos are not satisfied and believe that they have been let down and possibly fooled, will they not raise their arms again? A united Ireland is still their goal. Therefore, it is imperative that, even if talks are delayed, consideration is given to a surrender of arms, lifting the threat of killing.
Of course, there is an allied problem. Can Provisional Sinn Fein carry the Provo hawks with them? They are the ruthless criminals, the mafia men who are rich on rackets—protection rackets, black taxis, drug smuggling and dealing —which are all run and controlled from the barrel of a gun. In due course, that problem must be faced too.
We shall be constantly on a knife edge as these talks get under way. A Provisional Sinn Fein official recently threatened that if there was no agreement with Her Majesty's Government—really, on its terms—a new generation of Provos might "act very differently". And, as I have said, all weapons are still at hand.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government have been absolutely right in urging caution as regards the question of the ceasefire. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:
"We are not satisfied at the moment. We do not know for sure that we will ever be satisfied ✶ I think a lot of caution is in order from us. After all, it is our country's people who have suffered. We are going to be cautious and not seize upon the first opportunity to suppose that these people have given up violence for good".
That statement has my total and unfettered support.
With that sensible cautionary stance, I also urge that the Government go slow—if there is any movement at all—on the constitutional changes which may dent or destroy the symbolically important Government of Ireland Act 1920. I am aware of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Downing Street Declaration, enshrining the principle of consent. But I ask the Government not to tamper with the 1920 Act as I believe that serious consequences will follow, for it is the bedrock of consolidation for the Province. I say that because it is unlikely that Albert Reynolds will agree to an unambiguous commitment to remove Articles 2 and 3 from the Republic's constitution, which is its claim to jurisdiction over the whole of the island of Ireland.
When the two governments produce their framework document, which will be the basis on which the talks will take place, there is bound to be a list of demands. Although the generally agreed objective of a devolved democratic institution will be constantly in mind, the likely early demand from Provisional Sinn Fein to obtain some satisfaction for the Provisional IRA will be British troops off the streets and back into the barracks, with prospects of amnesty and prisoner paroles and releases. Therefore, we can foresee a long, wearisome,

39
sensitive and difficult series of meetings treading a path between the two basic desires of Unionists and Nationalists. The Unionists will have no truck with hints of a united Ireland and the Provisional Sinn Fein will want to see a united Ireland on the horizon: otherwise, to them, all will have been lost.
Finding common ground will be a difficult task. I believe that for many months the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has patiently, skilfully and quietly helped to bring us to the prospect of peace in Northern Ireland. His undoubted special legal skills will be required in the months ahead. He knows that he has total parliamentary backing in his endeavours.
Perhaps I may conclude by quoting from the Loyalist Military Command's cessation of operations statement. It states:
"Let us firmly resolve to respect our differing views of freedom, culture and aspirations, and never again permit our political circumstances to degenerate into bloody warfare".
We can all say "Amen" to that.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I too thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for instigating this debate at such a timely moment. Following the Loyalist ceasefire announced only last Thursday, it is even more timely. What prescience.
Among the many who will welcome the developments of the past few weeks will be the men and women of the Armed Forces. During the past 25 years they have been involved in a constant round of emergency tours in Northern Ireland. It is gratifying and a privilege to be able to echo the praise of the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal for all the skill, courage, dedication and commitment which have been the hallmark of the security services during so many years. Nor shall we easily forget the hundreds of servicemen and women who were murdered or injured as they went about their dangerous and difficult tasks. Let us hope that their sacrifice and that of all the other victims of violence will not have been in vain and that peace and prosperity will be found for the Province.
I believe that the Government are absolutely right to approach the new developments with caution and circumspection. Once lowered, even for a short period of time, our security arrangements could not be resurrected instantaneously to full effectiveness. We must of course not forget that the role of the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland is in support of the civil authorities. The Armed Forces have helped to contain the security dangers. Of themselves, they could never achieve a lasting solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. That has been and will always remain a political issue for resolution.
All of us will wish to see the police able to support and maintain law and order without having to be supported by the Armed Forces. But we should not underestimate their task. Even if the bullet and the bomb have been given up, how far will the extremist elements go to maintain their influence and finances by
40
intimidation, thuggery and robbery? Such crimes lie fully in the domain of the police, so they will continue to be hard pressed.
However, scope for Service reductions in the emergency tours and in the large-scale deployment of troops and helicopters in the Province could materialise soon. I am sure that the Ministry of Defence planners have those possibilities very much in mind. But I am sure also that they and the Government have no intention of responding to the ridiculous demands of Sinn Fein that all troops should be withdrawn from the Province and even that there should be not a single soldier remaining. It is outrageous that any parallel should be drawn between the murderous operations of the IRA and the essential activities of the Services in support of the police. Adams was reported to have repeated that demand only last week. I hope that the Government will continue to make absolutely clear their position on that issue.
I hope too that the Government will give the most careful consideration to the size and shape of the defence units and establishments which should form the long-term peacetime Service presence in the Province for so long as it remains a part of the United Kingdom. As elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Service units should undertake training and exercises in Northern Ireland, both flying and ground, demonstrating to those who have representation in Parliament the normal peacetime activities of their Armed Forces.
Indeed, it would be marvellous if we could build in the excellent arrangements which our search and rescue helicopters enjoy in the Republic when they are operating in the South-West Approaches and the eastern Atlantic. Should we perhaps not contemplate joint training and exercises with the Republic, possibly in a United Nations context, in which one day we may be possibly be asked to work together in some distant trouble spot? Apart from any military benefit, such arrangements would do much to strengthen ties across the Border.
I recognise, with the draw-down in the Armed Forces and with the turbulence that has followed in the wake of the series of defence reviews and defence cost studies, that now is not an easy moment to contemplate further adjustments to take account of the need to deploy units and to undertake normal peace-time training in the Province. But I hope that the Government will think carefully about the contribution to normalisation which should and can be made by the Armed Forces as the future for the Province unfolds. I hope that Ministers will soon be able to make clear their position in that regard.
5.5 p.m.
The Marquess of Downshire: My Lords, although I have never given the nomenclature of my speech a second thought, it has occurred to me that the word "maiden" is delicate, which leads me to believe that your Lordships will, in your customary fashion, give me a quiet over.
Perhaps I may say how indebted we are to my noble friend the Leader of the House for tabling this Motion. For my part, I felt compelled to take part for a variety

41
of reasons, not least because of my family ties with the Province, and also because I believe that the events which have brought us to the present position need to be examined full)' so that further progress can be made.
It would be fair to say that Ireland as a whole, as other noble Lords have said, has had a turbulent history and that fact has been emphasised by its continuance in Ulster. There are a multiplicity of reasons for that phenomenon, although some try to award part of the blame to the equivocal manner in which Ireland has been treated successively by England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. I would not subscribe entirely to that view, although I believe that, in establishing a link between England and Ireland, fundamental mistakes were made at the start which are taking many centuries to resolve.
But surely the overriding issue is the establishment of peace in Northern Ireland, allied to the paramount need to give the people a political voice so that they can be heard and thereby take their rightful place in the Union, if it is to be that, and in the wider context of the world order.
It would be quite wrong if the strenuous lengths to which the United Kingdom has gone in endeavouring to preserve the status quo in Northern Ireland as regards its position in the Union were to be jeopardised by hasty moves on the part of any of the participants in those on-going multilateral talks. However, somebody must hold the ring and produce a formula which will be acceptable to all parties. It seems to me that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's suggestion that a referendum could be held in the Province to decide the key issue—that is, whether it is the wish of the electorate to remain in the United Kingdom—is a possible way of establishing its will. Such a process would be both speedy and overtly democratic and would start the process of determining the future of the Province. At the same time, the leaders of the indigenous parties making up the spectrum of Ulster politics must be encouraged to gather round the table in an endeavour to reach at least a compromise which may lead in turn to a more permanent agreement.
Your Lordships may say that that is premature prior to the holding of a referendum. But I believe that, whatever the outcome of the ballot, a need for co-operation will still exist.
Of course, it is inevitable that there are those who pay only lip service to the peace accord. But I believe that the longer both ceasefires prevail, the greater the opportunity for those mavericks to see the advantages which will emerge. At the same time, your Lordships may say that time does not stand still and there is a compelling need for action to placate that element of the electorate. On that valid point, does the opportunity not present itself quite soon to indicate at the very least how a democratic framework for the Province might look?
In saying that, I should like to see the representatives of those organisations who are truly identified with the Six Counties invited to participate. I believe that that is the policy of the United Kingdom Government. For their part, I should like to see a token of the UK Government's earnest in the shape of a solid intention to withdraw that proportion of the Armed Forces from
42
the Province which is over and above what is required for the defence of the realm. However, I would not advocate any move in that direction unless an arms amnesty was announced simultaneously.
There is no doubt that the joint declaration marks a sea change in contemporary Irish politics. The opportunity it affords for all who hold both the Province and Ireland as a whole most dear they will ignore at their peril.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, on behalf of the House, I should like to express our pleasure at the speech just made by the noble Marquess. His family ties are with a most important and beautiful part of Northern Ireland, but also a part of Ireland where the Troubles have shown themselves not only in recent years but over the centuries. The right reverend Prelate spoke earlier and said that it is most important—indeed, it is vitally necessary—that those with a knowledge of Northern Ireland, and not from outside as with many of us, should speak on such matters. He was absolutely correct. It is only in Northern Ireland that the matter will be resolved. The family ties of the noble Marquess are with Northern Ireland. We listened to him with great interest and I hope that we shall hear from him again. Perhaps I may just apologise for arriving late this afternoon. I consulted the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and other Ministers because I knew that I would be late due to the fact that I had an engagement in my old constituency which, as chairman of a charity, I felt that I had to attend.
As a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I should like to pick up one point that came from my successors. They said how important it is that there should be a bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland. Of course, policy and political considerations on other issues are very important, but they are partisan in a contrived sort of way. There must never be that sort of thing with regard to Northern Ireland as there was, though perhaps not contrived, 100 years ago in this House, as the picture on the wall in the Corridor outside shows; namely, the division in the rest of the United Kingdom in relation to politics in Northern Ireland was real and had a great effect on one of the major political parties of the day. That is certainly not something that we should emulate today.
One could try to suggest what has brought Sinn Fein and thus the IRA to their present position. Perhaps they took the advice that I am sure was given to successive Secretaries of State—indeed, it certainly was to me— that there is no military solution in Northern Ireland. If there is no military solution for the Army, there is no military solution for the IRA or the other paramilitary groups. I do not know why such a debate should arise now. With the Loyalists I have some idea. I have had contact, although not in the past two or three years with, oddly enough, the Loyalist paramilitaries. I believe that what has affected them is the realisation, as a result of what the Government and Mr. Molyneaux have said, that there is no deal and that the position of the Union is not at risk.

43
I know that my noble friend Lord Donaldson met Mr. Gusty Spence in the Maze, as I did. He is remarkable man. He was in prison for the murder of a Catholic barman and received an 18-year sentence. My noble friend Lord Fitt knows Mr. Gusty Spence as a cult figure in the Loyalist areas. He has played a part in the matter. We should recognise that fact; indeed, the words that he used were most moving.
On the Union, I have never changed my mind since first confronted with the Ulster workers' strike when the majority community combined together. People tell me that, "You can't hand over Northern Ireland because you have no power to do so". That is so. It would be utterly impossible to hand over Northern Ireland to the South. It might look good on paper, but it could not possibly be done. But, equally, the minority cannot be ignored. Northern Ireland is a place apart, albeit a part of Ireland.
To talk about devolution in the context of devolution for Wales or for Scotland is misconceived. For one thing, the Border is in the wrong place. Of course, there is no right place; but it is in the wrong place. That is something of an Irish-ism. If that were not so, "devolution" would be much easier. As I said, Northern Ireland is a place apart. How the matter of the Union and the position of Northern Ireland can be handled is really at the heart of everything that will be discussed in the months and years ahead.
The Irish Taoiseach has made a helpful statement on the matter, as was pointed out by a previous speaker. However, I have noticed that the leader of Sinn Fein disagreed with it. That raises an issue which will arise time and again during the months ahead. Who speaks for the Irish Government? Is it the Taoiseach and the Tainaiste (the deputy Prime Minister), or is it the leader of Sinn Fein with about 2.5 per cent. of the votes in Northern Ireland but nevertheless with military backing?
I met the IRA with the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, in Phoenix Park at dusk one evening. One gets an eerie feeling in Phoenix Park. At the end of the discussion— and I do not know whether I have ever told my noble friend Lord Fitt this —Mr. Wilson, as he was at the time, raised the question of the position of Gerry Fitt; for example, was his life at risk? He said, "Politicians don't worry us, the men with the guns are the ones that count". Therefore, the IRA do count, as do the Loyalist paramilitaries.
The Union is the stumbling block. As I said, I have met members of the IRA; indeed, I met them twice. My officials talked with them for a long period at the end of 1974 and during the greater part of 1975. The notes of those meetings are available. I looked through them to see what was discussed. At the end of the day what broke up those meetings was the fact that nothing could be given on the Union. The discussion was about how to return to normal life. For example, would they be allowed to carry guns? The answer I gave was that they would have to go to the police station and obtain a licence if they wanted to protect their lives. It is not easy for people on either side who have been involved in killing over the years. They must be afraid that someone will come to their home in the Ardoyne, or wherever, and fire through the front door. It will not be easy to
44
bring about the end of violence in Northern Ireland. The problem is how to get back to normal life. As my noble friend Lord Mason pointed out, there are those on easy money; for example, the shebeens and so on.
My father was a Welsh coalminer but also a soldier in the Irish Brigade. He was present at the 1916 Easter Rising before he returned to France and fought there in an Irish brigade against the Germans. That is a most curious situation to be in. In 1922, at the end of the Black and Tans, let us never forget that one-half of the IRA went for peace while the other half continued with the civil war. There were more people killed in Ireland in 1922 than had ever been killed with the Black and Tans and the British Army.
History lies low over the Province. One keeps thinking about these things and perhaps one should not, but at least one has to bear them in mind when undertaking talks in the 1990s. In looking at my papers I noted that the other matter that was discussed was releases from prisons. In my day there was detention. I wanted to get rid of detention because I regarded it as a mistake. We ended detention but ending detention is a good deal easier than dealing with people who are properly sentenced through the courts. There is the parole scheme and the use of the Royal prerogative. In my view those matters can be handled in the course of time.
I believe we can also handle the role of the Army. In my day, and in the days of my predecessor Secretaries of State, the Army was not in support of the civil power. The RUC was not a good police force. It had degenerated into a paramilitary force. It was at the end of my time and at the beginning of the time of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that the position was reversed after the police had been given larger numbers of men and had received training in normal police work. They are now one of the best police forces in the United Kingdom, but that was not the case at the time to which I have referred.
However, the Army is in support of the civil power now. It is not difficult to reduce the role of the Army and in many ways that is happening already. As regards the emergency battalions, if there were more transport aircraft they could return home but get back to Northern Ireland in a matter of hours. However, as I said, the role of the Army can be dealt with, as can the role of the emergency provisions Act in Northern Ireland. That is not a difficult matter. I noticed that one of the Members of the coalition of the Irish Government, Dick Spring, has announced that he will suggest in the Cabinet—I believe this is referred to as open government—that the relaxation of the rule of law as regards the arrest of members of the paramilitary forces should be ended. Let us never forget that the Irish Government had the most stringent methods of arresting members of the paramilitary forces, but if we used those methods in Northern Ireland there would be the devil to pay. Nevertheless those methods are used in the South of Ireland.
One could not repeat my next comment in Northern Ireland because people would think it was something one wished to do, but if ever there were a united Ireland, I tell your Lordships that the paramilitary forces on both

45
sides would be dealt with in a very harsh manner, if what happens in the South of Ireland at the moment is anything to go by.
In my view the stumbling block is the Union. I admire the Secretary of State. One must not mention people who work for him but his Permanent Under-Secretary was once my secretary and I have a great regard for him. Those people will have put their mind to these matters. I do not know when; the idea of a forum in the South of Ireland will fit in. It appears there is to be a forum again and some of the parties from the North will be invited to participate. I know straight away what the answer will be as regards some of those parties. However, others will attend. Must the forum finish its discussions before there are other discussions in which the British and Irish Governments participate? There will have to be discussion and of course once the discussions start—this is apparent from the papers I have been considering— the Irish Government and the British Government will have to be in charge of them. A discussion with no one in charge—I am not talking about deciding things, but about being in charge—will end in disarray at the end of the first day. Someone must be in charge. Will the membership be the elected parties, participants from both parts of Ireland, the IRA and the Loyalists? What about the INLA, as has been said before? There are many matters to decide.
These days I listen to the "Today" programme in bed, although I did not used to do so. That programme upsets my twilight sleep when it is suggested that if only someone acted quickly this matter could all be over by 9 o'clock, and by tea-time there could be a great conference at which everyone would shake hands. This matter will take a long time to resolve, not because people are naturally "conservative" with a small "c" but because it has been going on for a long time.
There is a new environment and there is a great deal of hope but many people are dead, many people have been killed. Let us never forget the festering that exists in the hearts and minds of many people in Northern Ireland. The right reverend Prelate has reminded me— this had started in the days of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw—that the heads of the Churches came to see me to discuss the situation. I do not think this had happened before the days of the noble Viscount. They were all Ulstermen talking together and I was an outsider. They said, "Never forget what has happened in the past. The pike goes back into the thatch ready to be used at a later date". We have to make absolutely sure that it is not just a case of the pike going back into the thatch, but that we create a genuine peace in the latter years of the 20th century. That will take time but we should not be ashamed of that.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for making this debate possible. I was much encouraged by what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House had to say. I noted that in most of what he had to say he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I believe
46
that if the Government can proceed in the way that the Leader of the House indicated today, supported by the Labour Party, that in itself will be most helpful.
Recent developments in Northern Ireland have been dramatic. For the first time in 25 years we are free from terrorist attack and only we who live in Northern Ireland can really appreciate what this means. We all hope that this removal of terrorist threat is permanent. As of now we cannot be sure of this but I think we all know that the longer it continues, the more difficult it will be for terrorists to get support for further action.
Each one of us in Northern Ireland has been affected to some extent during the past 25 years of terrorist activity but the community generally had learnt to live with this and it became part of life. Determination to overcome terrorism never faltered. It is only after the ceasefire that the growing sense of relief permits us to realise what we had to put up with. We are all now walking with a lighter step and are able to think of other things. But we can never forget that 3,000 people lost their lives from terrorism, including over 1,000 members of the security forces. The scale of the suffering is hard to grasp.
It is not surprising that political progress was almost impossible in face of terrorism. However, with the cessation of violence we can now begin to think and talk sensibly about political development. The change in feeling in Northern Ireland in recent weeks is due not only to the ceasefire. Uncertainty about the status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom has been removed in recent weeks which is an enormous relief to the greater number in Northern Ireland who support the Union.
It would be almost impossible to exaggerate the damage caused by the Anglo-Irish Agreement which was signed in 1985. A treaty was negotiated in secret with the Dublin Government undertaking to consult and involve the Dublin Government in discussions concerning government of part of the United Kingdom. We in Northern Ireland were not consulted; not even the most senior Northern Ireland civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office were allowed to know what was being negotiated. It is not surprising therefore that the unionists—I say unionist with a small "u"—throughout Northern Ireland ceased to trust their government. They asked, "If government can do that to us, what else might they be doing?"
The Prime Minister has now made it clear that the citizens of Northern Ireland have the right to remain in the United Kingdom as long as they wish. What is more, the Government of the Republic of Ireland now accept that citizens of Northern Ireland have the right to remain part of the United Kingdom as long as that is their wish. The Prime Minister in his speech of 16th September has undertaken to consult the people of Northern Ireland by referendum before any new arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland are put into effect.
It is difficult for those not living in Northern Ireland to understand the effect of those statements. We hope that uncertainty about the status of Northern Ireland is now over. It is apparent that that has been a factor in the decision of the Loyalist terrorists to call a ceasefire. I ask Her Majesty's Government to continue to treat us

47
as they have in recent weeks, never again to resort to deceit or underhand dealings, to support the Union in accordance with the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland and not to appear to be neutral. They should not use phrases such as "the Government have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland". That statement caused a great deal of alarm and anxiety.
I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on the skilful manner in which he and the Government have handled Northern Ireland affairs in recent months. His statements have been timely and clearly expressed. The Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew, has understood the difficulties and has contributed much to the changes which have taken place. It is indeed a pleasure to congratulate the Government, in contrast to the many times I have felt it necessary to criticise their policies. Appreciation and thanks are also due to all those who have worked so hard to persuade the terrorists to cease their activities. In addition to those in the headlines there are many others who have worked silently to that end.
The majority in favour of remaining in the Union is now probably greater than it has ever been. Throughout the troubles people have kept a close eye on the political scene in Dublin, and we are now determined that we do not want anything to do with Dublin politics. That is not a sectarian or religious matter; it is the feeling of people throughout the Province, except for a small minority, particularly those who have been held in thrall by the IRA for many years and who have been brought up and taught to be anti-British.
I mentioned earlier the improved atmosphere in Northern Ireland. On Saturday the Ulster Unionist Party held its annual conference. More than 500 delegates attended. It was an excellent conference, with healthy Ulster humour never far from the surface but not preventing serious and thoughtful discussion of important issues. The theme of the conference, "Our duty to the greater number", was taken to heart and the party will be working to welcome all who support the Union. Our leader, Mr. James Molyneaux, Member for Lagan Valley, was acclaimed by all present for the vital and important part he has played in the progress made in recent months.
The question in everybody's minds is, what next? The coming months will be difficult. The Government have to make carefully balanced and thought out decisions. The Prime Minister's statement:
"I will take it in my own time but will not tarry a day longer than is necessary",
commends itself to me. One of his early tasks will be to ensure that hundreds of tonnes of arms and several tonnes of Semtex are accounted for. I do not see how former terrorists can join constitutional politicians in talks while guns and explosives remain readily to hand.
The ceasefire must be built upon step by step. There is much that can be done to improve government in Northern Ireland with democratic involvement. The objective must be to provide fair and equal treatment for all under the laws of the United Kingdom, so that anyone can have any aspiration provided he or she behaves in a peaceful manner within the law.
48
For two years or more it has been the Government's objective to publish a framework document after agreement with Dublin. However, it must be noted that there is still no agreement on that. I took careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said in suggesting that the Government should not attempt to achieve full agreement because that was probably not possible. When that framework document is presented, whether agreed or not, it is to be put before the constitutional politicians who are then expected to discuss and agree future arrangements covering all relationships in the Three Strands but with nothing to be agreed until everything is agreed. I believe that it is far too ambitious to expect agreement to be reached on relationships in the Three Strands at one time, and I beg the Government to rethink the way forward and proceed in a more practical manner. I was encouraged by the Secretary of State's remarks on Thursday last when he emphasised that it is important to proceed step by step.
If we are to achieve agreement on the first stage, which is the development of devolved government in Northern Ireland, it must be recognised that there is no place for Dublin involvement in the internal affairs in Northern Ireland, any more than there is a place for the United Kingdom to interfere with the internal affairs of the Republic of Ireland.
It is clear from statements from Dublin that the Government of the Republic are demanding the setting up of formal cross-border institutions with executive powers. There is almost universal opposition to this, and I beg the Government not to proceed with any such institutions. At the non-political level there is scope for all kinds of collaboration and for working with appropriate bodies in the Republic of Ireland. There is already co-operation at many levels and the ending of violence will accelerate that. Business organisations work closely together; there is collaboration on tourism, and local councils work with their opposite numbers across the border on matters of common interest. At various times I have been involved in such arrangements, and I can assure your Lordships that the ordinary people, North and South, have no problem working together for mutual benefit. The sensible course is to encourage all such informal arrangements and only at a later stage, when experience shows that formal arrangements would be helpful, should any action be taken at the political level.
In the next few months there will be many difficulties to overcome. However, I shall not spend time speculating about those difficulties. Those of us in Northern Ireland understand them only too well. I repeat the words of others that there must be no giving way to demands for the policing of nationalist areas or other such arrangements.
If the Government can proceed with the skill and understanding that they have shown in recent months, then I believe that real progress can be made so that we in Northern Ireland can face the future with hope and confidence.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is now many months since in a Northern Ireland debate I was listened

49
to in stony silence—which in your Lordships' House normally means profound disapproval—when I described my right honourable friend the Prime Minister as a brilliant negotiator for his great achievement of the Downing Street Declaration. I said that I felt that that declaration would break the log jam in the beleaguered Province. I believe that my thoughts on that occasion have to some extent been vindicated.
Seven weeks ago the IRA announced a ceasefire, which is still holding. That is another vital step forward on the way towards Northern Ireland once again becoming a normal and fully integral part of the United Kingdom. On Thursday last we had another piece of good news; namely, the announcement of a ceasefire by the Loyalist terrorists. The latter have always said that they saw their role as responding to the activities of the IRA. In their announcement on Thursday they said:
"the sole responsibility of a return to violence lies with the IRA".
If that sounds as though I condone the actions of Loyalist terrorists, I shall put your Lordships' minds at rest. I certainly do not. But we must all pray and work towards ensuring that violence does not recur.
Over the past 20 years violence has indeed begat violence. The question now is whether peace will beget peace. That is the question which we are debating today. That there is peace, and an economic dividend to go with it, is beyond doubt. That was apparent very early in the process. I have in front of me an article from the Belfast Telegraph of 20th September which states:
"The number of shoppers in Belfast city centre rose last week by 5 per cent. over 1993, as bag searches came to an end in some large stores such as Marks and Spencer and CastleCourt.
'We believe this is directly related to the ceasefire and it's very encouraging', said [the] chief executive of the Belfast Chamber of Trade and Commerce."
At the same time, and almost in juxtaposition, the article states:
"Security firms have continued to recruit workers—despite a decision by some stores to cut back guards following the IRA ceasefire.
"Both Securicor and Group 4 Securitas have placed recruitment ads in the past few days".
I am glad to report that so far as concerns Securicor, I was told by their marketing director only last week that that was still going on. It is a small start to revival, but a start, nonetheless. However, I believe that we would delude ourselves if we thought that peace was so established as to be permanent at this moment. Not using the enormous pile of arms that are available to terrorists on both sides is one thing. Having an amnesty and handing those arms in is quite another. I am sure that the Government are quite right to be cautious on that issue. Permanency, as the Taoiseach said on Thursday, will be achieved only when all the weapons are handed in. There is an obvious temptation to rush at that but if we have learnt anything over the past two decades in Northern Ireland it is that rushing things is counter productive.
In passing, it is in my view sterile to try to look behind the IRA ceasefire and seek to put reasons on it. For now it is an established fact. However, violence has not ceased and what the IRA sometimes refer to as their policing of the nationalist areas continues. The noble
50
Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, spoke witheringly on that; I agree with every word he said. Baseball bats and thuggery generally are still in evidence. That matter must be dealt with.
What really matters is where we go from here, politically. The attitude of mistrust by Unionists of Nationalists and Nationalists of Unionists continues and will remain until a proven, stable democracy exists in the Province. I was heartened by one thing that I heard my honourable friend David Curry say only last week. He stated:
"Local government is the bedrock of democracy".
Therefore I am encouraged, despite what my noble friend Lord Colnbrook said earlier, to repeat my previous thoughts: that stability will not occur in Northern Ireland until local government there is rebuilt. We all know that it is de minimis now. Planning, housing, education, libraries, social services and policing are all centralised. There has been very good reason for that in the past. The majority has so often deprived the minority of its fair share of those services. Memories are long and strong in the Province. The fear that it would do so again is uppermost in people's minds. Let us not forget that the minority is Loyalist in parts of Northern Ireland. The fear of death may have gone, but the fear of deprivation remains.
Would the populace accept increasing the powers of local government? I believe that it would—not, however, based on a rejigged Stormont, or anything else with a built-in electoral bias. That has been tried, and failed, more than once over the years. I should like to see my right honourable friends promote in the framework document a slow but increasing role for local government perhaps on the Scottish or Welsh model, coupled with a strong Northern Ireland Office with reserve powers to put matters right when they go wrong. There is already a proven model in the Department of Health and Social Services. I have to confess that it was not the easiest moment in my political life when I had to go to my Secretary of State and ask him to back me in serving a direction on a health and social services board to enforce competitive tendering. Once was enough, and the implied threat of doing that again was sufficient to keep the board within the law, without the interference of the department or its Ministers. Nor indeed do I believe that that experience was resented by many people in the Province. There was grudging acceptance initially, certainly. However, over time it reverted to a belief that my noble and honourable friends had long held that it was right and proper to test the cost of public services, and if possible —it often is not possible—to reroute the money into mainstream activities rather than to the peripheries.
Therefore a model exists, but whether the talks will embrace that arrangement remains to be seen. That is part of the trouble, is it not? Today your Lordships are trying to fulfil one of your constitutional roles: that of advising the government of the day. Alas!, we are speaking into a vacuum and we do not know what ideas are being worked up in the talks or what have already been discarded. While I do not expect my right honourable friends to reveal any of their hands before they are ready, I believe that we should be told if we

51
are still in the ball game of nothing being ruled in and nothing being ruled out, or whether we have passed that stage. Since all the debaters have not yet been involved—Sinn Fein is an obvious example—I would expect that ideas would be welcome. However, I urge my right honourable friends to tell us of those which have been discarded when they feel that it is wise for us to know.
Talking of wisdom, I was delighted to hear that there are to be not one but two referenda as a result of the talks. I congratulate my right honourable friends on holding a referendum on the scheme that comes out of the discussions. I am sure that they are right. The plan must be broadly acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, otherwise it will simply come apart at the seams and we shall be back to the drawing board again.
The first referendum was of course announced in the context of the Downing Street Declaration—that is to say, on whether the majority of the population still believe in a union with Great Britain. I believe that such a referendum is long overdue and might be held with advantage before the closing stages of the talks. However, whenever it is held, I am also inclined to think that it should not be a one off approach. I am sure that it would clear the air to make such a referendum a regular occurrence—perhaps once a parliament or every time there were a new Prime Minister. Such action would continually reinforce the hand of the government of the day and give much needed reassurance in the Province. Something must be done to allay what the Secretary of State called the other day,
"the dark fears and suspicions in the hearts and minds of so many in Northern Ireland".
Following that, he said that we must go on giving reassurance. My suggestion is one way in which to achieve that aim.
I have spoken long enough. I do not see the need today to expand on the other two strands of the talks between London and Dublin, and between Belfast and Dublin. Suffice it to say that obvious though the need is for such talks, they will need the same dedicated skill in negotiation that we have seen until now between Belfast and London. I hope that the advice that my right honourable friends will take away from the debate today is, "Steady as she goes". Whatever our friends in the media may say about momentum, I believe that we in this House will unite in telling the Government, "You rush things at your peril"—and, more importantly, at the peril of those people who have suffered so much in Northern Ireland.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, there has been an absence of gunfire in Northern Ireland for this past six or seven weeks. But that does not mean that there is anything remotely approaching that word with five letters, "peace". We have a million miles to go before we can achieve that in Northern Ireland. These past 25 years have left deep, gaping wounds on the body politic of Northern Ireland which will take generations, perhaps forever, to heal.
52
I realise that a certain number of people in Northern Ireland now say, "Don't say anything which could resurrect past differences or in some way affect the peace process". I do not accept that, because I believe that, unless we face up to what has been happening in Northern Ireland and what is liable to happen, as well as what we can do to allay the fears in both communities, then attaining that peace will be all the more difficult.
Let me put it in terms which I understand. Until two days before the dramatic announcement by the Loyalists in Northern Ireland that they were calling a ceasefire, I—like everyone else in Northern Ireland—had been a pessimist par excellence since the murdering began there. Two days before that announcement I watched the television screen and saw spokesmen for the Loyalist paramilitaries. One man shown was referred to as a co-ordinator for the Loyalist prisoners. Then the caption went up with his name and when I saw it my blood ran cold—it was John White. He was the man who so brutally and savagely murdered my colleague, Senator Paddy Wilson, in 1973. What a terrible effect that had on me when I saw him being given credibility in front of the television cameras as a Loyalist paramilitary co-ordinator. It had the same effect on my family, all my daughters and the rest of my family, who knew Paddy Wilson so well. They immediately got on the phone when they saw that. That was only in my case, just one case.
Then I thought of the two British Army corporals who were so brutally murdered on the Falls Road in Belfast. One of the men who pulled the corporals out of the car was accompanying Gerry Adams as a kind of bodyguard on his perambulations around the United States of America. Can one begin to imagine for a moment what the relatives of those corporals felt, and not only them, but all the other soldiers, policemen and civilians who had been killed? They left behind scores, hundreds, indeed thousands of grieving relatives who will bitterly resent any attempt to let Loyalist or Republican murder gangs come to the conference table to speak on their behalf.
However, something else made me cringe besides seeing that murderer on television. It was when Senator Edward Kennedy put his arms around Gerry Adams and welcomed him to America. What that man did in an attempt to save his own electoral fortunes was bitterly resented, not only by the Unionist people in Northern Ireland, but by many members of the Catholic minority. Gerry Adams perambulated through America and Canada. He claimed—and every time I heard it I cringed—to speak on behalf of the Irish people, underlining the "Irish people" or the "nationalist people". The reality is that the only credibility Gerry Adams has is with about 5 per cent. in the whole island of Ireland. The only reason he had for going to America or being involved in politics was that he had an army of gunmen behind him.
I realise that in the peace process Gerry Adams may have a part to play. I suppose there is a voice there; he has some form of electoral mandate. But I pose a question to the House and to the country, and I cannot give the answer. The fact is that Gerry Adams is the

53
spokesman for an organisation that has murdered its way into the political arena in Northern Ireland. But he knows that he has a 5 per cent. electoral vote. The Loyalists have an even smaller vote, a very small figure. When they go to the forum to put forward their case, they will be very much in a minority.
My question is: are they prepared to abide by any resolutions which come from such a forum or will both sides go back and resort to violence? I pose that question but I cannot give the answer. I wish that I could, I wish I could say that, if they have now given an undertaking that they will abide by the democratic process, they will abide by their electoral position by sheer weight of numbers in such a forum. I am fearful that the Sinn Fein element in such a forum may not find its views totally rejected, it may find some sympathy from Fianna Fail or some of the other political parties engaged in the forum. Those may find that they have some empathy with the Sinn Fein point of view, but I hope that that will not be the case.
It is said that one of the issues for discussion in the forum would be the abolition of Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, which lay claim to governing Northern Ireland. Some people here believe that the Irish Government can recommend to the Irish population that Articles 2 and 3 be withdrawn from the Irish constitution. I can tell noble Lords, particularly those on this side of the House, that Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution are equivalent to Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution. They are icons. The Irish Government can recommend it, but there is no way they could ever win it. We saw what happened with Clause 4. As we all know, Clause 4 does not mean anything and Articles 2 and 3 mean nothing except in emotional and symbolic terms. I cannot see any Irish government, particularly Fianna Fail, recommending that those two articles be removed.
This past week I have watched the whole process and the people who have spoken. I too was amazed by some of the words which emanated from the Loyalist paramilitaries. I never expected that I would hear Loyalist spokesmen apologise for the ferocious murders which they carried out among the Catholic population in Northern Ireland. I listened to Gusty Spence, however, and I accept what he said and feel that he meant it. I also listened to David Ervine on television yesterday morning. If I ever heard a sensible voice emanating from the present troubles, it was that of David Ervine. I only wish that there were more David Ervines living in the Shankill Road and the Loyalist areas of Belfast who would have been able to stop the descent into Loyalist paramilitary murders. I believe that David Ervine may have a place in any future political discussions in Northern Ireland.
I appeal to the noble Baroness, however, that under no circumstances should those people take part who have committed ferocious murders on the Loyalist side or the Republican side. They have no mandate from the Irish people to take part in any solutions to the Irish problem.
I believe that some things said recently only exacerbate the existing tensions. The shadow spokesman on Northern Ireland, Kevin McNamara, made a
54
statement last week that there would have to be a reform of the RUC; the RUC was unacceptable in nationalist areas. That is totally untrue. I spent many years of my political life in Belfast and the RUC were guilty of mistakes, but the overwhelming majority of the Catholic population realised that the RUC was the only legitimate force that they had and they accepted it. At the moment when Gerry Adams and his cohorts are demanding the withdrawal of the RUC and the Army from West Belfast, the elected spokesman for West Belfast, Joe Hendron, the West Belfast MP, has contradicted them and said that there is no big demand for the RUC to be withdrawn. I advise the Government to listen to the elected MP and not to Gerry Adams, who claims that he can push Joe Hendron aside at the next election and become the next elected representative himself. I hope that that does not happen, but that is certainly what he thinks.
A spokesman for the Labour Party has said that there has to be reform of the RUC and that first of all the "Royal" must be taken out of its title. That is totally insensitive to the feelings of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that the word "Royal" has any great significance in the name. After all, the British left the Republic of Ireland, but if you go to Dublin there are hundreds of places with a "Royal" prefix: the Royal Dublin Horse Show, and the Royal Dublin Yacht Club, for example. Many places have the word "Royal" in their name. But to say that the word should be taken out of the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is very insensitive at this time.
Another big demand has been made in America. How did Mr. Clark, who was involved in pulling the corporals out of the car to be murdered, get into America? The American Government have played a very ignoble part in this whole affair. One must never forget that when the Americans thought that their position was endangered by terrorists, they had no hesitation in bombing Libya, with the support of this country. Yet they can find it in their hearts to provide a passport to allow into the United States someone who was convicted of a ferocious murder.
The big demand that Gerry Adams made on television in America related to the fact that he was able to speak in America but was not able to speak in London since here there was an exclusion order on him. The British Government could make a deal with Gerry Adams. They could say that they would lift the exclusion order on him here if he would lift the exclusion order on hundreds of young Irish fellows from Belfast who have been excluded from that city because they do not agree with the IRA. The number of such young men excluded by Sinn Fein and the IRA runs into hundreds. If the exclusion order on Gerry Adams is to be lifted, let it be lifted on all those other people.
My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees has referred to what is going on now in Loyalist areas that are regarded as ghettos —the knee-cappings and the beatings up are not confined to Catholic areas in West Belfast; they also take place in Loyalist West Belfast. I do not think that the noble Baroness will find anyone in this House today who disagrees with the stand that has been taken by the

55
British Government. I urge the British Government to move very, very cautiously, and to move in their own time.
I personally believe that the Irish Government have moved far too quickly. I know that they have a different constituency: they are on the island of Ireland and they do not have to take into account what has happened in Northern Ireland and here. They may feel justified in revoking some of their emergency legislation, as was announced last week. But I have to say to the Irish Government that they have not suffered the pain that we in Northern Ireland have had to suffer. If they had had to endure over 3,000 deaths and all the maimings that we in the North have experienced, I believe that they would have been just as reluctant as this Government are to accept the bona fides of the IRA. I urge the Irish Government to take into consideration the feelings of people in Northern Ireland.
I turn now to the question of a referendum. We have already had a referendum in Northern Ireland. It took place in 1973, and was known as the Border Poll. But in that poll there was only one specific question; namely, do you want to see the Border remain, or do you want the Border abolished? That was 21 years ago. At the time I was the leader of the SDLP. We knew that we would lose in any Border poll. Everyone knew that there were more Protestants in Northern Ireland, more Unionists, and that the minority who were opposed to the Border would lose. But the next referendum will not be on the question of the existence of the Border; it will be on whatever emerges, either from the framework document or from any agreement which is arrived at subsequent to the framework discussions.
I am about to make a statement with which the IRA will certainly not agree. My former colleagues in the SDLP know that it is true, but they do not want to say it out loud as it may have some effect on their electoral base. At least 30 per cent. of Catholics living in Northern Ireland do not want to see a united Ireland; they do not want to live in the Republic under any circumstances. They have their own reasons, based largely on the economic wherewithal that is available in Northern Ireland.
Here I have to say again that the present Prime Minister, John Major, and Albert Reynolds deserve great credit for all their endeavours in respect of the Downing Street Declaration. No other British Prime Minister, since the inception of the state of Northern Ireland has ever put the problem of Ireland at the top of the agenda. Everyone who has spoken here today has said that tremendous obstacles must be overcome before we can begin to see a glimmer of hope in the search for peace in Northern Ireland.
Since the onset of the shooting war in Northern Ireland I have always been pessimistic. I begin to see some ray of optimism. I believe that this Government deserve credit. But I warn the Government to tread very slowly, to be aware of the sensitivities and feelings in both communities, and not to give the impression that
56
the individuals who have carried out such a murderous campaign are deciding the future in which they and their children will have to live.
6.8 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I too am very grateful to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for introducing this debate. For the first time, it takes place without the fear of bombs and guns being used in the United Kingdom by Northern Ireland based terrorists. For those of us from Northern Ireland it is very welcome (even though it is quite late now) to have at least started the debate in daylight for a change.
Everyone would agree that the most important development in the past 25 years is the present ceasefire. In the views of many people the catalyst for this was not on its own the Hume-Adams talks but was, far more importantly, the Downing Street Declaration. For the first time ever, an Irish Government were prepared to state to the world that they condemned terrorism in Northern Ireland, the reasons for it and those who perpetrated it. Many other events have taken place since. But I am quite sure that it was that act—not without courage on the part of the two Prime Ministers —that tipped the scales.
Everyone in this House and in the United Kingdom is relieved that it has come about, in the short term at any rate. I can assure noble Lords that the feelings in the Province are even more so feelings of relief. But they are perhaps more tempered by the realism which can come only from closer involvement.
Having done a tour of duty in the centre of Belfast during the busy 1970s and having been involved for the past 16 years with the security forces in Fermanagh, I can tell the House that there is a lot more involved than the relief that all here get from not seeing the horrific news headlines. Gone for the moment is that cold fear of the telephone ringing in the middle of the night, being all too often the news of death or injury to a local friend, whether in the security forces or as a civilian. Gone for the present is that awful moment when one hears distant shots, the rumble of a bomb or the multiple bangs of rocket launchers. Those which were close enough to us came from Fivemiletown, Tempo, Lisnaskea and so on. We even heard the one at Teebane, where there was the horrific murder of so many construction workers who were putting up buildings in order to protect the soldiers whom we send over from this country. There are feelings of great relief in Northern Ireland because of the ceasefire. But there has to be a certain amount of caution.
The people have lived under a daily threat for a long time. Many working for peace have stood up to be counted. Their families have not known when they would return from duty, even from milking the cows, a shopping trip or their workplace. That is fact. The terrorists are indiscriminate murderers of old and young, even the children, let alone the security forces. We must remember that. They still have weapons and may use them again.

57
Let us consider what has happened. On August 31st the IRA, and last week the Loyalist terrorists also, said: "We will not kill anyone for the time being". In the case of the IRA, it was: "We have not achieved our aims by violence but we want to talk and reserve the right to kill again as and when we please to do so".
In order to move forward we must understand one very important fact. It can be said that at least 80 per cent. of the population do not want a united Ireland; a very small minority of the remainder—a tiny minority of that minority—will happily murder to achieve it when they please. After 25 years the Government must not rush ahead of public opinion. How can things all change so much in seven weeks? Dick Spring yesterday said that he intended to lift the Irish Republic's emergency legislation. Yesterday's Sunday Times pointed out—it was a fairly well founded report, there having been contact with Joe Cahill, who is in America as presumably one of their ambassadors—that elements of the IRA are ready to continue the killing if they do not get their way by Christmas. Their way is a united Ireland. Even the Irish Government say that that will not happen for years, if at all.
Emergency legislation, whether British or Irish, only comes into operation to counter terrorism. If terrorism stops, the legislation does not have to be used. However, it would be foolhardy of either government to repeal that legislation. It can stay in place as a deterrent. After all, we must remember that the power of internment has been kept not only on the statute book in this country but also on the statute book of the Irish Republic continuously—as a deterrent maybe or, if not that, then ready to be used.
It must be remembered that the IRA has a history of splits —split after split. It happened in the 1920s, the 1950s and the 1970s. I am quite sure that it has happened on other occasions. If a split now occurs and emergency powers have been withdrawn, we in Northern Ireland will pay the price. Every pressure should be put on the Irish Government not to carry out such a hasty and ill-advised move at this stage.
It is worth looking at one or two of the issues which will arise in the near future and on which a continued ceasefire may depend. A united Ireland the gunmen will not get, at least not while the vast majority of Roman Catholics, whom they claim to represent, do not want it. The terrorist weapons are a real problem. Until seven weeks ago those guns were held locally and would have been used as and when soft targets, security forces or anyone else let down their guard. Those guns are still there. Must we continue to live our lives under permanent threat of death? They have said that if they do not like the process they will start shooting again. Consider our situation on the ground. That must be taken into account.
Other weapons such as bombs cannot be handed in. Bombs are not made up until they are required. Mark 15 barrack buster bombs, which are intended to kill as many people as possible —into the dozens—are made for use. Semtex, which goes into them, does not degrade over a period of time. It is a different situation from that
58
of the 1950s and earlier when gelignite was stashed away and became useless after a short period of time. This is a real issue and cannot just be brushed away.
Another issue concerns the prisoners. Some people believe that we should not be talking now about the prisoners. But they are doing so. We cannot deny it. Prisoners have to become an issue. The British and the Irish Governments must make it absolutely plain. The prisoners are convicted criminals. Many of them are murderers. An amnesty is out of the question. I personally believe that after a reasonable length of time—be it five years of peace—early release could be considered for the less serious offenders; but not for mass murderers. Should there be any breakdown of the ceasefire, those who are released could be re-arrested to serve the remainder of their sentence. That would not be internment and the world should understand that. At least we should not be cut to shreds in the world generally. It would merely be a sentence suspended.
I should like to thank the Prime Minister for his reassurance that the Union is safe provided that the majority wish it to remain. As I said, there is no chance of the majority voting otherwise. I also congratulate the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable on their moves cautiously and judiciously to normalise day-to-day life at home in the Province. Border checkpoints basically are open. There are fewer military patrols and security measures appear to have become much less hard. I should like the Government to move further in that direction—not to go too fast, but to open more border roads that were closed and not only the ones that had checkpoints on them. I also ask the Government where possible to encourage the RUC to do its duty without military help. That is not always possible in all areas but if we do not encourage it, it will not happen as and when it should.
We must understand that at the moment a system of rent-a-mob is being used by Sinn Fein. They tried to take over a border watchtower a couple of weeks ago and have ambushed several urban patrols, once in particular endangering the lives of soldiers and policemen in Belfast. It is not possible to say that the military should just leave the streets.
We should be wary of Gerry Adams' call for no policing in Republican areas. That is Gerry Adams speaking and not the people. The people need protection from the henchmen whom he represents. Incidentally, to have people such as Mr. Peter Bottomley, MP, calling for a change of name does not do much to help.
A well-respected journalist, David McKitterick, wrote in the Independent on 30th September:
"They used an iron bar on Gavin Smyth's legs. The 16 year-old was forced to roll over three times so that they could break his legs from every side".
I know that in West Belfast increasingly over the past few years, with improved conditions, the people readily call the RUC to household break-ins—ordinary decent crime (ODC as it is called). We should understand what Gerry Adams is on about. Gerry Adams would like the police force to be his crooks. We simply cannot allow it.
We must remember that the IRA's ceasefire talked about guns and bombs. It did not talk about racketeering, intimidation or about planning for a

59
breaking off of the ceasefire. They said: "We are ready to do it at Christmas if we do not get what we want". Do we really believe that they will wake up on New Year's day and say: "Come on, we have not got what we want so we had better plan something". No—just like with every ceasefire that they have ever had, the plans are in the bottom drawer. The weapons are accessible even if they have been moved—and there is intelligence to say that that has been done. They will come out with a well drawn-up plan and we must not be caught wrong footed.
Great progress is being made in relaxing security measures. But I would plead with the Government not to reduce or withdraw measures which cannot be reinstated at the shortest notice. One has to ask what Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein are trying to do. I fear that John Hume has done a deal in the name of the SDLP. I am not sure also that his party will like it and such people as Joe Hendron and so forth. He may have said that his party will not fight all the seats in the next council or national elections. That would leave no alternative for many decent nationalists but to vote for Sinn Fein if they wished to vote at all, accepting that invariably people are aware of how other people are voting, not only in Northern Ireland but in this country also. And Gerry Adams may obtain a mandate out of that. I hope that that is not the case and I hope that John Hume is not carrying out a betrayal of that party which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, started, with the best of intentions at the time.
We are told that there may be exploratory talks by Christmas. I would ask the Government to give us some idea of when the talks with the terrorists will take place. How will the Government ensure that the law abiding people remain reassured as to the content and not feel isolated? I accept that the talks cannot be totally public. But it will be the most important and difficult task for the Government to maintain credibility. It is like an elastic band and if it is too stretched it will break and the consequences will be dire.
I wish to mention briefly the economic side—the so-called carrot. The USA, the European Union and the Government, among others, are to throw lots of money at us. I for one will not be disappointed. But we must be careful. Great care must be taken if that happens to see that it does not become manna from heaven for the Mafia-styled tactics of the terrorist organisations. They are still intact, as everybody agrees, and the IRA has not said otherwise. Where does protection money go? Are they still beating people up to obtain it? The answer is yes.
The security related industries and the employees in those areas feel extremely apprehensive—I include the home-based forces as well. There are bound to be redundancies. But please do not forget those who contributed to law and order and peace. They stood to be counted through terrible times. Some people would not even sell flowers to go on the graves of such people.
Some say that Britain won the Second World War but lost the peace. In Northern Ireland we have a saying that bread once eaten is quickly forgotten. Do not let that happen in this case. Many people working in such jobs
60
have short contracts. It is important to take care of those who paid the high cost in such ways as having to move house and leave traditional employment through intimidation and other terrorist activities.
In conclusion, let us not bury our heads in euphoria and in haste betray the integrity and courage of the people of Northern Ireland. The courage and character shown over the past 25 years will serve us well as long as the Government take heed of the earnest wish of the people for permanent peace and of their willingness to move surefootedly under control.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I first spoke in your Lordships' House on Northern Ireland on 2nd February 1972 and I began with the words,
"in the grim atmosphere of to-day".—[Official Report, 2/2/72; col. 886.]
It is good that now the atmosphere is less grim and more hopeful. I welcome the progress that has been made. I should like to pay tribute to all those in Northern Ireland who have refused to be intimidated; who have never despaired, and who have persevered in holding out the hand of friendship. Cross-community work, ecumenical work, efforts to meet the needs of prisoners, victims, displaced and divided people, have never ceased, even if at times they were checked by rampant violence.
Today, dialogue and listening are more than ever needed. Cross-cultural interpreters are necessary between groups who are sometimes divided by a common language. Those who have shared the heat and burden of the past 25 years have still greater contributions to make. After so much bereavement, injury and loss following after the conflicts of past centuries, it is inevitable that there should still be deep fears and mistrusts, some of which were mentioned in the debate. They need to be dispelled and who better to dispel them than the community groups, the voluntary bodies, the public servants and people of all sorts who have worked on in hope over the past 25 years.
Because of the residue of fear, distrust and suspicion mentioned by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I should like to speak about confidence-building measures. Almost all the various entities, within and even outside Northern Ireland, can do something to build up confidence. Her Majesty's Government made a good start, as mentioned by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal in his opening remarks. There will be plenty more for the Government to do provided that the ceasefire continues and no one attempts to create provocation by either civil disobedience or other means.
Paramilitary groups can immediately contribute by refraining from intimidation and especially from brutal attempts at do-it-yourself law enforcement. Northern Ireland is perhaps the most church-going part of western Europe. The Churches there, together with their fellow believers in the Republic and in Britain, have a great opportunity before them. Will they rise to the challenge? Will they seize the fleeting moment to overcome the negative emotions of the past and lead us all into mutual forgiveness for the wrongs and injustices both of recent years and of previous centuries? Are the traditional

61
Churches willing to learn from the experience of experimental Christian bodies, in particular the ecumenical communities, prayer and study groups and the integrated schools? This year's ceasefire statements contained hints of olive branches, as the noble
Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned. But I suggest that much more needs to be done to create a forgiving climate as a first step towards political agreement.
I come now to the political parties and to their relations with government. The theory in recent times has been to work for a package agreement—nothing was to be agreed until everything was agreed. I would ask for exceptions to that approach, and in particular for a distinction to be made between confidence-building measures and the necessary elements of a permanent settlement. I imagine that there will be further talks about talks. Will Her Majesty's Government use this exploratory stage to ask the political parties what confidence-building measures they can suggest and which of those they would feel able to agree jointly? If that could be done I believe that it would help to lessen the apathy and cynicism with which political parties are all too often regarded. It would also show ordinary people that this peace process is something different from previous talks and negotiations. Tangible benefits are needed both during the negotiations and after a permanent settlement has been reached. It would be good if the political parties could be involved in producing some first fruits of co-operation.
It is relatively easy to draft ideal solutions and model constitutions abound—several hundred were listed during recent negotiations in South Africa. However, we are dealing with violent conflicts whose roots go deep into history. What is needed is a resolution which deals with the causes of contemporary conflict and which enables all parties and sections to emerge as winners. The best constitution will be the one with which the maximum number of people can feel at home. This will, I think, be an arrangement which respects the identity needs and gives adequate living space to all. The test, therefore, by which the conduct of all concerned can be judged during this very important interim stage and throughout substantive negotiations is: does what I am doing or saying move us towards resolution or away from it? If resolution is the goal, am I being constructive or negative?
I trust that this debate will be judged positive and will nudge us just a few inches closer to a satisfactory resolution. No one should be surprised if it takes a long time to resolve so bitter a conflict—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees—but resolution is, I am sure, what we all desire.
6.31 p.m.
The Marquess of Donegall: My Lords, it is in the nature of a debate such as this that so much of what one was going to say has already been said that I shall not have to detain the House very long. But I should like to thank my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for initiating the debate. I should like to congratulate my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on his determination and, above all, on his patience in attempting to bring about a just peace in
62
Northern Ireland. I should also like to congratulate my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who seems to me to speak with the voice of moderation but who never gives way on essential points of principle. We should also be grateful to the right honourable Member for Lagan Valley who leads his party wisely in what is, for it, a very difficult situation.
If I have reservations for the future it is because I feel that in the coming months there may be—I repeat may be—great difficulties and dangers ahead. We have to accept that Sinn Fein/IRA—I bracket them together because they are more or less the same organisation even though they like to pretend that they are entirely different—are an evil conspiracy. They are also an illegal army with a cache of arms hidden in various dumps, a good many of which today are south of the Border and therefore the responsibility of the Irish Government. In fact the Garda have uncovered some of these dumps but there are still enough left to create mayhem if anyone wanted to use them. Therefore, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mason, when he said that top of the list of what should be done is the surrender of all illegally held arms.
One asks oneself why Sinn Fein/IRA ever agreed to the ceasefire. I think that the Downing Street Declaration to some extent isolated them and I would also guess that they were under some sort of pressure in their own bailiwicks—the nationalist areas, especially West Belfast, where many people had been murdered by the Loyalist paramilitaries. The crux will come when the time comes to talk, if they do start talks. My concern is what the reaction of Sinn Fein/IRA will be when, faced by political realities, they do not get what they want. In that context I cut out of yesterday's Sunday Independent, which is an Irish newspaper, a report. A gentleman called Mr. Mitchel MacLauglan, who is the Sinn Fein northern chairman, said at a meeting in Londonderry that if they do not get what they want—he does not say it quite in these words but this is what he means—the Irish people would then have the right to continue the conflict. For "Irish people" he means Sinn Fein/IRA, who represent only 5 per cent. of Irish people throughout the island.
There is also the question of who, if there are talks, will talk for Sinn Fein/IRA. I am quite sure that Gerry Adams will want to be in on the act and we should have no delusions about Gerry Adams. Though he may be greeted by his friends and admirers in America and be acclaimed as a peacemaker—who can tell: perhaps in future years he might qualify for the Nobel prize—he is a terrorist: nothing more and nothing less. There were many people in and around Belfast who lost their lives and just as many who have been maimed and crippled for life at the behest of Gerry Adams. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that he did not like seeing Senator Kennedy put his arm round Gerry Adams. Nor did I. I did not see it actually, but I did see Mr. Reynolds shaking hands with him on the steps of the Dail, and I did not like that either.
The Government, in their quest to bring about a just and lasting peace in Northern Ireland, have another cross to bear—the Irish lobby in the United States Congress. They have always been a hindrance to peace

63
and co-existence on the island of Ireland, never more so than now. Most Americans are totally ignorant about Ireland—her history, her geography and her politics. One has only to talk to the tourists who come over to seek out where they think their ancestors might have been born. I do not think for one moment that President Clinton knows anything about Ireland, but I fear that he may get his information from the most disreputable politician on either side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, would the noble Marquess agree that the so-called four horsemen in the US Congress have done a very great deal over many years to reduce the flow of American money into the IRA's coffers?
The Marquess of Donegall: My Lords, I am not sure that the present American Government are doing very much. The previous American Government tried to stop it, but whether President Clinton is, I would not be so sure. Perhaps I generalise too much but I do not think that the present American Government are helping very much.
If, despite all these conundrums, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, can in the end bring about a lasting peace which is at least tolerable to most of the people of Northern Ireland, their tenure of office will indeed be a landmark in Irish history.
Before I sit down I should like to pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary which is one of the finest police forces in the world—some would say the finest— and also to the Army. Both the RUC and the Army have suffered many casualties, some of the constables and reserve constables having been shot in front of their families. We hope and pray that we shall now have peace and that there will be no more casualties among the police, the Army or the civilian population.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, all of us, without question, must give an unqualified welcome to the proclaimed cessation of violence by the IRA (though not yet by the INLA, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, reminded us) and by the Protestant paramilitaries. This is the least that the people of Northern Ireland deserve. Nobody, Protestant or Catholic, had any business resorting to terrorism in the first place. The fact that they have stopped murdering people—at any rate, for the time being—is a cause for satisfaction. If the abandonment of violence is indeed to be permanent and if the terrorist leaders are to turn themselves into constitutional, democratic politicians, then they will have no need of Semtex, Armalite rifles, heavy machine guns, mortars or surface-to-air missiles; and clearly the surrender or destruction of the stocks of arms on both sides can alone produce a real feeling of security and give credence to the claim by Sinn Fein-IRA leaders that "it is over".
We seem now to be moving towards negotiations which will include Sinn Fein-IRA and all the paramilitaries and it appears that these may start quite soon. The Government are being chivvied by Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Adams to get a move on, but I am
64
sure that they are right to be cautious, as the Lord Privy Seal made plain in his admirably clear and substantially reassuring speech.
We all know the IRA's objectives, often proclaimed and spelt out in bloody acts of terrorism over 25 years. They say unambiguously that they want a united Ireland ruled from Dublin and the British presence, civil and military, removed wholly and permanently from Northern Ireland. The Irish Government's aims are also not in doubt, being spelt out in their constitution and the pursuit of these aims being a legal imperative.
But what will be the objectives of the British Government? These are anything but clear. To negotiate implies some willingness to give and take. What, I wonder, are we willing to concede to secure an agreement and what do we hope to obtain in the negotiations over and above an end to violence? Are we in fact prepared to concede in negotiation what we were not prepared to concede to direct acts of terrorism? I very much hope not.
Perhaps I may suggest two areas in which I believe we should stand absolutely firm in the negotiations. The first is the rule of law. Those who have been convicted by courts of law of offences should surely be treated no differently from other criminals, for we should all expect equal treatment from the law. There have recently been reports put about that there will be no amnesty, but special arrangements for the parole of prisoners. I should like to know if these reports are correct. I hope they are not.
Secondly, and of paramount importance, there is the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. I was interested to see, in Saturday's Daily Telegraph, an account of a speech at the Conservative Party Conference by the Scottish Secretary, Mr. Ian Lang. He is reported as saying that the future of the Union will be put at the heart of the next general election campaign; that Mr. Tony Blair's commitment to create a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly would,
"loosen the bonds of the kingdom, leading ultimately to its disintegration"
and to have concluded:
"Let others fly their flags of convenience. Our flag is the flag of the Union … and we will fly that flag forever".
Turning from Scotland to Northern Ireland, I do not recall Sir Patrick Mayhew using language remotely like that. On the contrary, the Government chose to give a foreign government, and one that actually laid claim to the territory of Northern Ireland, a substantial say in policy for Northern Ireland—and, like the Lord Privy Seal, I was unhappy about that—and, in the Downing Street Declaration, to make the curious announcement that they have no selfish economic or strategic interest in Northern Ireland.
This detachment is a far cry from Mr. Lang's declaration. Yet Northern Ireland, no less than Scotland, is part of the United Kingdom, and, if we loosen our bonds with Northern Ireland, this will, I am quite certain, begin the process of disintegration of the United Kingdom which Mr. Lang fears.
At any rate, I hope that the Government can reassure us that they will maintain the Union in its full integrity in accordance with the undoubted wishes of the great

65
majority of the people of Northern Ireland. They will, I am certain, not forget the brave soldiers and policemen who lost their lives fighting terrorism, or the men, women and children who were murdered by terrorists. To the survivors, as the noble Marquess has just made clear, it must seem bewildering that the Government's policies have led to the metamorphosis of Mr. Gerry Adams from being the spokesman of an outlawed murder organisation to becoming a purported international statesman who is lionised by the media and received by the Vice-President of the United States. But they will expect British Ministers not to be taken in by specious arguments but to be steadfast in the defence of the interests of the people of our United Kingdom— all of them, including both the Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland. I trust that they will not be deceived in their expectations.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, last Tuesday, when this debate in your Lordships' House was announced, the first thing I did was to put my name down since, as your Lordships will be aware, I have a long and continuing interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. The next thing I did was to open a newspaper and find a rather frightening advertisement asking, "Why are you a bore?" It was an advertisement to encourage all of us perhaps to become shorter in our speeches and more articulate. It was an advertisement for a speaker's course.
Normally such an advertisement and such comments might well inspire a great deal of what has gone on in my career in your Lordships' House. Those of your Lordships who have had to present Northern Ireland legislation will have been aware of Appropriation Order No. 2. I can only describe the consequences tactfully as a Calgary stampede as your Lordships clear the Chamber. I hoped that that would not be the picture with this afternoon's debate, especially because of the kindness shown by my noble friend the Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal, in giving us the chance to discuss affairs in Northern Ireland especially at this time.
That advertisement was as good a motto as one might apply to years and years of Irish history. There are more experts on Irish history than in the whole population of Ireland. I have listened and I have tried to learn over the years from these experts about all these years of Irish history, depending how far one wants to go back.
For me the history of Northern Ireland, or Ireland, became a little less boring on 5th October 1968 when I took a look at the electronic media and noticed a civil rights march in the Waterside district of Londonderry. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, if I may say so, actually starred in the events of that day. The events were commented on, discussed and described in great detail in an excellent booklet called Disturbances in Northern Ireland. That was a report from a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Cameron. He is still alive and well. He is the father of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, who for several years graced the Front Bench and who has now distinguished himself in the judicature in Scotland. That was the title
66
of the report which was presented to Lord Grey of Naunton, the Governor of Northern Ireland, in September 1969. It contains many fascinating paragraphs and lessons. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is mentioned more than once. He stars in the paragraphs, as does the honourable Member for Foyle, Mr. John Hume, no fewer than four times.
The chapter entitled "Causes of the disorders", in particular paragraphs 152, 153 and 154, goes a long way towards explaining the causes of the present troubles, as explained by my noble friend Lord Colnbrook. There are lessons to be learned by those of us interested in Northern Ireland. They were mentioned by my noble friend. They teach us to be cautious about the language we use in your Lordships' House or anywhere else. Each word spoken or gesture made can be risky and give rise to offence. My noble friend Lady Denton knows that the phrase "exploratory voyages" is burnt into the psyche of the fisheries division of the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland because of something I said within 20 minutes of appearing in my office in Northern Ireland. It caused a major panic.
On another occasion a presentation was made before me. A type of wildfowl called the Greenland white-fronted goose was mentioned. Alas, the typist made an error and missed out the letter '1' in "Greenland", and I talked about "the green and white-fronted goose". That, too, I am afraid caused offence. I have given two insignificant examples of what can give offence. Such matters all of us in public life, whether here or in Northern Ireland, can easily rectify. With those examples in mind, my admiration for Ministers and officials in the Northern Ireland Office is unbounded. It grows and continues. Day after day, month after month, year after year, those people seek political progress.
During the past 15 to 20 years I remember various concepts arising. For example, there was rolling devolution, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the continuing campaign, "Ulster says no". Hindsight and experience are two valuable attributes but they are two-edged weapons. Whatever happens, those of us who may then be in our dotage in your Lordships' House, and those who will come after us, will see the Downing Street Declaration as providing a firm platform and foundation for political progress in the affairs of Northern Ireland, Ireland and what my Irish friends call "these islands".
We should try to disregard what I call megaphone diplomacy. Much of this afternoon's debate has focused on paramilitaries. The basis of the negotiations being carried out by the team in Northern Ireland is, above all, our regard and support for the democratic parties—the silent, decent majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland who want to, and do, take part in democratic discussions.
Your Lordships will be familiar with the six counties of Northern Ireland. It is not inappropriate that today I found a clean necktie which was given to me by a district council in Fermanagh. It is one which is well known by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. Many of your Lordships will know, as I do, the lovely town of Enniskillen. Those of us who have anything to do

67
with Northern Ireland are familiar with an excellent newspaper which has a wide circulation in that county, in the west, and across the Border. It is called the Impartial Reporter. I am advised that between 14,000 and 15,000 copies go out each week. I know that it went to one of my noble friends who lived in Scotland. So he knew exactly what I was doing. It is a wonderful newspaper.
I read last month that a reporter from The Times paid a call upon Enniskillen and the Impartial Reporter. The newspaper takes a broad view. It no longer says, "Vote Unionist". It is widely respected and admired. The Impartial Reporter told us that since 1971, 83 members of the security forces had been murdered or had met violent deaths in County Fermanagh alone. A further 45 civilians had died. The newspaper did not say to which section of the community they belonged. That means that 128 people met violent deaths. Six admitted members of the Provisional IRA have met their deaths in County Fermanagh since 1971.
The newspaper pointed out the real fear felt by Loyalist Protestant farmers who are in the minority in that county. Their lives are at risk. I think it was my noble friend Lord Brookeborough who referred to people being murdered while on their tractors just because of the Church that they attend and their allegiance to the Crown. All of us were appalled by the events of November 1987 in Enniskillen and what is known as the Poppy Day massacre. I shall mention three groups in connection with that happening. First, we all remember Mr. Gordon Wilson and what he said after he lost his daughter as a result of the explosion. Mr. Wilson is a shining example of what can be achieved in Northern Ireland. The Irish authorities have made him a senator in the Dail. When Mr. Gordon Wilson had discussions with members of the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein they virtually snubbed him and treated him with disdain. That is an example of one of the aspects of the problem.
Secondly, at the end of St. Stephen's Hall your Lordships will see a list of those Members of the House of Commons, sons of Members of the House of Commons and members of staff who were killed in the First World War. Among them your Lordships will find three Members of Parliament. One of them is Lieutenant Thomas M. Kettle. He was elected in 1906 as a Nationalist Member of Parliament for East Tyrone. He was killed in action on 9th September 1916. He was fighting with the Royal Dublin Fusiliers. He was a Nationalist and a member of the Gaelic League. He may have had respect for us but I doubt whether he would have had any great love for Unionism or for us.
Thirdly, during one of my holidays abroad I went to the beach-head cemetery at Anzio just south of Rome. I had some family connections there. My noble friend Lord Westbury was extremely lucky in that he was not captured or injured there. There was an enormous number of graves of servicemen from my regiment. I gave up counting when I reached 30 members of the Irish Guards and the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers who were born in the counties of Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo and Cavan. They were all citizens of the Irish
68
Republic who went there to fight tyranny in Europe. I wonder what those three groups of people (Mr. Gordon Wilson, Mr. Thomas Kettle and all those other brave soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought in the Second World War) would think of the whingeing reply of the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein to the events of Enniskillen, Warrington and Birmingham.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for granting us the opportunity to discuss the momentous events in Northern Ireland. I have enormous admiration for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and his courage and persistence and no little tact. Above all, I am grateful to the Secretary of State and the team, including my noble friend the Minister. If I have bored your Lordships I apologise. But I do not believe that today's subject could ever bore any of us.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although many people in Northern Ireland have never heard a bomb explode or a shot fired in anger, a great many others all too often have. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has movingly reminded us, hundreds of families in the Province have lost friends and relatives. So one is naturally enormously happy that the burden of fear and apprehension has been lifted from their backs for the time being and that people can at long last now relax a little in the way described by my noble friend Lord Cooke and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough.
But as many commentators have reminded us, truce does not equal peace. A peace process does not necessarily guarantee eventual peace, whether it be peace with honour or any other variety. After all, no one seriously believes that the IRA has agreed to the truce because it considers itself to have been outmanoeuvred or defeated. Quite the contrary. Having well and truly intimidated and softened up the opposition, it sees talks, backed up by an unspoken threat of renewed violence if it does not substantially get its way, as a logical next step in achieving its ambitions, not overnight but within a relatively short timescale. It will be assisted in its endeavours by the fact that the truce and the nervous expectancy and publicity leading up to it has enormously boosted the prestige of the extremist groups, in particular the Republican groups.
Let us remember that Sinn Fein obtains about 10 per cent. of the votes in Northern Ireland. That is the same percentage as the British National Party and the National Front obtain in East London. Until about one year ago both groups of extremist parties—both consorting with men of violence and both believing in ethnic and cultural exclusiveness, although of a different kind— were regarded with contempt by most people. That applies in particular to the Irish group because it was responsible for so many deaths both directly and indirectly.
The position has not changed as regards the English extremists. However, the Irish extremists now shake hands with Prime Ministers and are feted and lionised by American senators, congressmen and Hollywood film stars and directors. One Hollywood star was

69
reported as exclaiming, "Shaking hands with Gerry Adams was a rare and wonderful opportunity". Simon Jenkins wrote in the Spectator.
"Mr. Adams's reception in a land of the free was sickening almost beyond belief".
Who could disagree?
The point is that all that adulation by important and glamorous people is bound to boost Sinn Fein's electoral support. One fears that the extreme Republican position has also been strengthened by the deplorable assertion in the Downing Street Agreement that Britain has no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. Can one imagine for a moment President Mitterrand or M. Balladur saying the same kind of thing about Corsica, Brittany or any other part of France where there has been separatist violence and terrorism? Of course not; the French are far too proud.
There would have been no harm in simply pointing out that Britain had no economic interest in the Province, any more than it has an economic interest in Merseyside or the former Durham coalfields. It might have been useful to demonstrate to ignorant outsiders that Britain is not occupying a reluctant Province against the wishes of its inhabitants for the sake of its oil wells or platinum mines.
However, the whole tenor of the statement went far beyond that, and, as I know from my correspondence, it caused great offence to large numbers of people in Northern Ireland, many of whose families have served the Crown on various battlefields for three generations or more and some of whom have paid the ultimate price. The statement made the Province sound like a kind of white man's burden—as though it were not part of the United Kingdom but more like Palestine in the quarter of a century leading up to 1947, with Britain trying to hold a ring between the Arabs and the Jews and being shot at by both sides for its pains, all the while being cursed by the Americans from the sidelines.
Apart from the effect of such phraseology upon the morale of the loyal majority of the Province, words such as this have a defensive, even embarrassed, ring about them. That must confirm the IRA's suspicions that the British governing classes have lost the stomach for the fight and lead the Americans, amazingly uninformed as they are, to believe that the "Brits" have something to be ashamed of.
Speaking of the Americans leads me to make a specific suggestion to Her Majesty's Government. Writing in the Spectator on 10th September Boris Johnson draws our attention to the extraordinary spectacle of the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Dick Spring, pacing a lawn at Martha's Vineyard in discussion with President Clinton. Their subject was the fate of British citizens living in the British Isles. No British Minister or Ambassador was present, or even a civil servant.
Most regrettably, the Americans seem to have been given a tacit go-ahead to interfere; and this despite the fact that even educated Americans are amazingly ignorant of countries outside the Western Hemisphere, as I know from my travels there. Most Americans genuinely believe that 95 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland is Gaelic speaking, ultra-Catholic, anti-British Republican. In that misconception they are,
70
of course, aided and abetted by the drama departments of the BBC and ITV companies, most of whose TV and radio plays until recently gave much the same false impression.
If it is wrong that Americans should interfere, it is even worse that they should do so from a position of ignorance. I strongly echo the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that a Border poll should be held as soon as possible: we should not wait for any referendum that may emerge in a few years' time in consequence of discussions on possible new constitutional arrangements. The publicised results of the poll would bring home to the Americans and others the realities of the situation. As the Government are aware, no new legislation would be required for such a poll.
Despite the regrettable remarks about no selfish, strategic or economic interest, I am sure that most members of the Government are sincere when they profess devotion to the Union. But they must realise what a formidable grouping they are up against. It espouses what Andrew Marr, writing in the Independent on 31 st August, calls,
"a pan-nationalist agenda for Ireland".
That grouping includes not only the obvious people but also a number of others; for instance, cynics in the British establishment and the media whose not-so-secret message to unionists (with a small "u") is, "We do want to lose you and we think you ought to go"; a certain type of modern Conservative who believes that money is everything and that patriotism and a sense of nationhood are old fashioned and tiresome irrelevances; many powerful Americans, including Senator Edward Kennedy who some years ago proposed that the Protestants in Ireland who did not want to accept a united Ireland should be repatriated to England or Scotland—ethnic cleansing, as it were; and, last but by no means least, organisations with militarist titles in the Republic of Ireland. I refer not only to the Irish Republican Army but to the Soldiers of Destiny.
Some noble Lords may wonder why I use that term rather than the commonly used term, Fianna Fail. There are two reasons. First, consistency: when we are talking about the French Socialist Party we do not talk about le parti Socialiste, or the Freie Demokratische Partei when we are talking about the German Free Democrats. Secondly, and more importantly, it is to bring home to people what that party has historically always stood for. In its 1927 election manifesto it promised to annex Northern Ireland: by force obviously since there was no other way in which the Province could conceivably have been annexed. On obtaining an overall majority in 1933, the party led by de Valera realised that such a frontal assault was not feasible. Nevertheless, it set about trying to eliminate from the South everything with remotely British connotations. It made it clear in the 1937 constitution that it had similar long-term plans for the North.
We are now being told that the party has changed its spots, and it is true that there are a few encouraging straws in the wind. The long-standing boycott of Remembrance Day services by the Irish political establishment has, I believe, recently been abolished,

71
and that must be welcomed. That is one example. But if there really is a change of heart, it should demonstrate its good faith, first, by abandoning all demands for any quid pro quo in revoking the infamous Clauses 2 and 3 of the 1937 constitution, in the same way as Chancellor Kohl rightly abandoned territorial claims on Poland after considerable criticism. As the noble Lord, Lord Mason, emphasised, there should be no question of scrapping the 1920 Act.
Secondly, it should be agreed that any cross-Border agreements should be voluntary: I was very glad to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark make that point. Not only should they be voluntary but they should also be reciprocal, for in the past few years the concessions have been all one way. That insidious ratchet effect has operated against the Union for far too long.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for enabling us to have this debate. I echo the well-deserved tributes to my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for their wisdom in promoting the declaration and also in refusing to be rushed into acceptance of the IRA ceasefire.
My concern is that we should recognise clearly that we are looking at a negotiating tactic by the IRA designed to secure the maximum political credibility and credit with their supporters in the US, in Ireland itself and in the world at large to enable them to extract concessions while still retaining the ability and choice to revert to violence or to threaten to do so at any time because they retain their weapons and their firepower.
Gerry Adams himself, as has been pointed out, incautiously admitted in the US that a new IRA leadership in a few years' time would not be bound by present agreements and could choose to return to what they are pleased to call military action. That is what they will say once their political initiatives are exhausted. Meanwhile, fund raising for the IRA continues, as does recruitment. One wonders what message Joe Cahill took to the US. We have heard nothing of his activities.
I am concerned about three aspects of the present situation. The first is that, while military action may have been suspended, violence against members of the Catholic community by the IRA bully boys continues. Those lawless acts are not repudiated by Sinn Fein. As many noble Lords have said, we owe it to all the citizens of Northern Ireland to protect them from people who have no status to judge, still less to punish.
My next anxiety is the ambiguity which has been allowed to surround the status of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness. Both have been active members of the IRA. They now purport to be nothing but members of Sinn Fein, a political party which, while speaking for the IRA, yet presents itself as negotiating with it over a period of nine months. The inference is that they are neither part of the faceless men of the army council nor have they any power except to persuade. If that is the case and Sinn Fein cannot answer for the army council nor commit it, then we are dealing simply with a small
72
political group which has so far commanded only about 10 per cent. of the vote in the north and 5 per cent. in the south. Although in the new circumstances, they may well secure significantly more support in the south, they still cannot hope to command a majority. Why, therefore, do they and the IRA believe that it is worth coming to the talks and apparently suspending paramilitary activity? It is because they expect to secure concessions with the Armalite still held behind their backs.
Gerry Adams is often compared with Nelson Mandela and the IRA with the ANC. That is a false comparison since, in South Africa, there was no access to democratic power through the vote, while in Northern Ireland the vote has been available to all. Indeed, Gerry Adams could have sat at Westminster.
The true comparison is with the North Vietnamese politburo, which successfully extracted concession after valuable concession from Henry Kissinger at the Paris talks by claiming that they were the doves of the politburo who wanted peace but who could prevail over the hawks only if they could demonstrate that they could secure concessions. The truth is that they were neither doves nor hawks. They were a united politburo brilliantly able to exploit the Western habit of give and take in negotiation—only the North Vietnamese never gave; they negotiated to win.
Sinn Fein and the IRA are using the same tactic. It will allow them to appear to be reasonable men whose position is being undermined by the unreasonable refusal on our part to concede what they want. That will enable them to internationalise the situation and to bring American and Irish pressure to bear to push us further. It is essential that HMG and the Irish Government should identify and expose that disinformation campaign early before it can gain credibility.
I share the hope expressed today that we may call their bluff by insisting on a major handing in of weapons before any negotiations, as distinct from probing talks, are even considered. Not that that will necessarily prevent the resurgence of an armed IRA, as has been pointed out by many authoritative speakers. However, it would expose the truth about their claims to be peacemakers.
My third anxiety, which I share with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, concerns the future of the Army in Northern Ireland. I hope that a clear distinction will be drawn between withdrawing the Army, should conditions prove to justify it, from its more visible role in support of the civil power and withdrawing troops from Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and we have army units and an army presence in all parts of the UK. To withdraw from Northern Ireland is to accept tacitly the image which the nationalists wish to present of colonialist army occupation. I hope that no Treasury consideration and no ill-informed pressure from the American or Irish lobbies will be allowed to dictate such a move. It would be a fatal political error as well as a betrayal of all the people of Northern Ireland.

73
My last anxiety is as regards the dangerous ambiguity which surrounds the whole concept of Northern Ireland in the Joint Declaration. At one moment it is one of two parts of the island of Ireland. At another it is an element of:
"the people of Ireland, North and South";
at another, it is part of the Union. If the British Government agree that:
"it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination … to bring about a united Ireland",
then what is the status of Northern Ireland? Above all, what has become of Northern Ireland's status as a component part of the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? I feel unease about the many small hints in the Joint Declaration which almost suggest that it is unreasonable of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland not to be part of a united Ireland in deference to the wish of a minority.
Of course, there are always those wise and well informed members of the Clinton Administration to consider, while they are in turn considering the need to secure the Irish vote in the US. Perhaps I may suggest that we should draw a parallel between Northern Ireland and Florida and offer to send a British delegation to Florida to decide upon the proper handling of the Cuban problem after, of course, full consultation with President Castro.
My chief anxiety is that, in the political phase of the battle with the IRA which we now appear to be entering, we should ensure that the truth reaches the world and expose at once every manoeuvre by Sinn Fein to purport to speak for the people of Ireland, instead of being little more than a mouthpiece of the IRA.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, understandably, this has been a low key and only very cautiously hopeful debate coming in the immediate aftermath of the cessation of Loyalist violence and only six weeks after the IRA ceasefire. Every contribution has been important in creating common cause in this House. The debate has been enriched by the thoughtful and well-informed maiden speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Downshire, to whom I should like to add my congratulations.
It is a joyous moment for all the law-abiding inhabitants of Northern Ireland. Those like myself who love Northern Ireland as well as the Republic of Ireland from many years of close contact and friendship especially rejoice with them. As a Queen's Counsel of the Northern Ireland as well as the English Bar and a mere junior at the Irish Bar, there is one group whose courage, independence and integrity I should like to pay tribute to: the Northern Ireland judiciary. Its members have been particular targets of the IRA and have been attacked and murdered on a scale quite unknown in any other part of Europe, but they have been completely unflinching in their devotion to their arduous public duty.
As noble Lords across the House have said this evening, we all pray that the peace process will lead to a new deal for Northern Ireland in which violence is
74
rejected for all time as a means to political ends, in which the values of both main traditions in Northern Ireland are mutually respected and where all inhabitants of both islands are able equally to enjoy the same basic human rights, irrespective of where they live—whether as European, Irish or British citizens. Everyone who has spoken today agrees that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom unless the majority of the people freely consent to change.
It is a nice irony of history that your Lordships' debate takes place on a Motion moved by the Leader of the House the Lord Privy Seal. The noble Viscount is, of course, the great great grandson of the third Marquess of Salisbury. It is just over a century ago when it was the noble Viscount's great great grandfather who, as Leader of the Conservative Opposition, played such a major part in the rejection by this House of Gladstone's second Irish Home Rule Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said, the dramatic painting of the Marquess speaking against that Bill hangs outside this Chamber in the Bishops' Corridor.
Many people today on both sides of the Irish Sea, including, I dare say, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, may regret the fact that this House rejected Gladstone's second attempt at constitutional self-government in Ireland within a federal union of both countries. If he will permit me to say so without impertinence, the noble Viscount is a living proof, as his speech today indicated, that the hereditary principle does not mean atavism.
When I read the passionate, prejudiced, partisan, dogmatic and immoderate debates on Ireland in this House of a century ago, I am reminded of the wisdom of an American judge, Judge Learned Hand. He warned that,
"the spirit of liberty is the spirit that it is not too sure that it is right".
It seems to me that that warning is especially appropriate when we who are not Northern Irish discuss Northern Irish affairs.
Our two nations are confronted by problems which are deep-rooted in the violent and sometimes terrible history of the proud peoples of the ancient nations of Ireland and Scotland as well as England: problems linked with fiercely-held feelings of identity with clan, with culture, with language, with religion and with nationhood; problems aggravated by centuries of violence, injustice, exploitation, discrimination, hatred and bigotry; problems which are not amenable to simplistic solutions and quick political fixes.
The history of relations between Britain and Ireland is, to borrow from James Joyce, a nightmare from which we are trying to awake. The problems afflicting Northern Ireland are those which affect everyone on both sides of the Irish Sea, not only in Ulster, but also in London, Edinburgh and, I daresay, in Dublin. There is surely a need for plural systems of democratic, effective and accountable government based on modern concepts of citizenship and the rule of law.
The leading editorial in last Friday's edition of The Times rightly observed that the Prime Minister cannot afford to go to the conference table with the threat of renewed violence hanging over him. Equally, the Prime

75
Minister cannot surrender the peace process to semantic argument over the precise nature of permanence. Mr. Major recently told us that he does not trade in adjectives. So he should not be unduly troubled by the difference between the word "permanent" and the word "complete". If the shrewd Mr. Molyneaux can accept the prospect of the Government sitting down to their first official negotiations with Sinn Fein with the issue of permanence unresolved, so surely can Mr. Major and Sir Patrick Mayhew with more than a twitter of wit.
No fair-minded person would accuse the Government of acting with reckless haste if they now begin the process of direct negotiation. The risk is rather that further delay would be rightly interpreted in Ireland as what is called in Irish "cnaimhseail"-ing, or grumbling for grumbling's sake. As my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham said, the Government ought now to change gear so that talks might begin by the year's end.
When it comes to the substance of negotiations in the coming months, it will be important for all parties to avoid adopting the rigid and inflexible positions in line with their traditional and sometimes outmoded ideas about constitutional and political structures. In Ireland, the written constitution created by de Valera in 1937 proclaims a deeply religious conviction and faith, though, happily, since the referendum in 1972 it is no longer one which gives special privileges to the Roman Catholic Church. Less happily, the Irish constitution still lays claim to the entire national territory. In some respects, its attitudes on personal morality sit uneasily with the European Convention on Human Rights, which the Irish Government, like the British Government, have so far refused to incorporate directly into domestic law. I do not share the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—although I understand it—about the ability and willingness of the Irish Government and of the Irish people to amend their constitution including Articles 2 and 3—the Clause 4 of their constitution.
On our side in the United Kingdom, the unwritten Victorian constitution is based upon Dicey's English dogma of an omnipotently sovereign Parliament, on Whitehall's unitary and centralised state, on a concept of subjecthood rather than citizenship, and on preventing the Queen's courts from reviewing the constitutional legality of Acts of Parliaments even when governments wear the clothing of parliamentary sovereignty to breach fundamental human rights.
If the Governments, Parliaments and citizens of both countries are ever to achieve a sensible and lasting settlement which is acceptable to both communities in Northern Ireland and to the citizens of both countries as a whole, I suggest that it will be necessary to be boldly imaginative and open-minded, drawing upon the common law and parliamentary traditions of both islands while making more direct use of values and standards enshrined in the European convention and in the constitution and laws of the European Union.
As my noble friend Lord Home emphasised, it will also be important to review whether the full panoply of emergency powers really remains necessary in the new circumstances of the Province and whether the European
76
convention can be made part of the law of Northern Ireland and, I would add, of Great Britain, and, further, the Irish Republic.
Perhaps I may break off briefly here to ask the Minister a question which I very much hope she will be able to answer this evening, or at least at some time in the near future. Will necessary funds provided by the European Union to ease the negotiations in Northern Ireland be treated by the Government as additional funds for that purpose and not be substituted by the Treasury for existing expenditure in the Province?
There can never be a return to the bleak 50 years following the Government of Ireland Act, in which the Westminster Parliament failed to exercise its sovereign powers and in which the Westminster Parliament permitted Stormont, as has been said, to infringe the civil and political rights of the Catholic minority, condoning religious and political discrimination, and diluting their voting power by abolishing proportional representation for local elections.
That is in the past. What matters now is to create the framework within which Northern Ireland will be democratically and fairly run, fully respecting and securing the rights of the Catholic minority and of the Protestant majority—a system of governing by consensus in which public powers are shared and not abused. The Government will have the support of my party and of the whole House in pursuing that important goal with courage, with energy and with all deliberate speed.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, it is always a privilege to address this House on the subject of Northern Ireland. It has been a particular pleasure today because of the range and quality of the speeches which we have all listened to. I hope I may, with respect, point to one, the maiden speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Downshire, a speech which I personally found to be of interest and of great content, both of which are adjectives one cannot normally ascribe to maiden speeches.
I endorse, as I have on so many earlier occasions, what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said about the quality of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. I speak from the same degree of personal knowledge as he, as I have practised in the courts in Belfast in the same way. Perhaps I can deviate for a moment to commend the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on introducing a lighter note when he said he had seen an advertisement headed, "Why are you a bore"? The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, who is always my mentor on these occasions, kindly produced the advertisement for me. Plainly the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has benefited from the course as the advertisement promises it will work like magic to give one poise, self-confidence and greater popularity.
The noble Marquess used the phrase: "there may have been a sea change". That is what we all hope for. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, like her predecessor in this House, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, has always emphasised the need for patience, and in particular a non-partisan approach to Ulster's problems.

77
I know that I can trust her to agree that we have never tried to make a party point or take any form of political advantage from the miseries and anxieties of other people. Those miseries and anxieties were described yet again so movingly by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh.
It seems that there is a new spirit abroad. It is a very tender infant and it needs to be succoured with care and looked after with patience. I think we all agree with that. The Leader of the Labour Party generously said at Blackpool recently that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with their ministerial team, deserve full credit, which we wholeheartedly give. With respect, I reiterate that this evening. They are not the only ones who deserve credit. Other noble Lords have spoken of John Hume. He has been quite vigorously criticised in your Lordships' House on earlier occasions such as this but he has deserved credit. He was doing lonely work; he was likely to be criticised, and he was; he was thought certain to fail and he did not. I think a decent regard for his public service is something that one ought to mention.
We on this side of the House agree that caution is to be the watchword, but reasoned not fearful caution, otherwise we shall get nowhere. We on these Benches are particularly pleased—I think the noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated this—to endorse the lifting of restrictions on publicity. Many of us on this side have thought in the past, and said publicly, that the ban on speaking, except through an actor's voice, gave only benefit to the apologists of terror and terrorism. It was a great propaganda coup in the United States of America where not everyone thinks well of us. The hardest, most difficult times that Gerry Adams has had in the past five years have been from television and newspaper reporters who have made him answer in his own voice, not hiding behind the shield we foolishly gave him. When those questions are put to him, often he has no reply and the thinness of his defence is exposed by the fact that journalists and newspaper reporters can put questions to him and say, "Listen to me, Mr. Adams. You just answer now".
When Mr. Blair stood for leadership of the Labour Party he stressed, almost as his first observation, that the problems of Northern Ireland and the pursuit of peace and reconciliation would be one of the first priorities of a Labour government under his prime ministership. That remains our full position. We endorse, as we always have, the Downing Street Declaration. It is historically not correct to point to it as being the declaration that the Government of the United Kingdom had no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. That was long past. It was first delivered, if I remember rightly, by Mr. Brooke, when he was Secretary of state for Northern Ireland, and was subsequently endorsed on a number of occasions by the Prime Minister long before the Downing Street Declaration was ever proposed. We are happy to re-emphasise to our friends and colleagues who live in Ulster that Labour Party policy is that there can be no change in the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland without the consent of its people.
78
I pay my own small tribute, if I may, to the way in which Mr. Molyneaux, with internal political problems of his own, has sought to be flexible and sought to deal with a changing situation. There are many, many problems to be addressed, such as the constitutional legislation of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and the powers, functions and nature of devolved government in Northern Ireland. I respectfully underline and endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, which have been made on earlier occasions as well as this evening, that if one gives people no power, one will attract no one of quality into government. We must look towards parity of esteem and equality of treatment for both traditions.
I hope I may mention my next point as I do not believe it has been mentioned this evening. I believe that it is foolish and myopic to believe that because there are two religious cultural traditions in Northern Ireland, each of those two is a monolith. It is quite the opposite in fact; they are not monolithic, they are internally diverse in the Protestant tradition as well as in the Roman Catholic tradition. As has been said by noble Lords earlier this evening, not all Roman Catholics have a particular view any more than all Protestants have a particular view. I think in the past, because of the polarisation which terrorism has imposed upon Northern Ireland, we have been too slow to recognise the internal diversity of different traditions. We must look to cross-Border co-operation, and if there is to be any constitutional amendment of the arrangements, to see that both governments are in a position to bind themselves to protect those altered arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed to the surprising fact to many of us that half the population in Northern Ireland lives in wards either composed of 90 per cent. Roman Catholics or 90 per cent. Protestants. In fact, only 7 per cent. of the population live in areas where there is no such overwhelming majority.
We have to look to the policing of Northern Ireland. I want to repeat that no one can fail to pay tribute to the daily courage, endurance and decency of the policeman on the street in Northern Ireland. Those are only words, but they mean something.
Over the next few years we have to consider a different basis of recruitment to the police service in Northern Ireland. I agree that, as has already been said, we have to move, with deliberate speed and caution, to minimise the function of the armed services in protection of the civil power. In every conversation that I have had either with the armed services or the Ulster police service I have found that both agree with that objective.
In his key Coleraine speech almost two years ago the Secretary of State said:
"When terrorism is seen to have genuinely ended, there will indeed be profound consequences for the maintenance of law and order and for the administration of justice. Freed from the threat of death at every corner, the RUC would be free to give fresh priority to the quality and accessibility of its service. Normality could return. The emergency legislation would have served its purpose".
Those are matters of profound and long-lasting importance to Northern Ireland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.

79
The emergency legislation, with extended detention, non-jury courts in serious criminal cases and internal executive exile has never been welcome, although our stance has always been that some of those features have been unfortunate necessities. We need to scrutinise that apparatus to see whether it can be dismantled or at least significantly redesigned. The problems of Northern Ireland have significantly distorted the legal process in England and Wales as well as in Northern Ireland. We need to be very careful about taking draconian powers, as we are being urged to do in the present Criminal Justice Bill, in relation to police stop and search when no reasonable suspicion is involved.
The role of the police authorities can usefully be extended. The more open they are, the better support the police service in Northern Ireland will have. The complaints system needs to be improved and brought up to date. No decent policeman and no decent police service has anything to fear from the improvement of a police complaints procedure.
No one can pretend that there are no problems that will not endure for the next 20 to 25 years. No one can look at the unemployment statistics, particularly in the younger age groups, without a sense of deep gloom. Unemployment of more than 25 per cent. is the best recruiting sergeant that terrorism has ever had.
I return to the maiden speech in which the term "sea change" was used. There are modest, reasonable hopes for a sea change. Perhaps the wind is kinder now, but no one on this side of the House deceives himself or herself that change will be brought about quickly. Caution is the watchword. Whether within government or without, anyone in Northern Ireland who looks for decent support will not look in vain to these Benches.
7.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I have never doubted this House's interest in Northern Ireland. Each time I return to London there is a queue of people looking to be updated on the situation in the Province. I also know, and now personally understand, how once having had the privilege of serving in the Northern Ireland Office the affection and regard you have for the people of Northern Ireland is with you for life.
It does not surprise me therefore that we have had such an informed and thought-provoking debate. I am appreciative of the many valuable and constructive contributions made today. So much has happened over the past few months that it is extremely helpful to hear the wisdom of this House.
In particular, I too pay tribute to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Downshire. I hope very much that with his knowledge of the Province we can look forward to future participation in Northern Ireland debates.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, rightly says that in this House the concern for the people of Northern Ireland has always risen above party politics. I am grateful for that, and I am sure that the people of
80
Northern Ireland are too. I am also grateful for the Labour Party's support for the Downing Street Declaration.
Your Lordships have covered much ground and raised many points. Were I to answer every one in detail tonight we would be here until midnight. With the House's permission, I shall deal with the main and recurrent issues and reply in writing to all the other points that have been raised.
Time and time again your Lordships expressed anxiety about the position with respect to weapons in the hands of paramilitaries. Her Majesty's Government have no hesitation in saying that no one who is committed to peaceful and democratic methods has any need to hold arms. We want to see the gun removed entirely from politics in Northern Ireland. The practical steps to achieve that will necessarily be part of the exploratory dialogue.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She may not be able to answer the point, and if she cannot I shall understand. I was concerned as to whether giving up arms was to be a prerequisite to the starting of negotiations. In other words, would it have to precede negotiations or would it be part of those negotiations?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as I said just now, it will necessarily be part of the exploratory dialogue.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked for further information about the joint framework document. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked whether it would include details of Strand One concerning relationships within Northern Ireland. The discussions that are taking place on the preparation of the document are, of course, confidential and it would not be right to go into detail. However, I can tell your Lordships that the document does not focus on the detail of Strand One, which is a matter for discussion between Her Majesty's Government and the Northern Ireland parties and has been the subject of discussion between my honourable friend Michael Ancram and the three main Northern Ireland parties. The framework document concentrates instead on Strands Two and Three; namely, North-South and East-West relations. The purpose of the document is to provide a common understanding of the elements of a settlement which will attract widespread acceptance.
I listened with interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, about publication of the joint framework document. No decision has yet been taken by the two governments, but it is an issue which will be considered as the document nears completion.
Many noble Lords raised the question of the timing of exploratory talks. Our judgment of the right time to enter exploratory talks with Sinn Fein will be made in the light of circumstances. We have laid down no preconditions for their beginning other than that there should be a genuine and established cessation of violence. The reason for a time lapse between a genuine cessation of violence and exploratory dialogue is to enable commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods to be demonstrated. I assure the

81
noble Lord that we are not grumbling for grumbling's sake. But we believe in a step at a time. That is a view that I have heard from most noble Lords today.
I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, that the statement and actions by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have reassured those supporters of the Union that decisions on any settlement will be made by the people of Northern Ireland, and that no ceasefires have been bought. No price has been paid for them. There have been no secret deals, no secret assurances; and, to repeat a statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State,
"no nods, no winks, no tricks with mirrors".
I was delighted, as I suspect was the whole of your Lordships' House, that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark took part in the debate. I agree wholeheartedly with his view that the search for peace cannot be delivered by Government alone, but everyone has a role to play; and, as the right reverend Prelate said, may God be on the side of the peacemakers.
I know—I heard the fact again tonight—that the statement that the British Government have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland has given much cause: for concern in some noble Lords' minds. I believe that I can do no better than to repeat the explanation of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when he said,
"We shall not impose our views on the majority in Northern Ireland but that, of course, does not and cannot mean that we are indifferent to their concerns and their future. We support the Union; and we protect its people. We support their rights with our cast iron constitutional guarantee. We support their economy and we support it generously. We deploy 18,000 of our troops in Northern Ireland because of our concern about the situation there, and we want to ensure that the people in Northern Ireland about whom we are concerned can have a safer and more prosperous future in which democracy can thrive. None of that is selfish; all of it is our responsibility".
Since my right honourable friend made that statement, matters have moved quickly. But there can be no doubt of our responsibility in that area.
The question of emergency legislation was raised. The need for the Emergency Provisions Act has always been kept under review. We have stated that its provision will remain in force no longer than is necessary. But it is obviously too soon to speculate about the future of the Act which protects the law-abiding public from terrorists of all persuasions. We are guided in those matters by professional assessment of threat.
As the noble Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, knows, decisions on operational deployments and the nature and level of security force activity to prevent crime and protect the community are influenced by that prevailing threat. The security forces will, under the chief constable's direction, continue to act against those responsible for crimes with full vigour and with the Government's full support. If a genuine and permanent cessation of violence takes place, there will be major consequences for the maintenance of law and order and the deployment of troops. But there is no question of military support for the police being reduced while that support is needed.
82
I noted, too, with interest, the relevant issue raised by my noble friend Lady Park that so far as concerns troop deployment Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
Again, nervousness has been expressed about joint authority. I am delighted to tell the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, that both Governments have confirmed that joint authority is not on either Government's agenda. At the inter-governmental conference on 15th April, Dick Spring stated,
"Joint authority is not being considered".
Apart from the question of practicality, the Government do not believe that any agreed outcome from further talks would embrace any sharing of political responsibility for Northern Ireland by the two Governments. However, the noble Lord rightly pointed out many economic benefits for some sectors to work together. We must avoid overlaying political matters on activities which bring mutual benefit and often jobs to the people of Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, rightly paid tribute to the Northern Ireland judiciary. We would all concur. We are proud of the record of service that the judges in Northern Ireland have given to the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether there were to be exceptions to the "nothing to be agreed until everything is agreed" approach for the purpose of confidence building. Participation in the talks process through which the parties will reach agreement on institutions will be the best confidence building measure. The issues would be agreed.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough raised the issue of amnesty. Perhaps I may assure him that the criminal law will continue to be applied vigorously with the intention of bringing those responsible for terrorist crime before the courts. Those convicted of crimes must expect to serve their sentences in accordance with the law. The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation which is to be established in the Republic of Ireland was mentioned. That is entirely a matter for the Irish Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, raised the issue of responsibility for controlling the talks. Both Governments hope that the joint framework document which they are preparing will provide the impetus for the resumption of multilateral talks involving the two Governments and all the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. We shall certainly do all we can to encourage the progress of those talks towards agreement on a widely acceptable political settlement addressing all the relevant relationships. We are persuaders for agreement.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and several other noble Lords raised the question of local authorities. Perhaps I may assure my noble friend that the Government wish to see greater power and responsibility in the hands of locally accountable representatives. But for any such arrangement to be stable and durable, it must enjoy widespread acceptance and operate within a framework of stable relationships. We believe that the best way to achieve that lies with the talks process, but meanwhile we consider every possible

83
means to encourage people to be involved in their communities, including public appointments. We believe that it is important to encourage young people in particular to re-look at politics and to participate in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked me for a guarantee that the European Union funds would not be a question of additionality. All aspects of additional funding in the present circumstances are under close consideration. As he will know, I am really saying that it is a matter for Treasury. I shall write to the noble Lord when the details are known.
Several noble Lords praised the RUC. It is praise well deserved. I stress that the RUC is open to all. I very much hope that it will now be possible for more Roman Catholics to play a full-time role in policing. I believe that that would be an important move.
The noble Lords, Lord Mason, Lord Lester, and others mentioned Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution which make territorial claim over Northern Ireland. I refer your Lordships to the Joint Declaration in which the Irish Prime Minister confirmed that in the event of an overall settlement, the Irish Government will, as a part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland. The discussions on the joint framework document between the governments include constitutional issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised the issue of the incorporation of the European Court of Human Rights. A common position on the incorporation of the European Court of Human Rights and other human rights issues will emerge during multilateral talks and it would be wrong to pre-empt that.
However, I wish to reply to noble Lords who raised the question of a Bill of Rights. While it would be wrong of me again to pre-empt future talks, I am well aware of the different parties' support for the principle of a Bill of Rights. On the other hand, as will be well appreciated, the issues are far from straightforward. The point that I should like to make is that there will be a chance for all the participants in the talks, including Her Majesty's Government, to evolve a common position on the human rights issues during multilateral talks, as there will be on a broad range of other issues.
These are all points which concern your Lordships. What must remain our highest priority is the views of the people of Northern Ireland. A majority of the people living there want to stay within the union. To quote my right honourable friend the Secretary of State,
"we are glad of it. It is a strength and it is an inspiration".
I stress too that this is not an exclusively Protestant view. We also recognise that a significant minority aspire to a united Ireland. We have guaranteed the right of Northern Ireland's people to decide their constitutional future democratically. The principle of democracy was set out in the Downing Street Declaration, and on a recent visit to Belfast the Prime
84
Minister reaffirmed that the outcome of the three-stranded talks process would be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum.
So much has been achieved since the Prime Minister courageously delivered that Downing Street Declaration; courageous, because no British Prime Minister has built his or her reputation on solving the Irish issue but never has there been greater need for a solution. I salute the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, who made that declaration with him. I also pay particular tribute to my two colleagues, Sir Patrick Mayhew and Michael Ancram, who tirelessly work towards finding the answer which restores permanent peace to a very special island. All those major players are of course assisted ably and unstintingly by a team of officials who live, breathe and, I suspect, sleep the problems.
As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and the right reverend Prelate said, many have played a part in getting us so far. Yet we must acknowledge that it is a task with a long and difficult path ahead. Everything must be allowed to come to the table, everything must be examined and decided. There will have to be a swallowing of pride and much more by all participants. As my noble friend Lord Colnbrook pointed out, we shall all need patience. The resolution of the current situation has to be comprehensive and final if we are to achieve political stability in Northern Ireland. As we have learnt today, none of us who has not lived in Northern Ireland for the past 25 years can have any real conception of the pain, suffering or courage involved. We witness the major tragedies, but we can never begin to imagine how it feels to give birth to a baby whose father has been murdered—and many have; to sit or to walk next to a victim who is shot; to be married to a policeman or policewoman or a member of the security forces who may be killed for simply doing their jobs: protecting others.
Do not, I beg you, my Lords, underestimate the achievements of the police and security forces. If you were to see the list of weapons they find regularly, you would have a real measure of the number of lives that they have saved.
Last week I spoke in Belfast to the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists. They told me that at the height of the troubles, to get to the Royal Victoria Hospital they had to put their uniforms on at home to get past the paramilitaries. At the end of the shift they had to stay at the hospital until no more bullets flew past the windows. But no one ever called in sick.
We have seen a great victory for the people of Northern Ireland, who proved that violence did not and could not work. As the right honourable Member for Lagan Valley, Jim Molyneaux, said on Saturday, "Democracy has finally won".
Now we have hope. Belfast is already a different city, we shop without our handbags being searched; we visit hotels without going through the security hut; we drive home without frequent stops at checkpoints. But while that is tremendous news, we shall never stop in our determination to stamp out violence; and punishing people with beatings is violence. Ask the young victims and their mothers. The RUC will never slacken in its

85
protection of the people and, as the noble Lord suggested, we shall continue our vigorous security policy. Nor would we hesitate to react strongly and quickly to any renewed threat of violence. We shall work towards peace with all our efforts; but we shall not be unprepared, should our hopes and those of most of the people of Northern Ireland be dashed. For we shall never forget that it is this Government which carries the responsibility for Northern Ireland. We shall work ceaselessly to find a settlement. We shall give the decision process to the people of Northern Ireland. That is democracy.
My Lords, we shall continue to need your understanding, your help, your analysis, your judgment and your prayers as we work for the permanence of peace. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994
8.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th July be approved [25 th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the regulations standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The regulations were approved in another place, following the debate on 19th July. My honourable friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside wrote to honourable Members who had raised points in that debate and copies of his letters have been placed in the Library.
The draft regulations to be made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 transpose into national law for Great Britain the provisions of the EC directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna adopted by the Council of Ministers in May 1992.
The directive was a significant milestone for the conservation of the most endangered habitat types and species in the European Union and these draft regulations indicate the Government's determination to give proper effect to its requirements. The challenge has been to integrate the new requirements of the directive into what we already have.
The regulations introduce new provisions arising specifically from the directive but also embrace existing provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and other Acts, with modifications where necessary. The draft order, therefore, constitutes a single body of legislation for sites and animal and plant species of European importance covered by the directive. The existing law, in so far as it applies to non-European sites and species outside the scope of the directive, remains in force unamended.
The draft regulations follow the public consultation which took place last autumn. All those who responded to the consultation have received a letter explaining the contents of the regulations and a copy has been placed in the Library. The letters from respondents plus a
86
summary analysis of their contents have also been placed in the Library. In addition, a summary of responses to the public consultation on the amendments to the general development order effected by these regulations is in the Library.
A cornerstone provision of the regulations is the introduction of new duties on Ministers and the nature conservation agencies to exercise certain of their functions in order to secure compliance with the requirements of the directive. In doing so they must use such of the provisions in existing nature conservation legislation and in these regulations as may be necessary to secure the protection of sites and species as required by the directive. A similar duty is imposed on authorities operating in the marine environment, to which I shall return later. All government and public bodies have a new duty to have regard to the directive's requirements in the exercise of any of their functions, and Part IV of the regulations imposes specific duties on certain statutory bodies in respect of certain functions.
The regulations provide for the selection and designation of sites which will become special areas of conservation (SACs) as required by the directive. The habitats directive applies a similar protection regime to SACs and special protection areas (SPAs) classified under the 1979 EC Wild Birds Directive. The regulations thus modify the protection regime applying to SPAs and provide a comprehensive legal protection system for all European sites which will in the future contribute to the Europe-wide network (known as Natura 2000) of designated nature conservation sites.
The regulations also give effect to the requirement that the Government must submit a proposed site list to the European Commission. Following discussion at community level a European Union-wide network of sites of Community importance will be adopted by June 1998; the regulations require the Secretary of State to designate such sites in this country as SACs within six years. The Government is receiving advice from the nature conservation agencies through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on their site proposals based on the directive's scientific criteria. We shall consider this advice and intend to publish a list of sites for consultation very shortly.
The Government are committed to preliminary consultation with all owners and occupiers and other affected interests on the sites before submission to the Commission takes place. Full and detailed discussions about definition and management of sites will continue before the Community list is agreed. On land, all candidate sites will have been notified and confirmed as sites of special scientific interest before the Community list is agreed. The vast majority are already confirmed SSSIs.
The Government have been committed for many years to the conservation of nationally and internationally important sites. It has a whole range of policies to achieve that objective. The SAC network is, therefore, a development of an existing conservation programme. I want to dispel from your Lordships' minds any notion that we are starting from scratch.
The regulations provide for the establishment of a register of European sites which will be open to public inspection. The entry of a site on the register will be notified to owners, occupiers, local authorities and any other interested bodies which the Secretary of State may direct. The register will be the formal means to record the sites subject to the provisions of the regulations.
The register will include existing Birds Directive SPAs and new SPAs as they are classified, and SACs, first when they are agreed at European level as sites of Community importance and, eventually, when they are formally designated.
The regulations provide that existing legal measures applying to SSSIs and nature reserves are available with certain modifications for European sites. The Government remain committed to the voluntary principle of land management. It is expected that where management is necessary most of the conservation needs of designated sites will be delivered through voluntary management agreements negotiated between owners and occupiers and the nature conservation agencies.
For European sites, the regulations continue the existing provisions of Sections 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 but make certain modifications relating to notification of and consents to operations which are likely significantly to affect the sites' conservation objectives. The nature conservation agencies will be able to amend their existing SSSI notifications for European sites. They will be unable to give consent to a notified operation if that operation would adversely affect the integrity of the site. They must inform the Secretary of State if there is a risk that the owner or occupier will persist with the operation.
The Secretary of State can then make a "special" nature conservation order prohibiting damaging operations indefinitely unless a management agreement (subject to existing arbitration procedures) is negotiated or unless he instructs the agency to give consent on grounds of overriding public interest. Existing consents on protected sites must be reviewed in the light of the directive's requirements and may be withdrawn or amended as appropriate.
The regulations also allow the making of by-laws to control third party activities and will enable powers of compulsory purchase, similar to those that exist in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, to be used if necessary as the only cost-effective means of safeguarding the conservation value of the land.
The regulations introduce a new framework for the conservation of European sites in the marine environment. All Ministers, government departments and public bodies with functions relevant to marine conservation must, under a new duty, exercise their functions to secure compliance with the requirements of the directive. Identified relevant authorities, such as sea fisheries committees, harbour authorities and local authorities are given a new power to join with one another in the drawing up of schemes of management for these sites.
The Government expect these authorities to work together voluntarily to establish such schemes founded on the advice which the nature conservation agencies are under a duty to provide. However, Ministers may, under the regulations, give directions to these bodies in respect of the establishment of a scheme of management and will do so if it seems to them necessary to secure the conservation of the site. Such directions could cover the nomination of a lead agency, a timescale for the preparation of a scheme or even the inclusion of certain conservation measures in a scheme.
The regulations introduce, in respect of the species covered by the directive which occur in the UK, a number of technical changes to the existing species protection provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The 1981 Act provisions were designed to implement the Bern Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats into British law. The directive, in its turn, was based on the provisions of the Bern Convention and therefore the need for change to existing domestic provisions is relatively small.
Part IV of the regulations contains detailed application of the provisions of Article 6 of the directive in respect of a number of existing legislative regimes for consents, permissions or authorisations of plans and projects or development which would be likely to have a significant effect on a European site. The regulations introduce a general approach to the assessment of such effects. They stipulate the exceptional circumstances in which consent can be given to a plan or project if an assessment shows that it will adversely affect the integrity of a site. Such circumstances are defined as where there is no alternative solution and where the plan or project is necessary for imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature.
Where a site hosts the very rarest of the habitat types and species, which are defined in the directive as "priority" habitat types or species, the only allowable considerations are those relating to human health or public safety, other environmental factors of primary importance or, subject to the Commission's approval, other reasons of overriding public interest.
All these provisions apply to the granting of new consents, permissions, etc., but the regulations also introduce a new requirement to review existing unimplemented or partially implemented decisions which are likely, if carried out, to affect European sites and if necessary to take action to remove harm.
The regulations specifically apply these general provisions to a range of existing controls, including the granting of planning permissions, deemed planning permissions and the availability of permitted development rights through the general development order. For England, Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 9 on nature conservation will explain the effects of the regulations fully to local authorities, developers and any other interests. Other guidance will be issued for Wales and for Scotland.
I believe that these draft regulations represent a thorough implementation package to comply with the requirements of the habitats directive. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th July be approved [25th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
8.20 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("this House regrets that the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th July include, insofar as they concern Scotland, provisions which, inter alia,

(i) allow for an increase in the area of land covered by Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); and

(ii) revoke existing consents for potentially damaging operations within SSSIs and consents for planning in the countryside generally;

and declines to approve the regulations until they have been examined against the test of subsidiarity as set out in Article 3(b) of the Treaty on European Union.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by apologising to all your Lordships for the tardiness with which I have tabled this amendment. However, it is only in the past few clays that some of my worst fears about the damage which these regulations and the European directive upon which they rest may do, at least in Scotland, have been confirmed. I should perhaps say that I speak entirely personally and in no way seek to portray the official views of the Scottish Landowners' Federation or Scottish Natural Heritage. I should also declare an interest, in that I own land in Scotland which is likely to be affected by the directive. Apart from one question which I shall put to my noble friend, I do not believe that my personal financial interest will be touched by these regulations. I am more worried that various scientific and regenerative schemes which I sponsor may be put in jeopardy.
I fear that it is inevitable that I shall have some fairly straight questions for my noble friend the Minister, in view of what I regard as the Government's folly in signing up to this particular directive. However, for what it is worth, I should like to exonerate my noble friend from any blame whatsoever, since he was doing other things at the time and is new to some of the finer and more dangerous nuances that I shall discuss. Likewise, I feel sure that his brief will not be of much help to him or to me. So I can but trust that this evening's proceedings will leave our very old friendship entirely intact.
Indeed, my noble friend's position is even more awkward than that, because not only will he hear what I expect may well be my lone voice urging him to abandon these regulations entirely; he will also have other noble Lords criticising the Government for not going a good deal further than they have done. He will thus be caught in what I always think is the unnecessary crossfire between the environmental lobby and the occupiers of land.
I know that there are many noble Lords who believe that our environmental problems are so worrying that surely any legislation which seeks to tackle those problems must be good. I do understand that view. But, as a Member of your Lordships' Select Committee on
90
Europe and in particular its sub-committee on the environment, I do not share it. We last debated this matter on 21st January 1993, when we discussed the Select Committee's Report on the enforcement of European environmental legislation and when I foresaw precisely the position in which we now find ourselves. If my noble friend could take the time to read what I said then (at cols. 987 to 990), I feel that he would understand my frustration now, even if he is not free to share it.
I still doubt, as I did then, whether European legislation is the right vehicle for international environmental regulation. My reasons still hold good— such as that Euro-legislation is made at national level, whereas in Germany, Spain, Holland and Belgium responsibility for the environment is vested at the local level of government. There is also the problem that most other member states simply have no intention of obeying Euro-rules with the same enthusiasm that we British do.
That gives me the opportunity to ask my first two questions of my noble friend. First, what evidence is there that any other countries of the European Communities are treating this directive with relish similar to our own or that they will be similarly obedient to it? Secondly, how much has each of them budgeted to spend in its pursuance?
Turning now specifically to Scotland—though I feel that what I have to say may apply as much to the rest of the United Kingdom—I contend that we do not need this directive at all. To support that contention I need to remind your Lordships of a little of the history of Scottish Natural Heritage. When the SNH Bill appeared in your Lordships' House, it proposed to give SNH much the same sort of coercive power which is now to be found in these regulations. At the time, sites of special scientific interest were broadly unpopular in Scotland and many of us felt that an independent system of appeal against them should have been introduced. After a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing with the other place, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde brought forward a far-sighted government amendment which set up a new advisory committee under the auspices of SNH to which aggrieved landholders could appeal if they felt that their land was being designated on less than valid scientific grounds.
The amendment was accepted in your Lordships' House by a massive majority and confirmed by the other place. But there was an outcry from the leftish-greenish environmentalists, who claimed that the new advisory committee would be overwhelmed with appeals and that the work of SNH would be gummed up to the end of the century. I fear that they were even so uncharitable as to suggest that that was indeed the intention of the wicked landlords in your Lordships' House. How wrong they were. There have been only two appeals to the advisory committee and both have been decided in favour of SNH. However, there can be little doubt that the existence of the advisory committee has done much to curb some of the SNH's over-zealous designators of SSSI's, and it is safe to say that the SNH Act of 1991 heralded a new era of harmony and co-operation in Scotland.
Much of the credit for that of course must go to SNH's chairman, Sir Magnus Magnusson, and his team, with whom even deer forest owners were now looking forward to collaborating voluntarily in setting up the new natural heritage areas envisaged by the Act, which seemed to most of us the sensible and modem way forward.
But then along comes this wretched directive, which I fear will restore all the old antagonism and distrust between SNH and those who own and work the land, at least in Scotland. I regard the situation as tragic and I am afraid that I also regard it as somewhat sinister. It is as though some hidden hand failed to grab the power it sought through the SNH Bill procedure but has now succeeded in doing so through the back door of Brussels.
It is against our custom to criticise civil servants generally, let alone to name them individually, but I have discussed my worries with a number of noble friends in this House and with honourable and right honourable friends in the other place and find that I am not alone in reaching that conclusion. With one exception, convention further restrains me from naming my friends in question because they are today all Ministers of the Crown and therefore should not be drawn into controversy of this sort about a department in which they no longer work. However, I fancy that my noble friend Lord Hesketh (I am sorry to see that he is not with us), who has laid down the burdens of office, may know what I am talking about and may have some sympathy with it.
That brings me specifically to the amendment itself. I fear that the directive and these regulations will have at least six damaging effects, of which I have indicated two in the amendment. In discussing those defects, I would point out that we are being asked to agree to these regulations without knowing precisely, or at all, what their effect may be. We do not yet know what areas will be designated as special areas of conservation (SACs) by the Secretaries of State on the advice of our conservation bodies, so we do not know the magnitude of the problem that we may be facing. We can, however, see the principles—or lack of them—which underlie this particular piece of subservience to Brussels, so I shall address myself to those.
First, the regulations will result in a large increase in the area of land to be covered by SSSIs, at least in Scotland, and thus by the new Euro-designation of SAC. I say that because, after half a dozen Written Questions, my noble friend Lord Arran was able to tell me, in a letter dated 25th March this year, that SACs will only be declared on land which has already been fully confirmed as an SSSI, allowing consultation and possible review by the advisory committee in Scotland to run their course. My noble friend Lord Arran admitted also that those new sites which will make up the new Euro-SACs could involve several hundred owners and occupiers. I now learn that entire river systems may be designated because Brussels fears for the future of the Atlantic salmon. So we are clearly talking about very large new areas.
That seems to be particularly inappropriate. SNH has already designated all the land which it considers necessary to protect our natural heritage, amounting to about 10 per cent. of the Highlands. Can my noble friend tell us therefore—this is one of my more important questions—how much further land will have to be designated in Scotland and elsewhere? How do the Government justify handing over that land in effect to the diktat of the Brussels bureaucrats? Do the Government think that Brussels knows more about the natural heritage of Scotland, and indeed anywhere else in the United Kingdom, than SNH and other conservation bodies? If so, why?
My second point is that the regulations will force our conservation bodies to revoke consent for what are known as potentially damaging operations, which are rightly permitted within existing SSSIs with the consent of the conservation bodies. It will also force local authorities to revoke some planning consents which have already been granted in the countryside but upon which work may not have started. Here again, we have no idea of the scale of these extraordinary reversals of arrangements which have already been sanctioned by Parliament. Can my noble friend tell us how the Government have the brass nerve to justify them? Can he in fact give us any idea of the scale in question before we are invited to sanction the retrospective overturning of the will of Parliament, and by regulation at that?
My third point is that the directive introduces a new crime of what I call the "knock-on effect" in the countryside. One will be breaching the regulations if one carries out an operation which damages one of the new Euro-SACs nearby or even a long way away. Can I ask my noble friend whether the Government have given any thought as to the muddle in the world of planning which that part of the directive or regulation may cause? Who will decide whether a particular operation outside a Euro-SAC is likely to damage something Brussels judges to be important within it?
Fourthly, the regulations will weaken and perhaps nullify our present systems of appeal to the advisory committee in Scotland and to the Secretaries of State as ordained by Parliament. Can my noble friend tell us whether the advisory committee will judge appeals in future on the same scientific criteria it would have used before the directive came into force, or whether it will have to deliver its advice influenced by what the Secretary of State may have decided is scientifically important—he in turn having taken his marching orders from Brussels? By the same token, is not the judgment of the Secretaries of State going to be fettered by having to look over their shoulders at the regulations before deciding whether a specific development is or is not necessary for what Brussels describes as,
"imperative reasons of overriding public interest"?
My fifth point relates to money. Because the suite of Scottish SSSIs as sanctioned by Parliament is widely known to be complete, land-holders will not be co-operative about the new Euro-SACs which are shortly to be forced upon them. That means that the new management agreements will be more expensive than those which already exist. It also means that the power of compulsory purchase will be more likely to have to

93
be used in future. Both those unwelcome developments will cost money. Furthermore, I gather that SNH's budget has had to be substantially increased to cope with its extra workload, a large part of which comes from— and has already come from—the directive. Can my noble friend tell us how much extra taxpayers' money the Government budgeted to see the regulations through? I see no estimate in the regulations themselves. That is perhaps because we do not appear to dare to count the cost of our membership of the European Community on any front. So can my noble friend help us here with a figure, perhaps to the nearest paltry million pounds or so?
While on the subject of costs, I was surprised to see that the regulations opine that they will cause no extra burden for business. If so, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the one question in which I could have a direct personal interest. Will I be allowed to carry out one of the Government's new native pinewood schemes on land which is not at present an SSSI but which will in future form part of an SAC?
My sixth point is that the regulations will do exactly what the leftist conservationists accused your Lordships of doing when we created the advisory committee in Scotland. They will gum up the work of SNH to the end of the century and they will gum it up with work which is by definition superfluous to sustain our natural heritage. I deplore the antagonism against SNH which they will generate, and let me assure your Lordships that I am not alone in that. They will make it impossible for SNH to do many other things for conservation, not least to retain the positive support of landowners for our future together.
And so I come to subsidiarity. As I said earlier, I know that there are some noble Lords who believe that the scale of our environmental problems is such that all member states should be subservient to the Commission in all environmental matters. I regret that the Government appear to share that view. But I hope that I have said something to show that that theory does not necessarily hold good, in this country at least, when we are considering our own unique natural heritage.
In my view there cannot be much doubt that the directive should fall under Clause 3b of the Maastricht Treaty—the subsidiarity clause. After all, when the Government unfortunately signed up to the Habitats directive in 1992 we had not ratified the subsidiarity clause. The Government assured us constantly, through all our debates on Maastricht, that subsidiarity was to be our glowing shield against any further erosion of our sovereignty to Brussels. It may help your Lordships if I again quote the clause in question:
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community".
There can be little doubt that any reasonable objectives of the Habitats Directive have already been amply achieved in this country. So can my noble friend tell us how they can be better achieved by the
94
Community—if your Lordships will forgive the Euro-speak—by reason of their proposed scale or effects?
I fear that my noble friend will have some difficulty in answering that question, at least to my satisfaction. So I propose that we do not pass into British law these regulations, which reflect yet another unnecessary, interfering, expensive and misguided directive from Brussels and which risk doing much harm to our natural heritage. I beg to move.
8.38 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest as the owner of a small estate in Scotland, while other members of my family have an interest in a rather larger one. The regulations are in accordance with the European directive and I understand are also consistent with action being taken in other European member states. I give them a guarded welcome. Perhaps I am not as starry eyed about them as I should be because I have some anxieties. Although they are of relevance generally, some are particularly important in Scotland where the total area of designated sites is likely to be proportionately greater.
Members have stated that the Government, while complying fully with the directive, will do so with the lightest possible touch. That certainly is welcome. But it only applies to the present Government and to the present Ministers. There are still anxieties that the regulations will introduce a much greater measure of compulsion to the management of designated sites and that there may be an erosion of the voluntary principle which is currently working well in achieving objectives for the natural heritage. Implementation of the regulations may divert the resources of Scottish Natural Heritage and of English Nature from other important conservation work, as indeed they already have. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on these concerns and also on a number of other specific issues.
The regulations make significant changes to planning law. Development which is liable to affect the integrity of European sites will not be permitted unless there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. For sites hosting priority habitats those reasons are clearly set out. However, for non-priority habitats and species, a careful balance will have to be struck between the natural heritage interest and the economic and social interests. This matter is open to many possible interpretations and it is important that there should be a consistency of approach throughout the United Kingdom and indeed throughout the European Community. It should not be left to the interpretation of individual planning authorities. I would ask the Minister to explain how the balance between these interests is to be achieved, a consistency of approach ensured and what detailed guidelines will be given to planning authorities, including those in Scotland, on this matter.
Permitted development rights for such things as farm roads and drainage will be removed for developments likely to have a significant effect on European sites. That is wholly acceptable for potential developments on the sites themselves, but I fear will create great uncertainty and potential risk for farmers and

95
landowners when applied, as it does—I think the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has already mentioned this—to developments on other land. For instance, in the case of a river, drainage high in the catchment area may affect water flows and the integrity of a site which could be some miles downstream—possibly many miles downstream—and of which the potential developer may be totally unaware. In that situation it is, I suggest, unreasonable to expect the developer to know that permitted development rights had been removed and that he must obtain the approval of the planning authority in accordance with Regulations 60 to 62. I would ask the Minister to explain whether guidance will be given to owners and occupiers of other land where European sites may be susceptible to damage from what is presently permitted development on that other land; and if so, how this might be achieved. I would also ask what notice will be given to, for example, owners of sites higher up in the catchment area that they have to be careful what they do because of the possibility of doing damage to sites lower down. How will they be informed?
Again in relation to Regulations 60 to 62, these regulations do not state that a planning authority must take into account economic and social factors in reaching its decision. The directive does require those factors to be considered. Would the Minister confirm that Regulations 60 to 62 are subject to Regulations 47 to 49 and that for non-priority sites planning authorities are obliged to take into account economic and social factors in reaching their decisions?
Part of the regulations deals with the protection of species whether on designated sites or not. The number of species is not large, but I am uneasy that Regulation 39 appears to allow the possibility of prosecution for accidental damage to a breeding site or resting place of a European protected species. This is notwithstanding the provision in Regulation 40 that damage which is caused as the incidental result of a lawful operation and which could not reasonably have been avoided will not be penalised. Would the Minister confirm that there is no intention to penalise a genuine accident where, for example, the person carrying out the operation was unaware of the existence of the breeding site or resting place in question?
There is considerable interest and some concern in Scotland at the likely designation of some river systems as habitats of the Atlantic salmon and of other species. Salmon fishing is of great economic importance, directly and indirectly, to the economy of some rural areas. I would hope that the Minister could confirm that the measures to be introduced by way of management agreement and otherwise will not include restriction on rod and line fishing or the prevention of fishing improvements to the banks and bed of a river, but will rather focus on seeking to improve spawning beds, water quality and the habitat of such rivers generally.
Finally, it is of the greatest importance for the success of these measures that owners and occupiers are fully consulted and can be in sympathy with the objectives. I know that the Scottish Landowners' Federation has had very constructive discussions with the Scottish Office
96
and Scottish Natural Heritage on implementing the regulations, but the Minister might nonetheless wish to confirm that there will indeed be full consultation with owners and occupiers and that the regulations will be implemented in the most sensitive way possible.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, this is a welcome opportunity to debate a very important matter and I pay tribute to the Minister for the able way in which he has outlined the regulations. I should make it clear that I feel unable to make much observation on what happens north of the Border and therefore I shall restrict my remarks to the original Motion. In doing so I must, like the previous two speakers, declare an interest as an occupier and manager of land within an English national park.
I am always concerned at new regulations, particularly on top of existing ones and especially on countryside matters. But a European standard linking habitats and species is desirable even if it is not comprehensive and even if it doubles up on existing law. I share the concern already expressed that in some cases special areas of conservation may extinguish existing consents and existing permissive uses. I have always thought that it was wrong for nature conservation to be put in such obvious conflict with matters which may, after all, be regarded as part of daily life and certainly part of conventional land management. Who will be responsible for compensation on rescission of existing consents, or will there be none? How does one prove loss when it is measured in terms of an irritation factor and decline in private management commitment? That is an off balance sheet matter which we would do well to consider.
The existing system established under the Wildlife and Countryside Act is effectively restated in these measures. Like the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I am concerned about the "penumbra effect", as I would call it, where off site activities that might just be considered damaging to an SAC will be caught in the list of proscribed activities. This creates uncertainty. It may be capricious in application depending on the view of a particular official and it certainly does not engender confidence in terms of countryside management. I believe that every land manager is entitled to know where he stands in law and not be subject to administrative uncertainty. But the burden of proof never seems to fall on the regulator; it always falls on the person who is regulated. This damages land manager commitment. Consultation, as was mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is all the more important. I would be particularly pleased to hear further from the Minister exactly what consultation will be undertaken.
I turn to the question of management agreements under paragraph 16 of the regulations and what follows thereafter. I preface my remarks by saying that land management, particularly good land management, follows attractive prospects. Where as legislators we fail in taking account of this, land management in SACs will fail also. But that is not inevitable unless those factors are not taken account of.

97
Where designations ring fence an area to the exclusion of a land manager's instinctive objectives, poor management almost invariably follows. I draw the attention of the House to the National Audit Office report entitled Protecting and Managing Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England which was published in May 1994. It states therein:
"Insufficient or inappropriate management is the main cause of deterioration of sites of special scientific interest in England".
I know of no effective regulation or sanction against poor management. It can be monitored but it cannot be eliminated. So we have to get away from the notion that agriculture and forestry and other conventional activities in the countryside are inherently harmful, because they are not. We have to understand that the management of land is a tool which is deployed as part of achieving some longer-term objective. It is necessary to comprehend that where activities involve net cost or are awkward and difficult, without eventual benefit to a supplier of goods, those goods simply cease to appear on the menu. Habitat management in farmed areas is a good of just that sort.
Moreover, habitats are not static but are in a constant process of evolution and transition. What habitat management does may simply be to interrupt the natural process and no more than that. My personal preference would be to see all land farmed with biodiversity in mind and all prescriptive regulation abandoned. Good management and environmental consciousness are part of a frame of mind fashioned by economic necessity and personal conviction, not something procured by administrative diktat.
But it would be wrong for me not to say that there are now welcome signs of a more focused approach to encouraging management through agreements that do in fact set targets, with a broad measure of freedom as to how they are achieved. That freedom may mean that there is some damage to working environmental capital in the process of creating balanced, fixed environmental capital. It is a balance sheet that we are all familiar with. I call to mind the old adage of country folk which is, "Live your life as if you would die tomorrow but farm your land as if you would live for ever". That approach indicates that we need a short-term fix but as part of a long-term strategy.
So if management agreements are to be a functional long-term strategy—and they are a main plank of how these special areas of conservation are to be managed as far as they are in private sector ownership—much more needs to be done to consult and to give a power of representation and appeal to land managers. Clear targets need to be set and not yet more regulations. I draw to your Lordships' attention the old farm grants administered by the Ministry of Agriculture in the 1970s. They were successful because of simplicity and clarity of purpose. The farmer did the work and was paid retrospectively when an officer had been round to see that it had been done satisfactorily. Why then are we still talking of five-year or 10-year agreements and of cross-compliance in an ever more complex web of paperwork? It is enough to turn anybody off.
98
We should be looking at a much greater dialogue with land managers in an effort to understand why in the real world certain activities are carried out and how farm units operate, particularly in the more sensitive and agriculturally deprived areas. We have to understand how managers deal with the natural processes and what happens when they fail. The empirical evidence is there for anyone who cares to look. I suggest that it is appropriate that we and the conservation agencies start looking before this traditional source of knowledge goes to its grave or gets fed up because, if land managers have a stake in policy making and in its implementation, they are more likely to give it time and commitment. But if they continue to be largely ignored, management skills will be in limited supply both for sites of special scientific interest and special areas of conservation. That means setting targets which are sensible and not those which seek to procure the preservation of species on the outer margins of their range. That is something with which I have had some personal involvement.
But for the present, my final point is that the management of habitats remains grossly underfunded. English Nature has said to me that it does not have funds for certain purposes. Other agencies have also said that they have no funds for those purposes either. Sooner or later that will have to be rectified and with it the rather negative approach of blanket designation and the imposition of management prescriptions on what I might rather crudely describe as the "hit first, ask questions later" principle. It is at best a lazy way of administering a vitally important matter for the future of our countryside and for biodiversity. It has to change if these new regulations and the existing ones already in place are to have a lasting benefit. For these reasons I fear that I can give the regulations as they stand only four or five points out of a total of 10.
8.57 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, the habitats directive is potentially the most important piece of legislation for the conservation of biodiversity to be adopted in the foreseeable future. The significance of the habitats directive is that member states must recognise in statute, for the first time, their responsibility for the protection of wildlife and wild places in the European context.
The habitats and species in question are to be maintained and/or restored to "a favourable conservation status"; in other words, when the species population and range is stable or increasing and there is a sufficiently large area of habitat available to maintain its population on a long-term basis. In the Wildlife Trust's response to the DoE consultation paper on the implementation of the habitats directive, the many on-going degradations of marine habitats which the habitats directive is designed to prevent, were pointed out.
One example of this is the annual destruction of reefs supporting slow growing and nationally important sea fans sponges and other soft corals by mobile fishing gear in South Devon. Also, a recent survey by the Cornwall Wildlife Trust indicates that over 2,000 porpoises are killed each year by gill nets in the Celtic Sea which lies between Cornwall, Brittany and Ireland.

99
Great meadows of sea grass —the only flowering plant able to survive underwater—continue to suffer from wasting disease, possibly related to pollution. Sea grass swards have already disappeared from estuaries in Cornwall. It would be reprehensible if this opportunity to protect our wildlife resources was missed.
The seas around Britain are richer in marine habitats, communities and species than for any country on the European Atlantic coast. In English waters this richness and diversity includes the kelp forests of the Farne Islands and the Western Channel, the invertebrate and seaweed communities of rocky coasts of South West England and the mud and sandflats of the central North Sea. Our estuaries and seas support millions of seabirds and waterfowl, whether as visitors to our shores or as residents, often in internationally significant numbers. Our coasts provide vital haulout, and breeding areas for seals and feeding areas for many species of whales, dolphins and porpoises. Over 120 species of fish occur in coastal waters. Some are rare or endangered. Others are food for seabirds, seals and cetaceans as well as for people.
The nature conservation interests of our seas are considerable. Already 300,000 hectares of seabed in England below mean low water have been identified as being of particular importance for nature conservation, with probably in excess of 200,000 more hectares required to provide essential ecological support.
Man's use of the marine environment which supports that treasury of wildlife has, however, been considerable, and in most cases is not sustainable. Our coastal waters provide harvestable resources of minerals such as aggregates and sand; sources of food such as fish, crustaceans and molluscs; and a renewable source of energy in the form of tidal power. Since early times, the sea has carried our ships and our trade, and nowadays it also provides recreation, enjoyment and inspiration for millions of people.
There are some points which are critical if the realisation of the habitats directive is to work towards conservation of the marine environment. I ask my noble friend the Minister: why are measures for marine and terrestrial conservation not equal? Conservation measures to protect wildlife and habitats on both land and sea need strengthening. It is clear that measures for marine conservation lag behind those for conservation on land.
Instead of putting marine conservation on a equal footing with that of land, the draft regulations perpetuate their inequality. Although the habitats directive states explicitly that activities having a negative impact on special areas of conservation, but taking place outside their boundaries, should be controlled, the regulations make a special exception in the case of marine sites. One striking example of that is the facility to introduce by-laws to maintain the integrity of SACs. Nature conservation agencies can use those powers both inside and outside SACs, but not in the case of marine SACs.
It is essential that conservation measures are taken both inside and outside the designated protected areas due to the very nature of the marine environment, with few boundaries and many of its species being extremely
100
mobile. Not taking those measures will seriously compromise efforts to reach conservation objectives in the marine environment.
One of the main aims of the regulations is to promote nature conservation. Despite that, the regulations do not give the Secretary of State for the Environment a lead role over directions concerning SACs. That will create conflict, confusion and delay over the management of SACs. Priorities for fisheries, transport, mineral extraction and other activities can be in serious conflict with nature conservation objectives. A lead role for the Secretary of State for the Environment is not unusual in the case of terrestrial protected areas; for instance, the direction of Section 29 orders under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to assist the conservation of SSSIs which should be introduced for marine SACs.
I refer to draft Regulation 35. If or when the situation arises, how is MAFF to decide between a conservation issue on the one hand and the acquisition of resources such as oil, marine aggregates or detrimental fishing practices on the other? I ask my noble friend the Minister: can there be ministerial intervention if a conflict of interest occurs?
A mandatory management scheme is needed for all SACs. Statutory conservation agencies should be given a clear duty and powers to designate and implement the management of SACs. The regulations do not require the preparation of a management scheme for each SAC. Under such circumstances, how will it be possible to assess whether the conservation objectives of the site are being achieved, and what monitoring is required to provide a coherent programme for the restoration of sites?
Management schemes for SACs are voluntary at the moment. If all user parties are not in agreement with the voluntary scheme, the scheme will not be effective in securing wildlife protection. A mandatory management scheme is a far superior method of making compliance with the management compulsory.
It is clearly vital that the principle of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations should be approved. The provision for SACs at sea is a major step forward in conservation for the marine environment. But in essence the regulations for the directive do not fully address the problems concerning the conservation of biodiversity and sustainability in the marine environment. Even if implemented perfectly, there is a need for further measures.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, all over Europe wildlife habitats and species of birds, animals, plants, insects and fish are disappearing or threatened. In our country, wetlands, heathlands, lowland wet grassland, heather moorland, peat bogs, estuaries with their mudflats and species such as the corncrake, the bittern, the marsh fritillary and the early gentian, vanish. The same is true of other European countries.
At the risk of being regarded by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, as one of the Left-ish, greenish conservationists of whom he disapproves, I have to say that I regard the Community's habitats and species

101
directive as a welcome and necessary measure and, as the Minister has said, something of a milestone in European conservation.
The Government's regulations which we are now considering will, I hope, be approved, but your Lordships should be aware that they have been a disappointment to conservationists. They had hoped that the Government would take the opportunity to introduce primary legislation which would produce much needed improvements to wildlife conservation and countryside management in this country. As it is, the Government appear to have done as little as possible to fulfil their Community obligations, to have adopted a minimalist approach and to have contented themselves with amending existing legislation.
I must say that I was startled to see a report in The Times on 1lth October that the Government were giving guidance to local authorities, telling them to reduce protection for wildlife—Bournemouth, for example, being told that it should not lay down presumptions against developments on SSSIs or greenbelt land and local wildlife sites but should merely take ecological and environmental importance into account. I should like to ask the Minister whether that disturbing report is correct. If it is, the Government's attitude, at a time when they claim to be increasing protection for wildlife, seems to be hard to understand.
It is sad that the Government are not doing more, but we must nevertheless be grateful for small mercies, welcome the advances which are being made and inquire how precisely the new arrangements will work. I therefore wish to ask the Minister one or two questions of which I have given him notice, although I am afraid only short notice. If he cannot answer them all tonight I should be grateful if he would write to me.
The Minister has explained the scope of the directive. I wish to ask first about the procedure for selecting sites for special areas of conservation. I understand that the list of proposed sites must be sent to the Commission by next June, only eight months away. The Government and the statutory agencies are committed to full consultation on proposed European sites. When will the selection process be complete, and how long is being allowed for this consultation? Can it be done in time? It is clearly important that European sites should also be large enough to ensure that listed habitats and species are maintained in what is defined in the directive as "favourable conservation status". I believe that Plantlife is right in urging the Government to designate as SSSIs all sites where Annex II(b) species occur for the botanical importance of sites to be fully recognised and attention given to the needs of all nationally rare plants and site selection.
Article 6 of the directive implies a general presumption against development in or affecting SACs which needs to be made clear to planning authorities and everyone else concerned. Will the Government do this?
I turn to the wider countryside. It is clear that for most and perhaps all the listed species and habitats which occur in the United Kingdom the protection and management of SACs will not be enough to obtain favourable conservation status. Species such as the otter, to name only one, travel great distances and are not
102
confined to particular sites. Consequently, new and more effective policies are needed for the wider countryside. The Government appear to be relying entirely on existing countryside schemes but most of these —such as the environmentally sensitive areas— are purely voluntary. We surely need something stronger to achieve protection and management on the scale required.
The chief executive of English Nature has, I understand, called for a review of all existing countryside schemes to target funds effectively towards achieving all the aims of the directive. Do the Government recognise the need to bring in new policies and incentives for the wider countryside? If so, how do they propose to do this? Do they agree that a review of the existing schemes, as proposed by Dr. Langslow, is needed?
In Article 6(2) the directive imposes a firm duty on the Government to prevent deterioration of important wildlife sites. This is badly needed and has been welcomed by English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. English Nature states that it reinforces its plan to achieve a positive management of all SSSIs. However, the Government's regulations appear to introduce no new measures to prevent the deterioration of important habitats through the owners' neglect, and the Wildlife Link report, SSSIs: A Health Check, identified neglect as the greatest long-term threat to SSSIs. Can the Minister say whether the Government will introduce new measures to encourage positive land management, with adequate financial incentives?
Can the Minister also explain why the word "deterioration" in the directive has been replaced in the regulations by the word "damage"? Damage requires a conscious act whereas deterioration can, and usually does, occur as a result of inaction. That appears to be a significant misrepresentation of the directive and if that is so it needs to be remedied.
In Regulations 2, 3 and 40 the Government have also inserted a new derogation not to be found in Article 16 of the directive exempting death or injury as an:
"incidental result of a lawful operation".
That appears to be a very large loophole. Will the Minister explain why this derogation has been added and how the Government justify it?
The directive and the regulation placé additional duties and responsibilities on the statutory agencies. In order to meet these obligations, English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage will need additional resources over and above what they now have. It will clearly be unacceptable to have resources reallocated into SACs if that is to lead to damage being caused on SSSIs not designated under the directive or to reduce other necessary work done by the statutory agencies. I hope that the Minister will assure us that these additional resources will be forthcoming.
Regulation 55/5 provides a loophole covering planning permission granted or deemed to be granted by a public general Act of Parliament. This would, it appears, exempt damage caused by projects such as the Cardiff Bay Barrage or the Channel Tunnel. However,

103
there is no such loophole in the directive. Is the Minister satisfied that this regulation does not put Her Majesty's Government in breach of the directive?
We, like other members states, are required to report every six years on the implementation of the directive, including conservation measures taken and the impact of those measures on the listed habitats and species. To do that, do we not need a national inventory and monitoring scheme covering SACs and SSSIs? I hope that the Minister can tell us what the Government have in mind in order to carry that out. Even if we cannot have complete inventories immediately, we must surely work as rapidly as possible towards them.
We all know the sad story of the marine nature reserves. After years of effort, only two, Lundy and Skomer, have been set up. But the regulations about the marine environment, about which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has just spoken so persuasively, are based once more on the voluntary principle and seem to require agreement among a number of bodies. It is true that the Minister has reserve powers under Regulation 35. But clearly it would be disastrous for proposals for marine SACs to get bogged down in interminable discussion without agreement. I believe that the Minister covered that point in his opening remarks by saying, as I understand it, that, if necessary, Ministers could and would give directions to those concerned. I understand that the Countryside Council for Wales has suggested a time period of perhaps two years during which a management scheme must be drawn up ready for implementation. That seems sensible. Will the Minister assure us that something on those lines will be introduced, or, alternatively, that the reserve power will be used after a reasonably short interval? Will he tell us also how many marine SACs are being considered for designation and how they are to be protected?
Article 10 of the directive refers to the,
"ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network",
specifically the management of features of the landscape which are of major importance to wild flora and fauna such as rivers, field boundaries, ponds and small woods. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us how the Government propose to implement that article.
I hope that the Government will press on with the implementation of those regulations. They are clearly of very considerable importance and conservationists in this country will be watching carefully to see how matters progress.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, to say that this is a disappointing document which we are asked to approve is to put it mildly. The Government appear to be in a kind of tired, cynical mood. If a proposal appears from Brussels, they conform reluctantly, doing the bare minimum, like a child recognising rebelliously that his mother is stronger than himself but being determined to do nothing which could be construed as enthusiastic. There no longer seems to be any power of discernment. There is no ability to separate the good, of which there is much, from the bad, of which there is, unfortunately, a little. They will not give a lead in what is worth doing.
104
The preservation of habitats is definitely worth while and this country, which prides itself on being less bad than others in this respect, should be giving a lead. This should have provided an opportunity to increase our efforts in this field. We should not have this minimal, if barely that, compliance.
At the end of last year the Government-commissioned countryside survey of 1990 was published. It revealed a decade of decline in our wildlife. The 1990s and the next decade should be better. After all, now that we do not allow farmers to farm, what other suggestions have we for the countryside?
The Government should be introducing far-reaching stick and carrot schemes. While there is no such thing as absolute ownership of land, which we all hold in trust either from God or the community or both, as all good farmers and landowners know, it is helpful to encourage and reward those who do well.
When I saw that this debate was coming up, as a spokesman who is not leftish and greenish but left and green, I started to ask the various conservation bodies for briefs. There was a meagre response at first. It soon became a flood. It is clear that there is probably not a conservation body in the country which is not deeply disturbed by the regulations; which does not have considerable fears about what has been left out and what is fudged; and which does not have detailed questions to ask.
At this time of night, one can scarcely begin to deal with a series of briefs which are two to three inches thick. Some of the questions have already been asked in the debate, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the various bodies have doubtless tried to extract answers from the department. Therefore, I shall content myself with three fairly superficial questions, but, in imposing on myself that self-denying ordinance, for which your Lordships will no doubt be grateful, I must warn the Government that, if they do not answer very fully the questions which they know are being asked, whether or not they have been asked in this House this evening, this is an area which noble Lords on all sides of the House will feel must be explored in some depth in the coming Session.
As I said, I have three specific questions. They all deal with how far we can go with the regulations and how we can improve them. I wish that I had time to refer to some of the previous speeches. I rather gather from the look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that he will probably be doing that himself. As always, I should have liked to analyse the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. However, I shall just pick up one remark that he made. The noble Earl seemed to think that the countryside should be left to the traditional expertise of landowners, influenced by economic considerations. But that is exactly what it has been left to and that is exactly why nature conservation is in such a terrible state at present all over Europe.
I turn now to my three questions. One follows up the questions posed by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, in his most admirable speech concerning the special areas of marine conservation. How many are the Government considering for designation and what

105
actions do they propose to implement to ensure their protection? The noble Lord, Lord Moran, also mentioned that question.
Secondly, what are the Government proposing to do to stop the continuing drain on peat? One only has to go to the local garden centre, as most noble Lords do from time to time, to see the many firms which boast of the peat in their composts and the number of peat products on sale. The true cost of peat to the biodiversity of the planet is vast. A swingeing tax on peat products would no more than represent a tiny portion of the very real cost to the future of our planet.
Thirdly, I should like to pose a question which the CLA is asking. It is one which strikes a chord in my memory. Occasionally I am asked whether, as a Member of the House of Lords, I have ever achieved anything. I reply that I did once. With the help of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, always a thoughtful and helpful Minister, I once succeeded in making the possession of an opium pipe not an absolute offence. Therefore, if any noble Lords have among their curios a Victorian or oriental opium pipe, they will not automatically be convicted of a criminal offence if found in possession of one. Thanks to me and to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, they will be able to explain that their grandfather brought it back from the Far East and that they never actually use it.
In the same way, it should be possible for the owners of European specimens of rare and protected species which were collected and preserved more than 20 years ago not to be open to prosecution. Is that, or is it not, the case? The position does not seem to me to be entirely clear. If it were, the CLA would not be asking that question.
Apart from those questions, those posed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the questions which have been asked in tonight's debate, there are also those which are being asked throughout the whole conservation world. If the Government do not give satisfactory answers to such questions, I can assure the Minister that we shall return to the matter again and again because it is a subject which must be pursued. Having said that, we in this party give lukewarm support to a lukewarm document and, needless to say, we completely oppose the Motion tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, for introducing this order and the Motion. For my part, I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in being somewhat less grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for introducing his amendment, but I am sure he will understand the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and I would oppose this amendment if he decided to take it to a Division.
I have first to declare an interest as the president of the Campaign for Protection of Rural Wales which is interested in this particular matter. I hope your Lordships will allow me to continue in spite of the fact that I think that this is rather a poor document in respect of Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, may think it
106
is a poor document in respect of Scotland and I, for other reasons, think it is a poor document in respect of Wales.
The problem as I see it with this order is that it is really a Bill. It is a statutory instrument which has 75 pages. As such, unlike a Bill, it cannot be amended and it must be agreed to, or not agreed to, by your Lordships this evening without—given our self-denying ordinance of voting on statutory instruments—any dispute. I say it should have been a Bill because there are a number of what I would respectfully call Henry VIII provisions in the order, but because it is an order they are the son of Henry VIII, who was, I think, Edward VI, so I will call them Edward VI orders. The Edward VI orders, to which I would refer your Lordships, are in paragraph 22 of the document we have in front of us—which concerns the power to make a special nature conservation order. There the document gives powers, if it is approved by your Lordships, to the Secretary of State to specify all sorts of things by order. In paragraph 28 there are provisions for by-laws. It states that the,
"appropriate nature conservation body may make byelaws".
Paragraph 32 indicates powers of compulsory acquisition. I just instance these as provisions which normally would be debated in a Bill and, such is the procedure of your Lordships' House, would be referred to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this House before your Lordships agreed we would have an opinion from that committee. So the Edward VI provisions in the order we have before us seem to me to be something which your Lordships would wish to reflect on.
The second point I have to make is that, as other noble Lords have said, there is in the directive a distinction between deterioration and damage. The habitats directive requires member states to make it an offence to permit the deterioration of breeding sites or resting places of annexed species. The annexes are all in the directive. The Government's regulations, which we have in front of us, replace the word "deterioration" with the word "damage". Damage, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has quite rightly pointed out, requires a conscious act whereas deterioration can occur, and indeed frequently does occur, through inaction. That is a serious derogation, in our view, from the words of the directive.
The third point I would make—I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long—is on the voluntary principle that the noble Viscount mentioned in his introduction. In many respects we are an overpopulated island. There are many areas in Scotland and Wales which are not overpopulated, but the broad swathe of England, South Wales and the industrial belt of Scotland are overpopulated. In order to preserve habitats for the species outlined in the directive we need active management rather than passive management. That is where we take issue with the Government. Active management means saying to people, "Let's try and do rather better". Passive control means saying, "Do not do this or that". There is a difference here between ourselves and the Government that needs to be explored.

107
My last point is that Article 17 of the directive requires member states to draw up a report on its implementation every six years. That report:
"shall include in particular information concerning the conservation measures referred to in Article 6(1) as well as evaluation of the impact of those measures on the conservation status of the natural habitat types of Annex I and the species in Annex II and the main results of the surveillance referred to in Article 11".
If the Government are to fulfil that obligation it seems to us to be essential to implement some form of qualitative inventory and monitoring scheme in relation to what is happening at present. Then, having established the inventory, it will be necessary to monitor the development of what is contained in the inventory in relation to the species and habitats listed in the directive.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in welcoming the fact that the Government have at long last acceded to the legal requirement to implement a directive. I also join with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in saying that this is the minimum that was required by the directive, and all conservation bodies, including my own (CPRW), believe that this is the minimum that the Government could have done. I believe that the Government could have done very much better.
9.33 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for devoting such attention to these draft regulations this evening. I consider that they make a highly significant addition to our existing body of legislation for nature protection and will ensure that we play our part with our European partners in preserving biodiversity and conserving our most endangered habitats and species. In giving effect to the legislation, we are among the leaders in Europe.
The existing SSSI system and the protection enshrined in it will continue to be the bedrock of nature conservation in Great Britain. We are proud of this approach, which works and wins the co-operation of the vast majority of those most concerned with the stewardship of our countryside. We are extending the co-operative approach to the marine environment, and our nature conservation experience and expertise is recognised throughout Europe. The measures agreed across the European Union through the habitats directive ensure that those sites and species recognised to be most at risk at this international level are protected on a common basis.
Perhaps I may turn to my noble friend's amendment. My noble friend has indicated the reason why he tabled the amendment to the draft regulations. Before I respond to the points made, I recognise that my noble friend is no enemy of conservation but in fact a stalwart supporter. It is with that knowledge that I shall do my best if I can—I wonder whether I am able to do so—to reassure him as regards many of his anxieties.
My noble friend asked whether other member states were implementing the directive. I understand that member states are actively engaged in implementing the directive and that some have already done so. Of course,
108
all member states are legally bound to implement European law, and Community rules ensure that laws are applied universally and uniformly.
My noble friend also asked me how much was budgeted by member states for pursuance of the directive. I cannot answer for other member states. However, in due course I shall give figures on what this country will be putting forward, especially SNH.
The amendment specifies two specific matters. The first concerns the increase in the area of land covered by sites of special scientific interest. It may prove necessary before the sites can be designated as European sites to notify and to confirm as SSSIs some areas of land which are not currently already notified as SSSIs. However, to qualify as European sites those areas of land would be among the most important of areas in nature conservation terms and they are areas which would in due course have been notified as SSSIs in any case.
My noble friend stated too—the matter has been commented on by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Williams—that the regulations revoke existing consents for potentially damaging operations within SSSIs and consents for planning in the countryside generally. There are two issues here. Regarding the first, approval of the regulations will not result in the wholesale revocation of existing consents for potentially damaging operations within SSSIs. The regulations provide the statutory nature conservation agency with a power to review existing consents but only within the European sites. Under the regulations, it is open to landowners and occupiers to reapply for consents that are withdrawn or modified. The landowners and occupiers may require the agency to refer the matter to the Secretary of State if consent is further refused. However, in deciding the matter, the Secretary of State must also have regard to the requirements of the directive.
In the great majority of European sites, a sensitive, sustainable management and use of the area which has continued over many years and maintained the high conservation value for which the site is recognised is expected to meet the aims of the directive and existing management agreements will continue unchanged.
With regard to the second of the two issues, the regulations also require the review of planning consents. That issue has been raised by others. However, it is not the planning consents in the countryside generally which are to be reviewed but only those existing permissions which are likely to have a significant effect on a European site and which have not already been fully implemented. In the vast majority of cases, the high nature conservation value of the site will already have been recognised and the sites will have been well protected under the planning system. Accordingly, relatively few permissions should need to be reviewed and in even fewer cases should further action need to be taken. Modification, revocation or discontinuance should be exceptional.
The modification, revocation and discontinuance orders are subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. Anyone affected by such an order has a right to be heard before the Secretary of State decides whether to confirm it. Should the permission be modified, revoked or discontinued, the existing rights to

109
compensation under the town and country planning legislation would apply. A developer would not need to stop work while the planning permission was being reviewed.
My noble friend also asked me whether the role of the advisory committee would be compromised. I do not believe that the advisory committee on SSSIs in Scotland is affected by the habitats regulations. The Government will not propose to the European Commission for designation any site on land (SAC) which has not been notified and confirmed as an SSSI. The role of the committee will, therefore, not be pre-empted by the habitats regulations.
The establishment of the advisory committee in Scotland balances the legitimate concerns of owners and occupiers of land with the importance of maintaining the integrity of the SSSI system on a GB basis. My noble friend has already indicated that only two cases have had to be referred to the committee which reflects the considerable success which Scottish Natural Heritage has had over the past two years and also an increasing understanding of and support for the SSSI system.
My noble friend asked me how much money SNH would receive. SNH received further budget increases in 1993–94 of 6.5 per cent. and in 1994–95 of 10.5 per cent. Its 1994–95 budget is £39.9 million. These increases were given to SNH to meet new priorities which have emerged since it was established. The implementation of the habitats directive is just one of those, but there is also the implementation of the agreed recommendations of the Secretary of State's working parties on the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond, the Trossachs and environmental education.
I believe that the main anxiety of my noble friend is whether the test of subsidiarity should be applied to the regulations. I am quite firm about this and I believe other noble Lords are also. Nature just does not respect national boundaries. The preservation, protection and improvement of the environment is an area of concern which needs to be addressed on a European level. On that basis, the habitats directive has been accepted by this Government and I believe, quite rightly, we are bound to implement it. I remind the House that the regulations are based largely on our existing highly effective legislation and that the voluntary principle continues to be an underlying principle of this Government's approach to nature conservation. These regulations represent the minimum that is necessary to implement the directive.
Perhaps I may write to my noble friend on the remaining question that he asked about the native pinewood regeneration. I am conscious of the time that I have already taken.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, wanted to be reassured about the voluntary principle. This, I have to say, is the essence of the Government's approach, to act through co-operation and consent, and that voluntary principle still underpins the approach to conservation which can be truly successful only through the consent of those involved and of the wider community. However, we recognise that there may be some occasions when that is not possible and the regulations
110
provide a legislative framework within which Ministers, conservation agencies and other statutory bodies must act in order to fulfil our duty to secure the integrity of the site.
The noble Lady also asked whether a balance would be struck between natural heritage interests and social and economic interests. The regulations employ the framework set out in Article 6 of the directive for assessing proposals affecting sites. The Secretaries of State will normally call in for decision planning applications which are likely significantly to affect European sites. In such cases, the Secretary of State will decide whether a development should proceed on overriding public interest grounds and will give due consideration to the need to strike a balance between the natural heritage interest and social and economic interests. The guidance will be undertaken by Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG9 on Nature Conservation which will shortly be reissued. That will provide guidance to local authorities on control of the development affecting the sites. Similar planning guidance will be issued for Scotland and for Wales. That will be important for local authorities when they draw up their plans.
My noble friend Lord Pearson, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun were concerned as to whether guidance would be given to owners and occupiers of adjacent land who might be affected by the designation of these sites. All I can say is that the Government plan to provide extensive publicity to owners and occupiers of European sites and others affected by that designation. Owners and occupiers of land who are concerned that an adjacent European site may be susceptible to damage from what is presently permitted development on their land can always check with the statutory nature conservation agency or local planning authority on what the implications of the proposed development will be for the European site. Perhaps again I may refer back to Planning Policy Guidance Note 9 on Nature Conservation.
The noble Lady also asked whether Regulations 60 to 62 would mean that permitted development will not be available for developments which will adversely affect the integrity of the European site. A developer who wished to proceed with such a development on grounds of overriding public interest would need to make a planning application. The decision on that application would be subject to Regulations 48 and 49 and considerations of overriding public interest will have to be taken into account in determining the application.
I believe that Regulation 40(3) (c) states that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under Regulation 39
"if he shows that the act was the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided".
The words that are used in the regulations are pretty explicit. I believe that the noble Lady herself understood what they mean. I can give no further assurance than that I believe that to be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, were concerned about river systems if they were designated as habitats of the Atlantic salmon and whether there would be intentions to restrict rod and

111
line fishing. In practice, the management of a river for salmon fishing purposes is likely to be compatible with the nature conservation interest a SAC designation seeks to conserve. I cannot give an unqualified assurance, but my reading is that that would be the case. It would need to be looked at on a site-by-site basis. I want to reassure noble Lords that there will be full consultation at all stages, as I indicated in my introductory remarks.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, gave a "four or five out of 10" sort of welcome for the regulations, and the noble Earl asked about compensation for existing consents. The management agreements are subject to agreement with English Nature. If they are changed, they then may be subject to compensation. That is the basis on which they are drawn up at the moment, and I see no reason why these regulations would alter that.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Moran and Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked about the deterioration of sites and quoted the NAO report. I believe that the monitoring as indicated in the regulations and the directive will be the duty of the conservation bodies. If anything is detected which will damage or destroy the site, a management agreement could be negotiated. I believe that in most cases the SSSIs will be managed on a voluntary basis, without the need for a management agreement. There is always the power to make a management agreement and at the end of the day even a special nature conservation order under Regulation 22 can be made. I should like perhaps to come back to that point a little later.
My noble friend Lord Addison drew our attention to measures for marine and terrestrial conservation. He started by suggesting that they were not being applied equally. I understand that. The reason for it is quite simple; namely, that there is already a different basis for management and control on the land and the sea and ownership does not always apply to uses of the sea as it does on land. Therefore we have adopted the cross-sectoral approach from existing jurisdictions. We expect the new marine conservation measures to be effective. All bodies with jurisdiction will have the duty to act in ways which conserve the areas.
That sectoral approach to control marine SSSIs means that it is appropriate for the relevant Secretaries of State or the Minister of Agriculture to give directions to the bodies over which they have jurisdiction. All Ministers must take account of the obligations of the directive in considering whether directions are appropriate and Ministers will intervene by directions if necessary in order to conserve the site.
We expect that in a majority of cases there will be a scheme of management drawn up. The nature conservation agencies will be responsible for monitoring the conservation status of the sites and advising the relevant authorities and Ministers as to the sites' conservation objectives. However, I still feel that we ought to take care that we do it on the voluntary principle and not be too mandatory about using the power to make agreements.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, started with an attack on the Government for downgrading our conservation status and mentioned the report in The Times which
112
indicated that. My Lords, the report in The Times was just mistaken. The Government are not downgrading the importance of nature conservation. In fact they seek clarity in the development plans. In practice that will strengthen the nature conservation policies of a plan.
The noble Lord also said that the countryside measures should be much stronger and that we had perhaps missed an opportunity in these regulations of not putting that into practice. I believe that the countryside measures are being taken forward. They can be taken forward only on the basis of consent. It is very important to respect those who live and work in the countryside. But the biodiversity plan mentions a number of initiatives which the Government are taking on the wider conservation and countryside measures in England, Scotland and Wales. I believe that I have answered the noble Lord on the incidental results of the lawful operation. But he asked whether we may be in breach of the directive with the Cardiff Barrage Bay Act and the Channel Tunnel Bill. I believe that careful attention was paid to both those Bills and the nature conservation interest, together with other national interests. There are no public general Acts which otherwise give planning permissions. Ministers will take the requirements of the regulations into account when promoting the new Public Bills.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, took me to task for not taking the opportunity to amend the 1981 Act. I believe that it is just as important to put the regulations—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, form a considerable document—into our law; it builds upon the 1981 Act. For instance, it puts the SPAs into legislation for the first time.
Perhaps I can answer just one of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, because I believe that I have talked about the marine ones. He asked whether we should stop draining the peat; whether we should put a swingeing tax on it to prevent it being drained away. The Government recently published for public consultation proposals for safeguarding peatlands important for nature conservation while allowing legitimate commercial interests to be pursued. That provides an appropriate framework for reconciling the various legitimate interests which still exist.
In regard to inherited specimens, if people possess inherited specimens of European protected species from their forebears, they need not be concerned about the provisions of Part III of the regulations. They will be regarded as being legally taken because they pre-date the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether the Henry VIII provisions—he retitled them the Edward VI ones—needed to be considered as though this were primary legislation and subject to Committee procedures. When the noble Lord looks at Regulation 22 he will see that Schedule 1 indicates what would be necessary for procedures in connection with orders under Regulation 22. It indicates that there may be local inquiries, and arbitration may be put forward by the Secretary of State. Suggestions put forward by the noble

113
Lord of it being a draconian measure should not be taken without reading Schedule 1, which indicates the procedure.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I can interrupt the noble Viscount to say that I was not suggesting that it was a draconian measure. The Government have introduced these measures— draconian or otherwise—for a long time. I was suggesting that it is odd, to say the least, to have an order of this size which gives extra powers to a Secretary of State—whatever the qualifications of Schedule 1, which I have read—to make delegated legislation under an order. I accept that it may be possible under an Act of Parliament; but under an order that is extremely rare.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point but perhaps he did not hear some of the words that I used in my opening speech. A lot of the words in the regulations are taken from the 1981 Act and are repeated in the regulations in order to form a body of legislation which can then be referred to rather more easily than using purely secondary legislation to implement a directive on to the 1981 Act. That is where Regulation 32 on compulsory purchase orders falls because it repeats in a different form of words or perhaps in a different place the existing regulations in the 1981 Act. I am sorry that the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Moran, are questioning the concept of deterioration and are not seeing that the damage to the sites would not be protected in the way that the regulations allow it to be done. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, indicated that protection of these habitats must be done on a continuing basis and that if damage is seen it is possible to come up with a management agreement which takes into account that kind of damage.
The noble Lord did not like the idea of a voluntary principle and wanted a more mandatory principle. I believe that we should start with the voluntary agreements, which is what is allowed for in the regulations. If those do not work there is the possibility of management agreements. If those do not work there are special nature conservation orders. It is a building of one upon the other.
The noble Lord asked how we would report on implementation every six years. Monitoring is done by organisations such as the British Trust for Ornithology and the register of the SSSIs in England, Wales and Scotland. I believe that it is possible for the nature conservation organisations to monitor the situation with regard to the SSSIs and therefore I believe that the report can be done. It may be that the inventory, as the noble Lord suggests, is not in the detail that he wants it; but I believe that the research and registration already apply sufficiently for the document to be worthwhile.
All I can say in conclusion is that I am very pleased to be able to debate these issues with the President of the Campaign for Protection of Rural Wales and I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that the regulations can be agreed.
Lord Moran: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, he has been very patient and helpful but I
114
wonder whether I can ask him to say something about additional resources for the statutory agencies. I know that this concerns both English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales because they will have new duties imposed on them and they want to know whether they have additional resources to do that.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand that the total budget for the three conservation councils has been increased by 7.6 per cent. for this year. I believe that that is sufficient for the implementation of the habitats directive. I shall look carefully at the other points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and at the points raised in other speeches. If I have missed points, I shall write to noble Lords.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on my amendment and in the debate generally. I was interested and saddened to hear what my noble friend Lord Addison had to say about the degradation of marine sites, about which I must confess I do not know as much as I think I know about land based SSSIs and future SACs. My point to my noble friend Lord Addison would have been that surely national legislation could do what he feels is necessary; and it sounds as though he is right. I do not believe that we should have to rely on a European directive in this respect.
As regards the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, it pains me to have to disagree with him on any European matter, especially on a European directive of this kind. Perhaps I may confirm for the record that I would never describe him as a Leftish, greenish conservationist, or whatever he feels that I may have thought him to be. I accept that the environment is being damaged in Europe and also here. My point again is that any wrongs can be put right in this country by primary legislation here. My fear is that this directive is unlikely to have the desired effect in the rest of Europe.
As to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I was grateful to him in a rather ghastly and fearful sort of way for his summary of the Henry VIII or Edward VI clauses in this Bill. I can only hope that if ever his party were to come to power—and I am sure it will not—those clauses would not be used in a way which would be more aggressive.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. May I remind him that this is not a Bill but an order?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. It is a point which he made very clearly; namely, that it should have been a Bill. But these are regulations and, rather like the Maastricht Treaty, we have no opportunity to debate their content. As I understand it, we have either to take them or to leave them. I would leave them, and, despite what the noble Lord said, he is going to take them. I hope he understands that I take them in a fearful sort of way.
The contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, together with those of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, were a little harsh on my noble friend

115
and on the Government generally. They said that the Government were dragging their feet and doing the very minimum on this occasion. I remind your Lordships that Article 10 of the directive says that,
"Member States shall endeavour, where they consider it necessary, in their land-use planning",
to introduce these Euro-SACs. It is because they consider it necessary that entire river systems are about to be designated to protect the Atlantic salmon and so on. I believe that the British Government, or British officialdom, are clearly guilty here of Mr. Christopher Booker's theory of British officialdom. I do not believe that the Government can be accused of dragging their feet.
As regards the reply of my noble friend the Minister, I am extremely grateful for all the points that he made. But I believe that he is being a little optimistic when he says that other member states will have these rules applied uniformly. I am surprised that he said that all these Euro-SACs would have been notified as SSSIs
116
anyway. I take his word for it, but as regards Scotland I would have thought that that would have already been done.
Concerning the revocation of consent, my noble friend said that the councils and nature conservation bodies will be able to amend the existing consents. My understanding of this directive and the regulations is that they will have to revoke consent in certain cases. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my noble friend for the remainder of his replies. I fear that he underestimates the size of the problems which these regulations will cause, but I accept that he does so in complete good faith. I hope that in the fullness of time I am proved wrong.
I believe that his answer to my point on subsidiarity is a trifle shallow. I do not believe that it goes to the root or the intention of the clause or, as many of us hoped and were assured, the way in which it would be used in future. Even so, given the lateness of the hour, I am nevertheless grateful to my noble friend and others who have spoken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.