Lords Sitting of 18 April 1995

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Law Commission Reports: Implementation
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
For how long each Law Commission report with a draft Bill has awaited parliamentary consideration; and how they propose to implement necessary and urgent law reforms of a non-controversial nature.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the information requested by my noble friend is set out in Appendix 6 to the 29th annual report of the Law Commission. The recommendations in five Law Commission reports were implemented in the last Session of Parliament and it is anticipated that at least eight reports will be implemented this Session. The oldest report on which the Government have yet to announce their decision is that on Liability for Chancel Repairs, which raised a number of technical difficulties. The use of the Special Standing Committee procedure for non-contentious Bills, as recommended by the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, offers the prospect of implementation of Bills which otherwise might not find a place in the legislative timetable. It has already been used to good effect in relation to Bills implementing Law Commission reports.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that exceedingly encouraging reply, particularly with reference to the Jellicoe Committee on non-controversial Bills. Can my noble and learned friend confirm that between 1988 and 1993 only three Law Commission Bills reached the statute book; that in 1994 five reached the statute book, and that in 1994–95 it is expected that eight will reach the statute book? And will that gathering of momentum be continued in the future?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble friend says, momentum has gathered; and I am extremely glad that that is so. The principal reason for the gathering of that momentum is the new procedure suggested by the committee chaired by my noble friend. I hope that procedure will be appropriate for many of the Law Commission Bills. There may be some for which it is not appropriate.
My noble friend referred to "non-controversial" Bills. In this context one is really speaking of Bills that are non-controversial in a party political sense. There is normally a matter of controversy in most Law Commission Bills. The procedure suggested by my noble friend's committee proved admirable in helping
380
regarding the technical issues on which controversy arose. However, the House decided some questions of controversy in a way different from that which commended itself to the Law Commission originally.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I assure the House and the noble and learned gentleman on the Woolsack—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am not sure why I am being howled down.
Lord Peston: He is not a gentleman; he is a noble Lord.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is always a gentleman; he is also ennobled. When people howl at one they should make clear what they are howling about. In so far as I transgressed, I apologise. I was merely trying to suggest to the noble and learned Lord sitting on the Woolsack that we on these Benches regard the progress being made with Law Commission Bills as distinctly encouraging and heartening. We hope that it continues.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for both formulations after the intervention. I am particularly grateful to the Opposition Front Benches for the way in which they supported moves to have the Law Commission Bills of the kind I described taken through the new procedure. I am grateful to Members from all parts of the House who participated in the work. It is quite exacting in terms of time commitment, but I hope rewarding in terms of the satisfaction of seeing good legislation of this type reaching the statute book.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, are there not long-outstanding Law Commission Bills dealing with a married woman's rights in the matrimonial home and in its contents? They go far to rectify the extraordinary situation whereby a married woman who stands by her marriage is in a worse position in those respects than a married woman who divorces.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are recommendations from the Law Commission dealing with the property of spouses. I hope that in due course we shall be able to make progress with reforming the law in that regard. We have to consider a degree of priority in this matter. At the moment I am seeking to bring forward consideration of Law Commission proposals that deal with divorce.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the Government's success in bringing forward Law Commission Bills, especially the Bill implementing the report on domestic violence, has been very widely welcomed? Is he further aware that his praise for the Jellicoe procedure is shared by those who are sticklers for the Committee of the Whole House procedure in general? Is he willing to agree that where

381
there is such general agreement, the Private Peer's Bill may be a suitable means for taking some of these reports forward?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. The Jellicoe procedure was really intended for government Bills. So far it has been used only for government Bills. It may be that it would be suitable for Private Members' Bills also but hitherto I have not had to seek to promote any of these proposals by that route.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I acknowledge with appreciation the not inconsiderable progress which has been made in this matter since it was touched on in the report of the very select Select Committee of your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may ask my noble and gentlemanly friend on the Woolsack whether he is aware that there is now an agreed procedure whereby once a year the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place and the Law Commission meet to discuss and review progress in this area? Might it not be a good thing to establish similar machinery between the appropriate committee of your Lordships' House and the Law Commission with a view, in the words of the chairman of the Law Commission,
"to discussing possible ways in which the machinery might be fine-tuned to help move the backlog more quickly and to keep the momentum of these reforms going"?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place has a general responsibility for overseeing the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is right that the Select Committee should have an opportunity of reviewing that aspect of our work. I pay tribute to the way in which the Select Committee's review of this work has helped it forward. So far as this House is concerned, I am anxious to do anything I can further to promote improvement in the methods of dealing with these matters. So far, speaking for myself, I have not identified any particular procedural reform which it would be desirable to implement. So I am content with the way matters have been handled so far. If a matter of procedure emerged, the committee on procedure of this House would be the appropriate channel in which to consider it further.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wonder whether I can help the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He said that he was not aware of any procedural suggestion which might be made to facilitate the flow of these Bills through Parliament. Will he initiate discussions through the usual channels to see whether the Private Bill procedure might be adopted or adapted whereby a Bill of one Session could be carried over to the next so that there could be a greater spread throughout the Session of Law Commission Bills that are not party politically contentious?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for that suggestion. I am particularly anxious to get Bills through as quickly as possible. The opportunity for, as it were, continuing the Bill may not be entirely conducive to that aim. The pressure of the end of the
382
Session looming sometimes has beneficial effects in getting the Bill through. Therefore, while I am grateful for the suggestion, so far the need for that change has not been demonstrated in the work that we have been doing.

London Underground: Funding
2.47 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to London Underground's statement, in presenting their annual plan on 16th March, that passengers are likely to be faced with a "patch and mend" service unless there is additional funding over the next five years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government's current funding plans for London Transport should allow London Underground to make significant progress towards improving the overall state of the network as well as maintaining or enhancing existing levels of service. London Transport's corporate plan for the next five years will be carefully considered as part of the process of determining future levels of government grant.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that for 1992–93 the Government committed themselves to core expenditure on the London Underground of around £600 million per annum but that in every year since then that has been progressively cut until the forecast for 1997–98 in the last financial statement is no more than £368 million? Will he accept that while London Underground, through good management, is self-financing itself to an increasing degree every year it is still about £100 million per annum short of what is required adequately to maintain and refurbish the system? In view of the fact that that could lead to serious inconvenience to the travelling public at a time when more and more people are using the Underground, will the Government think again?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in my original Answer I said that the Government believe that the existing level of funding was sufficient not only to allow London Underground to maintain its existing levels of service, but also to make inroads into the investment backlog. It is important to realise that spending on London Underground has been extremely high and that investment over the past three years has been at a higher level than at any time in the previous two decades.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the service provided by London Underground is very much appreciated by the Royal British Legion, particularly for those men and women—I hope that this is not a laughing matter among Conservatives—who were badly wounded in the last war, many of whom were crippled for life? They admire the London Underground service. If there are to be any radical changes, perhaps along the lines outlined by the noble

383
Lord, Lord Ezra, can consideration please be given to discussions with senior officers of the Royal British Legion?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point. We of course realise how much the service is valued by all those who visit London. There are no radical changes planned and the noble Lord's remarks, as ever, will be taken fully into consideration.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, can a special gram be given to London Underground to enable them to employ someone who knows how to make escalators work and to keep on working?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my understanding is that considerable sums are spent on keeping those escalators working.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that it is not only the travelling public who are suffering from these enormous delays, but that there is also planning blight? Routes have to be established otherwise vast numbers of people are unable to change their houses, by selling and moving, while this matter is under debate.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Question here essentially concerns the level of investment in London Underground services, which we have discussed. I said that we believe that funding is fully adequate for inroads to be made not only into the investment backlog but for existing services to be maintained. We shall take my noble friend's remarks about planning blight fully into consideration.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his somewhat complacent observations fail to lake into account the fact that a great deal of the investment has been introduced in order to meet the requirements of the Fennell Report into the King's Cross disaster and that, even so, the situation has fallen short of what the Government promised? How does the Minister square what he said with the warnings given by the Health and Safety Executive about speed restrictions due to maintenance work clearly affecting safety and also the mobility of the people of London?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we are in no way complacent about the London Underground service. Safety remains the highest priority and London Underground will not operate an unsafe service.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, how does the Minister equate what he said with the observations of the Health and Safety Executive, which has warned about speed restrictions because of maintenance work that is necessary due to inadequate investment?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, last year's settlement makes adequate provision for essential investment to ensure that safety is in no way jeopardised.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware of numerous reports about the risk of water getting into London Underground? In particular, has he looked recently at the westbound Metropolitan Line tunnel out
384
of Baker Street? My noble friend's Question relics on the statement which, perhaps optimistically, uses the words, "patch and mend." What do we do when the patch will not mend?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the only answer is to replace. Our investment in London Underground has been, as I said, extremely substantial. When essential maintenance needs to be done then, of course, it must be done. It is not possible to cure decades of investment backlog overnight at the stroke of a pen. We are making substantial progress in curing that backlog. I believe that the service is improving.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will the Minister accept that it is difficult to reconcile his view that spending on London Underground is now at an adequate level with the fact that most people travelling on London Underground regard the service as plain lousy? Is it not a fact that travellers on London Underground realise that there are daily delays caused by signal failure, train breakdown, points failure, escalators and lifts breaking down and that what was once the best Underground service in the world is now rapidly becoming one of the worst?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, of course I agree that there are infrastructure problems with the London Underground system. However, the level of investment which we have set for current and future years allows significant progress to be made. That must be the essential point.
Lord Rix: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 10 days ago London Underground, London Transport and MENCAP launched a video called "Use of the Tube for people with learning disabilities" which we hope is going to be of great use? Can the Minister assure the House that the level of training for staff on London Underground to help people with disabilities is at a high level?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, training is of course extremely important. We welcome the noble Lord's description of his initiative with MENCAP and London Underground. It is extremely important that disabled people should be able to travel properly on the London Underground system.

Railway Investment
2.56 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What their response is to the report Investing in Britain's Railways, published on 22nd March; and whether they agree with the recommendation of that report that much greater investment in the railway system is required.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government welcome well-informed contributions to the debate on the role of Britain's railways. It is disappointing, however, that the report does not give credit to the

385
Government for the record levels of investment in recent years. Also, it does not acknowledge the significant investment which we expect to flow from the private finance initiative or the improvements to come from railway privatisation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has dealt with the report in a less than satisfactory way? Is he aware that one of the major criticisms of the report is the absence of a clear, long-term framework for the railways in the Government's planning? Does the Minister agree that that is in marked contrast to the situation among our friends and competitors in the Netherlands, France and Germany where investment is substantially proportionately in excess of everything the Government claim to have done in this country?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, when the noble Lord reads my original Answer I believe he will see that I did not, as he may have suggested, rubbish the report. It is a well informed document. It takes for granted, however, the source of the funding and it does not take into consideration the levels of investment which will flow from privatisation. The Government Firmly believe that the privatisation initiative will bring substantial extra resources into the railways and enable the system to develop.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is highly desirable that investment should continue in the Highland railways in Scotland and that there should be no further reduction in the facilities there in view of their importance to the tourist trade?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that investment is an essential commodity throughout the railways.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the long drawn out nature of the privatisation process, as planned by the Government, could have a harmful and delaying effect on the rate of investment which would otherwise have occurred?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we firmly believe that the goal of attaining privatisation, the new initiatives which will be introduced, the extra finance and the management techniques which will be brought forward will result in a significantly better railway. That goal is well worth any possible problems which may arise along the way such as the noble Lord suggests. We believe that the privatisation initiative will be a tremendous success for the railways.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all his aspirations about privatisation are likely to come to as much grief as the Government's promises about taxation at the last election? Is he further aware that the privatisation proposal has failed to focus attention on the real requirements of the railways, which are much greater investment and prioritising those requirements as against investment on roads? Does the Minister agree that one of the difficulties about the private finance initiative is that the Government are
386
asking the private funding sector to assume a great deal of risk without providing proper underpinning? That is why I believe the initiative will come to grief.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the simple answer is no. I do not agree with the noble Lord in his assessment of the private finance initiative. We believe that it has considerable potential for bringing new money into the railways and hence benefits for the travelling public.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister follow his answer about his great belief in privatisation by telling us why no company will be given a chance to make Motorail and the night sleeper service to Fort William work?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is not the case. As the noble Lord well knows, the fact that a service may not be included in the passenger service requirement does not in any way mean that the successful franchisee will not be able to run that service if he so chooses.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that it is still the Government's policy to increase the taxation of road vehicles above the retail prices index in order to contribute towards a reduction in CO2 levels and a reduction in the risk of global warming? If that is so, will the noble Viscount and the Government consider hypothecating such additional revenues so that they can be invested in the railways and other forms of public transport?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made commitments on the taxation of fuel for road vehicles. I do not believe that it is the Government's policy to hypothecate funds in the manner the noble Lord suggests. However, I am sure that when the Official Report is read, the noble Lord's comments will be considered carefully.

Nuclear Weapons: Parliamentary Questions
3.1 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will discontinue the practice of answering any Question on nuclear weapons by saying that the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons make a continuing contribution to maintaining stability in Europe when that question has not been raised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, we will continue to give Answers which are appropriate to the Questions we are asked.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I wish that I could ask the noble Lord to keep more closely in future

387
to the promise that he has just made to me than has been the case in the past. I have asked him two Questions about Trident, to which he replied:
"Our … forces make a continuing contribution to maintaining stability in Europe".
I also asked a separate Question about the development of Trident, to which he replied that our weapons,
"make a continuing contribution to maintaining stability in Europe".—[Official Report, 15/3/95; col. WA 48.]
That may be a matter of opinion, but in neither case is it an Answer to the Question that was asked.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that those are very good Answers to the Questions put by the noble Lord. We all know that the noble Lord does not believe in our nuclear deterrent and we all know that the noble Lord wishes to discredit our nuclear deterrent. I happen to disagree with the noble Lord—and to disagree with him pretty fundamentally. If he wishes to discredit our nuclear deterrent by asking Questions phrased in a certain way, which I believe that he wishes to do, I seek to reserve my right—and it is my right—to answer them as is appropriate to ensure that Her Majesty's Government's position is correctly stated and made absolutely clear.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Answer to which the noble Lord objects is, in fact, the answer to his Question? May I express the hope that my noble friend will go on repeating it until eventually, we hope, the noble Lord begins to understand it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I was hoping that I would not have to repeat the Answer that long because I was hoping that the noble Lord would stop asking his Question.
Lord Judd: My Lords, whatever may be the stereotype form of Answers to Questions in this House, have the Government yet had time to consider the call made by the Secretary General this weekend for the only sane objective of total global nuclear disarmament and for an immediate halt to production and testing? How does the Government's policy of doubling the number of warheads on Trident as compared with Polaris begin to meet that objective? Are the Government now ready lo include Trident in any future five-power arms control negotiations?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well that we are fully committed to securing an unconditional and indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty, which started yesterday. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be speaking in New York this afternoon on that very subject. Perhaps I can put the noble Lord right on one small matter. The noble Lord talked about increasing our nuclear arsenal; I can assure him that when Trident takes over the sub-strategic role and when the WE177 bomb is withdrawn, the United Kingdom will have 21
388
per cent, fewer nuclear warheads than in the 1970s and the total explosive power of those warheads will be some 59 per cent, lower than the 1970s figure.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister clarify one point? Is it not the case that when Trident is in place there will be double the number of warheads available in Trident as compared with those available in Polaris?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are maintaining a minimum deterrent. What I have made clear is that, overall, the number of our nuclear warheads will be some 21 per cent, fewer and the total explosive power of those warheads will be some 59 per cent, lower than in the 1970s.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in the current discussions in New York on the extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, what is the Government's position with regard to a comprehensive nuclear test ban, which many non-nuclear powers regard as an important indication on the part of the nuclear powers that they are serious about nuclear disarmament?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we shall continue to play a constructive and positive part in the negotiations for the comprehensive test ban treaty. We have dropped our requirement for exceptional safety tests, but we shall not sacrifice a good treaty for a quick one. I do not believe that there is any necessary linkage between the comprehensive test ban treaty and the extension of the non-proliferation treaty.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the Answer given by my noble friend is factually right and represents the attitude of government, what conceivable objection is there to the form of that Answer?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have to say to my noble friend that I do not know what the answer is, but I tend to agree with everything that my noble friend said.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord introduce novelty into the proceedings? We all know his opinions on these matters and I have no doubt that he speaks for the Government in this respect, but would it not be a good idea—just try it out once or twice—to answer the Question on the Order Paper?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do answer the Question and give the views of Her Majesty's Government, just as the noble Lord gives what I imagine are his own views.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, has not the fact that we have enjoyed peace for the past 50 years itself allowed the noble Lord to put his Question?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. I fear to think what might have happened if we had pursued some of the policies suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he may have set an undesirable precedent in his original Answer to my noble friend, which would indicate to the House that where the Government do not like the Question or the philosophy of the questioner, they reserve the right to avoid

389
answering specific questions? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that when it comes to matters affecting the EC, he will not follow a similar tactic?
Lord Henley: My Lords, dare I say it, nonsense. As I said in my original Answer, we will give Answers which are appropriate to the Questions that are asked.

Business of the House: Arrangement of the Order Paper
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to enable the Prayers standing in the name of the Lord Carter and the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Willoughby de Broke to be taken before the Home Energy Conservation Bill this day.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill
Read a third time.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hayhoe.)
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I believe that it is appropriate at the passage of this important Private Member's Bill, introduced in another place by Mr. French and managed so ably in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, to draw attention to the fact that the measure was originally introduced in a slightly different form by my noble friend Lord Dubs. Perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, and Mr. French on the passage of a small but useful Bill which will bring considerable benefits to a number of building society account holders. It is also appropriate at this time to thank the Minister for his positive and constructive approach to the passage of the Bill and to hope that he will emulate his current conduct when we discuss a further building societies Bill later today.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to wait until later. With the exception of his thanks to me, perhaps I may echo what he said and give in return my thanks to him for his constructive approach to the Bill and offer again my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hayhoe and to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on getting the Bill through.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Russian Federation) Order 1995
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee],
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to take the draft order concerning the Russian Federation and bracket it with our debate on the Ukraine order which follows on the Order Paper.
The orders specify the partnership and co-operation agreements between the European Union on the one hand and the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the other as European treaties under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. They are mixed agreements; in other words, some of their provisions fall within Community competence and others fall within the competence of member states. They therefore require ratification by all EU member states and the assent of the European Parliament before they can enter into force. In the case of the United Kingdom, the draft orders need to be approved by both Houses so that we may ratify the agreements.
The break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 presented the West with a unique challenge. Out of the debris left by the collapse of the monolithic Soviet system there emerged 15 sovereign independent states, each with its own needs and perspectives. The European Union needed to construct a new, individually tailored relationship with each one.
In the case of the Baltic states, as with the other countries of central Europe before them, we were able to correct the mistakes of history by welcoming those countries back into the European fold with the prospect of eventual membership of the EU. But for the remaining countries, for which EU membership is not on the agenda for the foreseeable future, a different but equally important framework was required—one which for Russia would reflect in particular her importance as a major world player on the borders of the European Union. We needed to develop a relationship based on partnership and practical co-operation to help these countries through the difficult process of establishing genuine political and economic reform.
The partnership and co-operation agreements, which are explicitly based on respect for democratic principles, provide for regular political contacts, increased trading opportunities and wide-ranging economic co-operation. The first such agreements were signed with Ukraine and Russia in June last year. Similar agreements have since been signed with Moldova, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. We expect to lay draft orders on those agreements later in the year. It remains the objective of the European Union to negotiate partnership and

391
co-operation agreements with the remaining countries of the former Soviet Union as soon as those countries are in a position to fulfil the political and economic obligations contained in such agreements.
It is likely to be some time before the partnership and co-operation agreements with Russia and Ukraine enter into force. To bridge that gap, the European Union has negotiated interim agreements with each country. Those agreements will bring into early effect the trade provisions of the wider-ranging PCAs. We hope to sign both interim agreements shortly. But before that is possible, we will first require certain reassurances from each country. In the case of Ukraine, there remains a question mark over its ability to enforce the shipping provisions of the agreements. We hope that that will soon be resolved. Meanwhile, in the case of Russia, the Foreign Affairs Council has decided to delay signature of the agreement until the Russian authorities have addressed our legitimate concerns over events in Chechnya. We hope that our concerns on Chechnya are resolved so that signature can take place. I am sure noble Lords will express great anxiety over that.
It is in everyone's interests that the process of reform in the former Soviet Union—and especially in Russia and Ukraine—should succeed. Of course the success of that process does not lie entirely in our hands. But I believe that the countries of the European Union can help that process along by providing substantial and practical support. These agreements provide a workable framework for that European Union support. I commend the orders to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 20th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the orders, but I raise immediately the issue of their appropriateness at this time. The Minister knows of the concern because I notified her of it.
The Minister referred to the word "partnership" in her observations. But partnership involves certain mutual obligations. I wonder whether at present Russia is performing her side of the deal. Part of the essence of the order in relation to Russia is that it should include not just the promotion of trade and investment but also support for democracy. All those important objectives have been imperilled by the disastrous Russian policies in Chechnya. I wonder whether it is wise for this House to give its imprimatur to the order at this stage, bearing in mind the fact that it will almost certainly be interpreted by the Russian Government in a way that may be different from the Minister's aspirations.
Over the next few weeks President Yeltsin will be holding top level talks with western leaders. I suspect that he will be trying to sweep the problems of Chechnya under the carpet, at least for those purposes. I do not believe that it is at all wise for us perhaps to be interpreted, even though it is not the Government's intention—I recognise that—by the Russian Government as colluding in their purpose. We cannot
392
pretend that the problems of Chechnya do not exist however much President Yeltsin may seek lo camouflage them. There have been appalling atrocities, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, and all sorts of savagery, which are unacceptable.
The question before the House is whether it is in the interests of the United Kingdom and the European Union to raise these important issues demonstrably with President Yeltsin. In my view we should not have had the debate today. We should have considered deferring it until the discussions with President Yeltsin have taken place.
In this ignoble enterprise, President Yeltsin has been forced to look for support from the most dubious allies; Zhirinovsky's neo-fascists and the communists. Therefore, are our interests to be served by proceeding in the way that we have? How best can we sustain a responsive democracy in Russia? Is it by failing to ensure that the Russian Parliament and Government will understand in the most specific terms our deep anxieties about what is happening?
On the other hand, how do we target the political elite for condemnation without hitting the broad mass of the public, many of whose kith and kin have been committed to the terrible struggle and some of whom have perished? An appalling dilemma confronts the Government and I do not disguise that fact. However, I question their tactical approach to the issue.
The Russian Government appear to be untroubled about international reaction to what has happened. Indeed, they have appeared to be untroubled about what has happened in relation to their ignominious deal with Iran and about the breaking of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.
The partnership deal is not wholly accepted within the different institutions and by the different member states of the European Union or by other institutions in Europe. I understand that the Danish Government have indicated that they are not prepared to go down this road while the Chechnya situation persists. I wish to ask the Minister whether there are other dissenting voices among the member states of the European Union. What is her reaction to the Danish situation? Does it remain as stated a few weeks ago; that the Danish Government will not go down this road?
I believe that respect for democratic principles and human rights must constitute an essential element of the partnership agreement. Clearly, it is not being observed in that way by the Russians. Therefore, it is interesting to note that in the view of the European Parliament the partnership should not be proceeded with,
"until the military attack and gross violation of human rights against the people of Chechnya have come to an end and a serious start has been made to find a political solution to the conflict".
What is wrong with that observation?
On 2nd February the Council of Europe decided to suspend its consideration of Russian membership of the council. It did so because of the situation that has persisted in Chechnya. On 6th February, the IMF postponed talks because of fears that extra expenditure on Chechnya operations and the reconstruction that would be involved would make a significant difference

393
to Russia's plans for its 1995 budget and deficit. Those are serious matters and I hope that the Minister will respond to the specific anxieties relating to Russia.
I turn to the second order, which relates to the Ukraine. I was surprised and delighted that the Minister reflected on the issue of shipping. However, I wish to know why she did not refer to the controversy about the decommissioning of the Chernobyl plant. What element of co-operation or partnership is being reflected by the Ukrainian Government in that regard? Is there to be a firm timetable for the closure of that plant, which imperils us all? We know from the events that took place in Chernobyl some years ago that the nuclear cloud imperilled populations all over the European Community, as it was then called, and that elements of danger persist. Now we hear that the situation in relation lo Chernobyl has become depressingly worse. Does the Minister accept that position? Is it not totally unsatisfactory that, despite all that, the Chernobyl plant director should have warned that the nuclear plant would remain in operation until the end of its planned life if western countries failed to meet the cost? He went on to say:
"It is up to governments and countries which are worried about Chernobyl lo pay for its closure. Ukraine does not have a problem with Chernobyl. It is a worry for the West".
In my submission, that view is totally unacceptable.
However, one must balance those remarks with the considerable gains that have been recorded in the Ukraine in recent times. Mr. Kuchma has won over Ukraine's nationalists by his firm suppression of militant separatism in the Crimea and the region has retained a certain degree of autonomy, but that appears to have squared well with the ambitions of the Ukrainian Government.
I wish to be fair to the Government of the Ukraine. I have recorded only one gain, but there are many others and in many respects there has been bold leadership by the Ukrainian Government. However, their derisory attitude about legitimate concerns relating to Chernobyl gives rise to great anxiety not only in this country but throughout the European Union. I believe that those concerns should have been addressed more specifically by the Minister in her earlier observations rather than having been omitted completely.
We in this House do not have the opportunity to do more than register those anxieties and I hope that I have done so reasonably adequately.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, we share with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the anxieties about the behaviour of the Russians in Chechnya and the worries about the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Ukraine, I believe that my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie will wish to comment on the latter point. There will be a further opportunity tonight to discuss in more detail the Russian behaviour in Chechnya. My noble friend Lord Avebury will speak on that matter and I do not wish to trespass too far on what he may wish to say. However, I repeat that we fully share the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
394
I do not go so far as the noble Lord in believing that expressing these serious anxieties about serious matters is a justification for delaying the House in dealing with these agreements on partnership and co-operation. They are long-term agreements and considerable potential—I put it no higher than that—exists for dealing with the problems which the noble Lord mentioned. I understood the Minister to say that there will be an interim stage in relation to the agreements and perhaps she will expand on that.
Before dealing with these serious issues in relation to the agreements, I wish to comment on their main thrust; that is, on the economic front. The conclusion of the agreements with the Russian Federation and the Ukraine, and of the later agreements with the independent states which the Minister mentioned, reflect a dramatic and historic change in the pattern of European trade since the dissolution of the Soviet empire. I can remember in my time at Brussels when the Soviet bloc simply refused to recognise even the existence of the European Community. Indeed, until 1989 the USSR traded mainly with its fellow COMECON countries. Only one-quarter of Soviet exports went to the OECD countries.
Today, the European Union is the largest trading partner of all former COMECON countries and half of all the exports of the new independent states of the former Soviet Union go to the European Union. Indeed, the Russian Federation accounts for over 80 per cent. of both exports and imports.
Therefore, the partnership and co-operation agreements are founded on that revolution in trading patterns. The agreements provide a framework which allows the economies to become gradually integrated into a wider European economic area. As I understand it, there will still be tariffs for the time being but there will be a general removal of quotas and quantitative restrictions. There will be new initiatives for direct investment from the member states of the European Union and an ability for companies to set up in the Russian Federation and the Ukraine.
Beyond that lies a free trade area and a good economic climate which will be important for the enlargement of the European Union and for good relations among the countries of eastern and central Europe when they face the possibility of membership of the Community and for good relations between Russia and the Ukraine.
Those are the long-term economic advantages which are inherent in the agreements, and they are important. But the agreements go further than trade and economic matters, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, underlined, and as was described by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks. The agreements offer a regular political dialogue among the new countries of the former Soviet Union and the European Union at ministerial level, at a regular parliamentary level and at a level of officials and civil servants. It is the potentiality of that dialogue which offers some modest cause for hope in facing the problems of the future.
As I understand it, the general principles of both the partnership and co-operation agreements lay down the importance of democratic values and respect for human

395
rights as well as the matters relating to the principles of (he market economy which I have mentioned. Therefore, in our view, the agreements offer the possibility—and I repeat, it is only the possibility—of exercising a constructive influence, which is so very badly needed for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Relations between the Russian Federation and others of the new independent states are not easy, and, of course, relations within the Russian Federation are equally fraught. We recognise that from the horrible events taking place in Chechnya, as described in the press.
The European Union must seek to use both the interim stage and the final stage of the agreements to deal with the problems and to encourage co-operation among the new independent states of the former Soviet Union. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, as I understand it, the agreements contain an opt-out clause under the final provisions which allows appropriate measures to be taken by either party when it considers the other party to have failed to fulfil an obligation under the agreements. The Co-operation Council, which forms part of the agreements, must be informed. That clause protects the fundamental principles of the agreements relating to democratic reforms and respect for human rights. It is an opt-out clause and therefore provides the European Union with an important degree of leverage in dealing with the future relations between ourselves, the Russian Federation and the other new independent states. It is vitally important. In our view, the long-term significance of the agreements is that the European Union should use wisely and well the possibility for influence which lies within the terms of the agreement and that particular opt-out clause.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the debate until I heard the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, when she mentioned that the order as it affects the Russian Federation would rectify the mistakes of history.
I wondered about that phrase. I wondered to which mistakes of history she could be referring. Was she referring to the four occasions during this century on which Russia has been under attack by external forces? In the First World War, Russia was attacked by the Germans. After the revolution, there were the wars of intervention by the western powers to which we were a party. In the 1940s, there was Operation Barbarossa and another attack on Russia by Germany. Moreover, for 40 years, virtually until 1989, Russia, the Soviet Union, had been subjected to a cold war and had been under attack again from the west, of which we were a part.
It is interesting to reflect that on two of those occasions we were effectively on the side of Russia and on two of them we were on the side of Russia's opponents. I wonder whether those are the mistakes of history to which the noble Baroness was referring.
Was she referring to the economic situation and the fact that since the end of the cold war we have seen the disintegration of the former Soviet Union? We have seen mass unemployment growing right across the former Soviet Union and also in the eastern European countries which came within the sphere of influence of
396
the Soviet Union. There is such devastating unemployment that many women have to sell themselves to eke out a living. That is a reflection of the mass unemployment that has beset the European Union over the past 15 years. Is that the mistake of history about which the noble Baroness spoke—that horrendous rise in unemployment as a result of economic policies adopted by the leaderships of the western world and inflicted on the former Soviet Union, causing such human devastation?
We must ask ourselves whether the partnership agreement goes any way towards rectifying the mistakes of history. I think not. I am willing to be persuaded, but I fear that the noble Baroness would have to talk for a very long time before she could even begin to persuade me that these agreements will rectify any of those mistakes of history. However, I shall be interested to hear what she has to say on that subject.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he has reflected on the number of countries that Russia and the Soviet Union has attacked in the 20th century.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to comment on the concerns voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and by my noble friend about Chernobyl and extend her reply to cover the question of nuclear weapons? Large numbers of nuclear weapons were stationed in the Ukraine under the control of the Soviet Union's central military authorities. Concern has been expressed for a long time about the competence to deal with those military weapons and, indeed, about any co-operation that there may have been with the central Russian authorities in the Soviet Union—the central staff—who control those weapons. There have been many stories about neglect and competence and, indeed, about the sale of nuclear material. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Ukrainian Government are doing all that they can about such a very dangerous situation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, today's short debate has produced many points of interest. Certainly, I would not have put forward the draft orders today had I not been convinced by the very arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, used; namely, that it is far better to have the contact and to work on such matters with the countries concerned. Therefore, I hope that I can set to rest some of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was absolutely right when he talked about these being long-term agreements with very considerable potential for convincing those in Russia and, indeed, in the Ukraine of the wise way of proceeding.
As we all well know, partnership and co-operation agreements can offer substantial encouragement to the process of reform in those countries. That is what I believe every Member of your Lordships' House would wish. However, I have to say that those reforms will be as much in the interests of our own member states of the European Union as they are in the interests of the Russians and the Ukrainians. In my opening remarks I

397
was careful to say that it would be some time before the partnership and co-operation agreements came into force. I spoke of the interim agreements which have been negotiated with each country to bridge the gap before the PCAs enter into force. Perhaps I may repeat what I said; namely, that the interim agreements will bring into early effect the trade provisions of the wider-ranging partnership and co-operation agreements. Therefore, we are starting with the trade elements which obviously assist us in influencing the countries concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said, the very fact that we are working towards agreements which bring members of those countries together with members of the European Union in discussion on a regular basis is another channel for influence in addition to those we have already established.
I turn now to the misapprehension that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, appears to be under. When the noble Lord reads the record of my initial remarks, he will note that I said that in the case of the Baltic states, as with the other countries of central Europe before them, we were able to correct the mistakes of history by welcoming those countries back into the European fold with the prospect of eventual membership of the European Union. I went on to talk about the remaining countries—among which I list Russia and the Ukraine—and said,
"for which European Union membership is not on the agenda for the foreseeable future".
Therefore, I was not in fact referring to Russia. I was referring to the Baltic states and also the countries of central Europe.
In talking about the issues that are before the House today, I should give your Lordships some further information about the main features of the partnership and co-operation agreements. The aim is to intensify the political and economic links between the European Union and the two countries concerned. So there is regular political dialogue at all levels—not simply at head of state level—to effect, impress and, perhaps, change unwise thinking that may, as we know, still exist at some levels in Russia or in the Ukraine.
The second main feature is that of closer trading links, in particular through the abolition of quotas on most goods, by giving most-favoured-nation treatment on tariffs and by abolishing discriminatory internal taxes. The agreements allow for talks in 1998 about eventual free trade areas. The third aspect of the PCAs is that they make it easier to do business in each other's territory. In particular, they set out the terms on which companies can set up, provide a regulatory framework for investment, and aim to bring Russian and Ukrainian practice into line with that of the European Union in areas like competition or the protection of intellectual property.
The fifth main feature is the framework for continued economic co-operation under the TACIS programme— that is, the European Union programme of assistance to the former Soviet countries. Therefore, we have a regulatory framework; we have a framework of political dialogue at all levels; and we have a working
398
arrangement which will bring people closer together. Regular dialogue is a feature of the agreements to which the orders refer.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked a direct question about how one would sustain a responsive democracy in Russia. I believe that the answer must be the very sort of contact about which I have just been talking in outlining the partnership and co-operation agreements. The noble Lord asked several further questions about doubts among other European nations as regards ratification. Of course, the timing of ratification is, as ever, a matter for each member state. As the noble Lord well knows, ratification by 15 member states may take a very long time. At the end of the process, when all 15 member states have ratified, the Council will decide whether or not to allow the agreement to enter into force.
I made clear in my initial remarks that certain changes had to be undertaken by Russia and, indeed, by the Ukraine, before the agreement would enter into force. Moreover, the matters will also have to be debated by the European Parliament. I believe that we have many opportunities to ensure that the changes take place. That is exactly what we wish to do. I shall deal shortly with some of the opportunities that we have already been using to effect the changes that both the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth - and, indeed, all of us—wish to see. Certainly, the most effective time to apply the final pressure will be before the agreement enters into force. Most partners agree with that aim. Therefore, I cannot say whether Denmark will delay ratification. That is a matter for Denmark.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Obviously, that is not covered by the orders in any way, but I can tell the noble Lord that while the Russians have argued for some time that the treaty (agreed originally between the Warsaw Pact and NATO) allows Russia insufficient armoured forces in its flank regions, especially along its troubled southern borders, Russia would be in breach of the treaty as of this November if it maintained forces beyond the limits allowed. We were discussing the problem with the Russians well before the Chechnya crisis erupted in December. We believe that the treaty contains sufficient flexibility to address the Russians' concerns. We have made clear to Russia that we will view very seriously any breach of its terms. But as I said, this issue does not affect the particular orders we are debating today.
Let me come to the main parts of our debate, particularly the questions of Chechnya and Chernobyl. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that obviously the Ukrainian accession to the non-proliferation treaty last December was a most welcome step. We were able to assist by signing a memorandum on security assurances and a statement on European security issues. We have committed ourselves to provide the Ukraine with practical help so that the implementation of the trilateral agreement on nuclear weapons takes place, as, clearly, the noble Lord wishes. We also have some other plans for training and retraining with the Ukrainians which fit in well with the

399
needs as we, and now the new Ukrainian Government, see them, for getting rid of the horror of the nuclear threat which certainly existed in the Ukraine but which President Kuchma seems determined to get to grips with, I am glad to say.
Having started on the Ukraine let me continue by answering the questions of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Thomson of Monifieth. We are already working extremely closely with the Ukraine. We have good contacts and we are helping—as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—with nuclear safety as regards weapons and also Chernobyl. The PCA for the Ukraine provides for the implementation of separate agreements on nuclear safety. We have given assistance via the TACIS programme. About £215 million has been committed to nuclear safety across the former Soviet Union in the past three years. We and the European Union are also donors to the nuclear safety account administered by the EBRD which gives grant assistance for safety upgrades at the higher risk reactors. That goes to Chernobyl and to other reactors as well. We have made a bilateral contribution of over £13 million to that alone. The PCA also provides for specific co-operation to mitigate the effects of the Chernobyl accident which both the noble Lord and I well remember debating when he was a commissioner and I was the responsible Minister in the European Foreign Affairs Council.
Last July, at the G7 summit in Naples, we agreed an action plan to help the Ukrainians reform their energy sector, including the closure of Chernobyl. There are some 200 million dollars worth of grants from the G7 in support of that plan and there is a European Union offer of some 100 million ecu in technical assistance and 400 million ecu in loans. We are working out the exact ways in which this plan is to be activated with the Ukrainians. I am glad to be able to bring the noble Lord up to date and tell him that only last Thursday President Kuchma gave a commitment to the visiting mission of G7 and EU representatives that Chernobyl would be closed down by the year 2000. That is a welcome commitment and obviously overrides any comments that the plant director may have made in the past. That is now on the books and it will be done, It is a realistic timetable for the closure of Chernobyl whereas dates given before were not realistic. We hope therefore that by targeting our western support the Ukraine will not only stick to the timetable but will do the job thoroughly not just with Chernobyl but with the other nuclear reactors too. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and indeed for the response she has given although she and I disagree about the possibility of compartmentalising these various issues in relation to Russia and the Ukraine. However, I understand the way in which she has put these issues. When I said "compartmentalising" the Minister looked a little puzzled. I meant in terms of exercising pressure at the appropriate time, setting aside certain issues and hoping that one can deal with them separately from the rest. I am not at all sure that that is right, but be that as it may. Closing down Chernobyl by the year 2000 poses a problem over the next four and a half years. Can the
400
Minister give the House any indication as to how, during that interim period—I am sure most of us will be pleased to hear the news that the Minister has recounted to the House—these problems may be mitigated because the peril will remain over the course of the four and a half years?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I find the noble Lord's comment about compartmentalising rather strange. When I talk about appropriate times, I mean every single time that Ministers meet with Ukrainian Ministers. Whenever we have the opportunity, we have committed ourselves to assisting the Ukraine to improve its nuclear safety and therefore we will not lose an opportunity of taking up the issues. I spelt out rather carefully for the noble Lord what we are doing. That does not mean that we will be waiting for four years. What it does mean is that we are already engaged and that we are working on various programmes of training and assistance. We are keeping not just a watching brief; we are acting within the EU action plan I described, which is backed by the G7 leaders, to make sure that the Ukrainian energy sector is made as safe as possible, leading up to the closure of Chernobyl by the year 2000 but taking account of the needs of the other reactors in the meantime. I think the noble Lord is being a little parsimonious with his comment on the matter but I shall leave that because I am convinced that the G7/EU mission last week was a good step forward.
We know that there has been slow progress in some sectors but at least we now have the Ukrainians absolutely determined to get on with the job. When the European Union finance Ministers set conditions for the release of the balance of payments assistance recently, they included a requirement for progress on nuclear safety. That is why I am not in favour of any further delay either as regards these orders or indeed as regards giving support for economic reform because were we to do that we would certainly not advance the day that Chernobyl was closed; we would slow it down. Therefore there is every need to get on with this job of influencing, as we are seeking to do.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am sorry to cause the noble Baroness concern but I want to clarify something, I am persuaded by her argument that in relation to the Ukraine the pressure that has been brought to bear has been wholly helpful, but it was only today that I and the House were able to learn from the Minister the latest information, about which I am sure the House will rejoice.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks. Perhaps now I should move on from the Ukraine, where progress is really being made, to Russia where I have even more sympathy for the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord than perhaps I could have on the question of the Ukraine. Obviously, we are not going to make progress with Russia unless we are closely involved with it in supporting the democracy which is growing in Russia. I think that the noble Lord could not be more wrong when he talks about President Yeltsin sweeping the major problem of Chechnya under the carpet. He has never been allowed to do so in any contacts with western

401
leaders; nor will he be. Chechnya is a major setback to progress in Russian-Western co-operation. We have made that clear in every single contact with the Russians, most recently when Prime Minister Chernomyrdin was here in March.
However, our response should be measured. Cutting off, or slowing down, support for Russia is likely to be counter-productive. It would damage the reform process on which a number of leading liberal Russians are making real advances. It is interesting that many of them say clearly that without our pressure they would not have achieved what they have.
The current situation in Chechnya is that the Russians have taken control of all the major towns. There is still some fighting but at a much lower level than before. We know that there are Chechen fighters in the mountains, and no one can rule out a prolonged guerrilla campaign. We know that there is a massive refugee problem, with possibly more than 40 per cent. of the population displaced from their homes. The British Government have acted to help the people who have been made homeless with a contribution of more than £2 million of emergency aid. Humanitarian organisations, with our help and help from the European Union, are finding it easier to operate throughout the region.
The Russian Government are continuing their dialogue with a range of local leaders and influential figures in an attempt to find a political solution. It is as a result of the encouragement from nations such as ours that the Russians are now making more progress than two months ago. We have told the Russians that there are three key priorities. Fighting should stop as soon as possible. Immediate humanitarian relief must be allowed through to all those in need. And a political agreement must be worked out which will allow the Chechen people to express their identity within the framework of the Russian Federation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, knows, we have fully supported the efforts of the OSCE to help find a solution. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Inglewood will comment on this matter in greater detail when he replies to the Unstarred Question on the Order Paper today.
I want to make one further point concerning reported flagrant violations of human rights said to have been committed in Samashki. We have received a number of such reports. The European Union has expressed its deep concern at the events in Samashki. We condemn the actions committed against civilians, which are in total violation of fundamental human rights. A statement was issued on Saturday, and we have made a solemn appeal to the Russian authorities for an end to violence against civilian populations.
That is why we feel very strongly about this issue and why I stated clearly in my opening remarks that Chechnya is one of the problems that has to be dealt with by the Russians before the PCAs come into being. There is more that can be said on the subject, but as we have a debate on the Order Paper today about Chechnya it is best left until then, and I return to the orders before us on partnership and co-operation agreements.
402
I assure your Lordships that we have no intention of going beyond the interim agreements until such time as the matters on which our debate has concentrated have been resolved. That is why, in the interests of influencing and reforming those countries, we believe that partnership and co-operation agreements should be progressed even if they will not be completed until we are fully satisfied. These long-term agreements have considerable potential for good because they aid dialogue and influence in the way I described earlier. I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, and Ukraine) Order 1995
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Chalker of Waltasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995
4.5 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the first statutory instrument standing in my name on the Order Paper.
It may be convenient if I explain the purpose of the four legal aid regulations on the Order Paper. The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995 and the Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995 provide for the uprating of the financial eligibility limits for civil legal aid and for advice and assistance. The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995 raise the lower disposable income limit for civil legal aid below which civil legal aid is available without a contribution by the assisted person from £2,382 to £2,425 per annum. The regulations also increase the upper limit above which civil legal aid is not available from £7,060 to £7,920 per annum.
The Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995 provide for a similar uprating in relation to advice and assistance. In these advice and assistance cases the calculation is carried out on the basis of weekly income. The regulations raise the lower limit from £63 to £64 and the upper limit from £153 to £156. The regulations also revise the scale of contributions for applicants with disposable income between the upper and lower income limits for advice and assistance.
These proposed changes generally represent a 1.8 per cent. uprating on the 1994–95 levels. They therefore mutch increases in the level of income-related social security benefits. The new upper limit for civil legal aid will equate to the limit which currently applies to personal injury cases in England and Wales. This represents a significantly greater uprating than 1.8 per cent. The revised limit will remove the existing position whereby personal injury cases are relatively disadvantaged in Scotland as compared with England and Wales through having no separate and higher upper limit for these cases. It will also have the effect of bringing a small additional number of people within the scope of civil legal aid. All of these proposed changes are entirely straightforward and do not raise any new points of principle in this area of the legal aid system.
The Advice and Assistance (Assistance By Way Of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995 and the Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Regulations 1995 provide for the extension of assistance by way of representation, which is a form of advice and assistance under the legal aid arrangements. They arise as a consequence of the provisions on raves in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That Act allows for proceedings for the return of equipment forfeited in certain circumstances. Assistance by way of representation is the most straightforward means to ensure that legal aid is available in relation to any such proceedings. Given that assistance by way of representation will be available in this respect, it is necessary to exclude such cases from eligibility for criminal legal aid. These are technical changes designed to streamline and improve the administration of the legal aid system.
We have also laid before the House a number of further regulations under the negative resolution procedure. These relate to the uprating of fees allowable to solicitors and counsel for civil legal aid work and the aggregation of resources of cohabitees in the calculation of disposable income and capital for the purposes of advice and assistance and civil legal aid. The regulations also contain further minor and technical amendments and improvements to the legal aid system in Scotland.
The regulations make provision for the uprating of eligibility limits and for other useful changes to the system of legal aid in Scotland. I commend this first instrument to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House will be grateful to the noble Earl
404
for introducing these four sets of regulations which fell on attentive and understanding ears. It is a highly technical area of the law. Perhaps in the light of the current climate I should declare a double interest. I am still a practising member of the Scottish Bar; and I have recently acquired a son-in-law who practises within the legal aid system in Scotland, in particular in the civil field.
It should be put on record at this stage, as I am sure the noble Earl knows, that there has been a considerable degree of frustration, and indeed resentment, in particular on the part of civil practitioners within the legal aid field, not only about the level of remuneration but about the time it takes for lawyers to receive payment for work which they have done and on which they have expended moneys. We hope that these regulations will at least alleviate some of the grievances.
It is important to note also from a public point of view that when people see the amounts expended on legal aid, they tend to think that all the money goes into the lawyers' pockets. But although I do not know the figures, the legal process is an industry on its own and perhaps one of the largest employers of clerical and administrative staff in the country. It would be nice if the public could be occasionally disabused of the idea that everything from legal aid goes directly into the lawyers' pockets.
The legal aid system is an important part of the fabric and structure of legal and social justice in Scotland, and indeed in England and Wales. Any improvement which helps to maintain that fabric and structure should be welcomed. This side of your Lordships' House recognises that there are fiscal restraints in extending legal aid payments. From the position I am standing in at present, I can give no guarantee that when the change of government comes in the not-too-distant future the situation will be any better in so far as concerns any implements. As has been said in another place, we shall have to have a look at the books first before anything can be done about that. However, we recognise—I believe that it was recognised at about this stage last year—and the Government recognise the importance of maintaining the solidity of the legal aid system. One of the alarming factors in Scotland, of which no doubt the noble Earl is aware, is that civil practitioners were opting out of the legal aid system because it was just not worth while practising in that field any more.
These orders will, I hope, to some extent encourage people who are thinking of opting out of the civil legal aid process to remain within the system and to provide a service to the Scottish community within the structure.
The noble Earl referred to England and Wales. On a purely personal basis, I have often wondered whether any comparative study has been done of the cost per head of legal aid in England and Wales as against Scotland. I do not know; I have not had time to see whether any such study exists. If the noble Earl knows of any such recent comparative study, I should be grateful if he would let me know, I do not ask that in a carping, critical way but as a request for information for myself and perhaps for others who are interested in the legal aid system throughout the United Kingdom.

405
Apart from that aspect, I welcome the orders which the noble Earl introduced.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord raised several points. I shall endeavour to reassure him on those questions for which he seeks answers.
He expressed concern over the level and speed with which legal aid payments are made to solicitors and counsel involved. In considering the correct level of fees for legally aided work the Government have to take into account both the general financial position, to which the noble Lord referred, and the supply of legally aided services. Expenditure on legal aid in Scotland has increased dramatically in recent years. From 1987–88 the figure stood at just £45 million, whereas the corresponding figure for 1995–96 is estimated to be £133 million. That is just a fraction short of a 300 per cent. increase in funds over just nine years. In this context, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland clearly had to consider carefully what can be afforded by way of fees for legally aided work before making any decision which would inevitably increase overall expenditure still further.
On the supply side, there is no evidence that members of the public are unable to find solicitors willing to undertake criminal legal aid work or advice and assistance. However, we have received representations from various bodies, including the legal profession, pointing to difficulties in connection with remuneration for civil legal aid work. The noble Lord pointed that out. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, knows that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has decided to increase the fees for civil work by an overall 3 per cent. I shall pass on the concerns of the noble Lord both to my right honourable friend and to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie on that point.
The noble Lord was concerned, too, about the speed with which our remuneration was delivered. I can assure the noble Lord that the Scottish Legal Aid Board has greatly improved the time taken for payment of legal aid bills over the past three years. That point is being further considered by the policy and financial management review of the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
The last point that the noble Lord raised was on the differential in average cost per case between Scotland and England and Wales. No recent formal studies have been carried out between the two areas of jurisdiction. Expenditure is broadly comparable. If there are any minor differentials they must be considered against the background of the different circumstances which exist between the justice systems and the court systems in those two areas.
I reassure the House and the noble Lord that in dealing with the concerns that the noble Lord raised my right honourable friend must balance access by those in need with the prudent control of public expenditure; It is for that reason that my right honourable friend is especially anxious that the resources available must be directed as efficiently and effectively as possible towards those who are in the greatest need.
406
As I said, the regulations make provision for the uprating of eligibility limits and for other useful changes to the system of legal aid in Scotland. I hope that they find favour with noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995
4.18 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Amendment Regulations 1995
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1995
4.19 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay rose to move, That the Scheme laid before the House on 28th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I present to the House this short uncontroversial instrument which will allow farmers and crofters in Scotland and Wales to obtain grants under the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme towards the costs of fencing work related to the "waterside habitats" option of the Scottish habitats scheme and the "water fringe" and "coastal belt" options in the Welsh habitats scheme.
This instrument places Scotland and Wales on the same footing as England. A similar instrument for England was approved by Parliament last year. Due to different timescales for the processing of Scottish and

407
Welsh habitats scheme legislation through the European Commission and Parliament, it was not possible to introduce a single instrument at that time covering England, Scotland and Wales. Clearly, the main habitats scheme legislation for each country had to be in place before amendments could be made to the FCGS legislation.
There are various differences between the Scottish and Welsh habitats schemes which reflect the different environmental and conservation priorities for each country. However, the fundamental objectives of the two schemes are the same: to encourage farmers and crofters to establish and manage specific habitats of conservation value. Farmers and crofters can receive area-based payments if they agree to take specified land out of agricultural production for a period of years or allow only limited and controlled grazing, depending on the habitat scheme option selected.
In Scotland, farmers have the option of taking land out of production for 20 years or restricting the use of land to limited grazing, managed in the interests of conservation, for a period of 10 years. In Wales, land can be taken out of production for 10 years, or grazed on a limited basis for the same period. Habitat options available range from watersides, coastal areas and broadleaved woodland through to damp lowland, grassland and marsh communities. Rates of area payments are based on the nature of the habitat option chosen by fanners or crofters. The Scottish Habitats Scheme came into operation in November 1994, and the Welsh scheme started in January 1995.
It was always our intention to make available some form of compensation to farmers who had entered the habitats schemes towards the costs of any necessary fencing of land within eligible waterside or coastal fringe sites. Clearly, there are considerable advantages in denying stock access to such areas in terms of protection of water purity, waterside vegetation and the creation of rich, natural habitats for wildlife. However, no satisfactory means of paying such compensation could be found, since the habitats schemes are based on area payments. We concluded, therefore, that the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme should form the vehicle for making compensatory payments to farmers who need to fence any land they have entered under the appropriate options in the Scottish and Welsh habitats schemes.
The instrument we are considering today will enable participants in the Scottish and Welsh habitats schemes to obtain grants at the rate of 40 per cent. for fencing works under the appropriate habitats options under both schemes. The rate of grant we are proposing, and which applies already in England, has been pitched deliberately at a high level on the basis that we wish to encourage farmers to participate fully in the habitats schemes. I am confident that the instrument we are discussing will help to achieve this important objective.
Finally, I can confirm that there are no public expenditure implications associated with this instrument. Resources to pay grants for fencing works related to the Scottish and Welsh habitats schemes exist already within the overall public expenditure provision for FCGS. No additional bids are therefore necessary, I commend this instrument to the House.
Moved, That the Scheme laid before the House on 28th March be approved. [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister has explained the regulations extremely clearly and we understand they are being laid because of the delay that he mentioned. We regard the proposals as entirely welcome and from this side of the House we support them.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, from the Scots point of view, we too support the payment of grants to assist in the improvement of the habitat. We would much rather have seen the Government restore the payments to hill farmers, which they cut and which were introduced some time ago, but obviously the measure is a sensible move.
I cannot agree that 40 per cent. is a generous subsidy for fencing. Normally one likes to pitch the grant at a rate which will pay for materials so that the remaining 50 per cent. will pay for the farmer's labour in putting up the fencing. However, it is better than nothing. The general level of the scheme is right and proper so we shall not contradict the Minister.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Mackie, for this important instrument. Behind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, about the generosity or otherwise of the 40 per cent. grant, I sense that anything less than 100 per cent. would be seen by him as ungenerous. Nevertheless, I hope that the 40 per cent. grant will be quite significant for those who take up the offer. The instrument will allow the Scottish and Welsh agriculture departments to pay such grants under the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme for fencing of land to farmers who have entered into the appropriate habitats options in the Scottish and Welsh habitats schemes. I commend the instrument.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995
4.25 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to move, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations be annulled.
The noble Lord said; My Lords, in moving this Prayer I shall speak also to the second Motion in my name on the Order Paper which deals with the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations. I believe that the Motion on the same subject in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, will also be discussed, so that we shall have a single debate on all three Motions.
As we are dealing with regulations laid under the negative procedure I have put down the Prayers to annul the regulations in the usual way to ensure that we secure a debate on these important regulations. The two Motions in my name and that in the name of the noble

409
Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, approach the situation from a different angle, but they all illustrate the anxiety that now exists regarding the operation of the new Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) which came into being on 1st April.
This is the first chance the House has had for a proper debate on the regulations, although we touched on the subject in the debates on the deregulation Bill last autumn when I moved and withdrew certain amendments so that discussion could take place at that time. It would be helpful if, when he replies to the debate, the Minister could confirm that the situation is now, as was forecast in October last year, that three agencies will effectively be concerned with different aspects of meat hygiene and food safety: the State Veterinary Service, the new Meat Hygiene Service and, with their continuing responsibilities for food safety, the local authorities. So much for deregulation and reducing bureaucracy.
The major concern, now that the MHS has started to operate, concerns the level of its charges. The Government have had to acknowledge that concern by the temporary reductions in charges that have recently been announced, operating for the first year. I am sure that the Minister will reply concerning these charges at the end of the debate.
I have received briefing—as I am sure other noble Lords have—from the National Farmers' Union, the Poultry Meat Federation, the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers, the National Federation of Meat and Food Traders and the British Meat Manufacturers Association. To be fair, a number of them support the principle of the MHS, but all refer to their anxiety about the excessive charges being levied.
I have also heard from 10 abattoir owners, all comparatively small operators, who are extremely worried about the extra costs which they now face. They include an abattoir at Widnes which has increased costs of £25,000 a year; an abattoir in Anglesey where the overheads have been increased from 52p per tonne to £3.30 per tonne; a slaughterhouse in Wrexham, where the annual costs have increased from £22,745 to £54,600; and the Manchester wholesale meat and poultry market where there has been a 40 per cent. increase on an annual cost of £262,245. These are all small businesses which have spent large sums of money in recent years upgrading their premises to meet the requirements and standards of the European Commission. All now face what they regard as excessive increases in charges as a result of the introduction of the Meat Hygiene Service.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us how much of all that is due to directives from the European Commission and how much to the long-standing ambition of MAFF and the veterinary profession to get meat hygiene under centralised veterinary control. That is an ambition which, in the case of the veterinary profession, goes back over 70 years. I do not in the least disagree with the objectives, but it is important that in this debate we tease out how much of the new arrangement is due to the requirements from the
410
European Commission and how much to the long-standing ambition of MAFF to get meat hygiene under its centralised control.
The regulations were tabled on 9th March and they were extremely long and complicated regulations for a new organisation to start on 1st April. It did not give much time for discussion. At the time, the department's press release said that the new rules would implement the European Community directive on the welfare of animals during slaughter and killing, while at the same time maintaining the key welfare safeguards from our existing domestic legislation. It is important that we understand where responsibility lies, and perhaps we could be told how much is a direct result of directives from the European Commission and how much is due to the enthusiasm of the department.
There has been a substantial increase in the estimated running cost of the new organisation. On 9th March a press release from the department, when the regulations were laid, referred to a cost of £40.3 million, but a parliamentary reply on 14th March, only five days later, referred to a figure of £53.4 million for the first year of operation. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the discrepancy between these two figures. As I understand it, the taxpayers' support is £15.4 million, plus the set-up costs of £5.2 million. That is a cost to the taxpayer in the order of £20 million, plus a start-up cost of £626,000 that was spent on the project team for setting up the new organisation.
I understand also that almost the first thing that the MHS did was to supply corporate ties to the 947 employees. Of course, we know that no self-respecting quango nowadays is complete without a corporate tie and a classy coat of arms. Considering all that has taken place, I wondered whether the College of Heralds would accept a coat of arms for the MHS consisting perhaps of a bureaucrat rampant over an abattoir owner couchant on a field stained red with taxpayers' and farmers' blood. I also wondered whether the corporate ties were in the same post as the 15 pairs of Wellingtons that were supplied to each meat inspector.
I understand that the Government are now recommending a maximum charge of £35 per hour for official veterinary surgeons engaged in MHS work. However, a survey by the British Veterinary Association in April 1993, which covered something like 400 official veterinary surgeons working in 600 slaughterhouses in 200 local authority areas, showed an average hourly rate of £25.70, so why the increase of nearly 50 per cent. in the past two years? I understand that a survey by the BVA taken in March 1995 confirms the considerable dissatisfaction that is felt over the handling of the transfer from the local authority system to the new arrangements.
It would be interesting to know how the competitive position of our farmers and our meat industry and the costs they will have to bear compare with the situation in other member states. For example, I understand that the veterinary charges in slaughterhouses in France and Southern Ireland are paid for out of government funds. Would it be possible for the Minister to tell the House how many European Union states have the equivalent

411
of a meat hygiene service, with all the costs falling on the farmer and the abattoir owner and during the setting-up period a proportion falling on the taxpayer?
I referred earlier to the understandable ambitions of the veterinary profession for something like 70 years to sec an increased role for the veterinary surgeon in meat hygiene. Unfortunately, The Veterinary Record of 4th March 1995 does not show much enthusiasm for what has happened in the run-up period of the new organisation. It says:
"Next month will see the start in Great Britain of the national Meat Hygiene Service. It would be good to be able to report that things have progressed well and that all is set fair for a smooth transfer of responsibility for administering meat hygiene from local authorities to the new meat hygiene agency. Sadly, that is not the case. Despite vigorous campaigning by the BVA, events over the past year tell a sorry tale of delays, poor communication and missed opportunities on the part of MAFF and the fledgling MHS. As a result, the aim of ensuring adequate veterinary supervision of meat hygiene—so central to the safe operation of meat plants and, indeed, the principle on which the service was based—might not be realised".
With a further reference to the bureaucracy which is now involved, there was a report in the Farmers Weekly on 7th April, only last week, referring to the last-minute avalanche of paperwork that had confirmed the worst fears of the slaughterhouse owners. I quote:
"Before we can begin work in the morning there must be a pre-operation inspection, and three forms to fill in, and a further 27 must be made during the day. Abattoirs are going to be forced to employ an extra person just to fill out the paperwork".
Also, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what is the position regarding the number of veterinary surgeons required in order that the MHS can operate properly. Estimates in 1992 suggested there should be some 300 vets, both full-time and part-time, to provide a proper service. I believe that the figure now is 167, but the costs have increased from £32 million when local authorities were providing a similar service to £54 million now. Surely the increase cannot all be accounted for by the corporate ties and Wellington boots. It certainly is not on veterinary surgeons. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how many vets will now be engaged in the MHS work.
One also wonders just how close this new MHS is to what actually happens in slaughterhouses. A letter from the MHS in Cardiff requires 14 days' written notice from the operator where there is a change in the plant requirements for inspection. During this 14 days, it is clear from the MHS—it is stated in terms—that the operator is liable for all MHS charges, even if the throughput has gone down. So a slaughterhouse owner who is tied to the market has to absorb the losses inherent in market fluctuations, but the MHS has carefully insulated itself from those pressures. The original publicity material at the time of the tendering process and during the setting-up period referred to flexibility to reduce or increase attendance to suit seasonal variations in plant operating time, but it seems that the flexibility has to be at 14 days' written notice.
Having criticised the way in which the MHS was set up and the way in which it appears to have started its operations, it is fair to ask whether there was an alternative. I think the alternative was set out extremely
412
well in a speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at a seminar on meat hygiene organised by the Association of District Councils in October 1993. He said then:
"The Government has been listening to the criticisms which have been made both by local authorities and by the industry, of the prescriptive nature of the current controls. Where it is possible to make the regulations and guidance less prescriptive, and more based on an assessment of risk, we will do so".
The noble Earl then set out clearly the plans of the Government at that time so far as the local authorities were concerned. The plans would consist of in traducing a slaughterhouse performance monitoring system to focus advice and enforcement on real hygiene risks; publishing a leaflet for business on meat hygiene enforcement—government, local authority and industry rights and responsibilities; consulting on new guidance on veterinary supervision; publishing a MAFF strategy document for research on meat hygiene and inspection; and continuing to work in the EC for review of existing inspection requirements and for the modification of meat hygiene directives to target statutory requirements on key public health issues. All that was to do with the local authority responsibility, and then of course the Minister tagged on the establishment of a meat hygiene service.
The final quotation says it all:
"A major part of this work is the publication of our proposals for a system of assessing the performance of meat premises in relation to hygiene. We propose that this system should be used by MAFF, together with each local authority, to monitor performance and standards, and to identify for the operator where improvements are needed. We believe that this will make it much easier for MAFF as the licensing authority, and OVS and EHOs working for the local authority, to focus on the real hygiene problems which need to be addressed. I believe that it will also provide an effective framework for demonstrating that the goal of a 'single standard of safe, properly inspected meat is being achieved".
All that was to be done in the autumn of 1993 through the existing local authority systems. I am sure that it could have been done for a lot less than the £21 million that has been, or will be, spent on establishing the new system.
The Government's intentions were well meant. It has been a long-standing ambition inside the department and the veterinary profession to bring meat hygiene under centralised veterinary control. But we have had a sorry tale of well-meant intentions confused by bureaucratic muddle and the inbuilt tendency of new quangos to be unable to control their costs. This is a self-regulating agency not a quango; it is a SEFRA, a self-financing regulatory agency. I hope that when the Minister replies he is able to bring the House good news regarding the ability of the department to intervene to control the heavy costs being placed on slaughterhouse owners.
It was a US judge, Mr. Louis Brandeis, who got it about right in 1928, when he said:
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding".
I beg to move.
Moved, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations be annulled.— (Lord Carter.)
4.41 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, the Motion standing in my name asks the Government to look again at the meat hygiene regulations which have been introduced to translate EC directives into national law. The regulations require the creation of a new government agency—the Meat Hygiene Service—and involve large expenditure by slaughterhouse operators as well as a generous slug of taxpayers' money. Unfortunately, there has not yet been the opportunity to debate them either in this House or in another place.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves that the main reason for inspecting abattoirs in the first place is to protect the consumer. I believe that I shall be able to show that under the Meat Hygiene Service the consumer will have less rather than more protection. Secondly, any such service should be cost-effective. Again I will show that the MHS is more expensive than the service it replaces run by the local authorities and will be so expensive that it will quite needlessly drive out of business many medium and small operators.
Let me explain why the Meat Hygiene Service will be more expensive. The local authority meat inspection system was estimated to cost between £32 million and £45 million according to whose figures one believes and how those costs were allocated. The Government's figures for the Meat Hygiene Service, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, show that it will cost £54 million in its first year of operation, of which the taxpayer will pick up no less than £20 million. That is a pretty generous slug of taxpayers' money. It means that £9 million is the minimum extra cost over and above the service which the Meat Hygiene Service will replace. That is just for starters. If the new agency is so cost effective, why does it need any subsidy at all? And what happens when the subsidy is removed? The costs will not come down. The extra costs will be passed on to the industry which will be faced with ever higher expenses in the years to come.
There are around 420 slaughterhouses and abattoirs in England of which slightly more than 200 are what may be called medium to small-sized businesses which provide an invaluable service to the consumer, the butcher and the producer. The producer is able to transport his stock over shorter distances for slaughter with reduced stress to the animals; the quality butcher can be sure that the carcasses he buys will be properly cooled and hung rather than quick-chilled; and the consumer benefits by having a wider choice of quality meat. I should add that all those businesses have a respectable number of customers, One owner to whom I spoke yesterday has 4,500 satisfied clients. So we are not talking about a backroom operation.
It is precisely the smaller and medium-sized slaughterhouses which will be the first victims of the increase in charges which the MHS will impose. If my noble friend the Minister wishes, I can provide him with numerous examples of operators who either have closed or are threatened by closure because of the cost of this superfluous layer of expensive bureaucracy. On average the charging system will increase their costs by around 40 per cent. The MHS will be setting the charges. It will effectively be judge, jury and executioner. A 40 per
414
cent. increase cannot be paid for out of operating profit and will needlessly put people out of business. I cannot believe that that is what the Government wish to do.
I must emphasise how strongly people feel about this matter. Perhaps I can illustrate the point by telling the House that nearly 200 slaughterhouse owners have pledged not to pay the MHS charges. That is how strongly they feel. They are businessmen who pay their taxes and their VAT and who are normally law-abiding subjects. They are significant employers in their regions. They have been pushed into deciding that enough is enough. Is it right that those people should be forced to make the choice between obeying the law or going bust? I do not believe it is.
I am aware that the larger slaughterhouses support the introduction of the Meat Hygiene Service. Why? Because it would suit them admirably to see their smaller rivals go out of business, giving them a larger share of the cake. That is no justification for the introduction of the Meat Hygiene Service. Equally, I am aware that both the NFU and the CLA have given heavily qualified approval so far to the introduction of the MHS. However, their continued support is dependent on its cost effectiveness. They are already concerned at the indication of the much higher costs I mentioned. My noble friend may wish to enlarge on that aspect.
I turn to the interests of the consumer and food safety. I query the assumption that the introduction of the MHS will mean greater protection. Who will the MHS be serving? Will it be the consumer or the meat industry? As the MHS will rely for its income solely on the meat industry, it is that industry which will be its customer, and it is he who pays the piper who calls the tune. The tune inevitably will be called by the major meat wholesalers. As smaller slaughterhouses are forced to close down, the Meat Hygiene Service costs will be spread ever more thinly, leading to higher fees and even more closures. The effect of fewer slaughterhouses will be greater throughput of animals in those slaughterhouses which remain in business. In turn, that will lead to greater cross-contamination, which is inevitable as a consequence of greater throughput. No matter how rigorous the inspection, more animals through an abattoir means more cross-infection; that is simple arithmetic.
Equally, it will be more difficult to trace diseased animals through individual slaughterhouses where the larger slaughterhouses are processing thousands of carcasses a week. Most disturbingly, new and lethal pathogens have been discovered. I refer in particular to a strain known as Definition Type 104C, which is increasing and becoming a serious health concern. That cannot be spotted in the abattoir in the carcass, no matter how many vets line up in attendance. It will have to be dealt with on the farm in the same way as TB and brucellosis were successfully controlled.
What does the MHS really bring? It does not bring lower costs, though that was part of its rationale; it does not bring standard charges because abattoirs will still be paying different rates, and it will not bring any increase in consumer protection. I ask the Government to take note of my concerns; to set the MHS and these

415
regulations on one side, and to bring back a scheme which will be more effective in terms of cost and in protecting the consumer.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, there is a great deal of anxiety in the meat trade about the Meat Hygiene Service. The majority of organisations in Britain are in favour of the scheme but they are concerned about the cost of administering it. From my understanding of the matter, the agency is not responsible for the licensing of slaughter premises. That duty was earlier transferred from the local authorities to government when the European Union veterinary inspectorate reported low standards of hygiene and structure of many British plants during the regular checks which are made within all member states.
Unfortunately for the meat trade, more than half our abattoirs have been closed in the past 12 years. In 1983 we had more than 1,000 abattoirs in Britain. Today, the number is down to just over 500. I wonder whether they have been closed compulsorily or whether many of the abattoir owners have thrown in the towel. When one compares the regulations in Britain with those in Italy, France and Germany, I wonder whether fair play is operating. I hope that the Minister will be able tell us what percentage of the abattoirs in those countries have been closed over the past 10 years.
The Meat and Livestock Commission has long supported the concept of a centralised meat inspection service and welcomes its launch. The commission states:
"The benefits to be gained from a national service are numerous: it is easier to ensure that consistent inspection standards are provided across all abattoirs, cutting plants and cold stores; a regular pattern of continuous professional training can be assured; career prospects for authorised meat inspectors can be improved; important additional benefits can be more readily achieved—for example, the feedback to farms of origin information on the state of health of stock revealed by post-mortem inspections; the scope for a streamlined, cost-effective inspection service is more readily achievable".
I accept the comments of the Meat and Livestock Commission because I honestly believe that it has given excellent service to the industry over the past few years.
According to a press release, the President of the Farmers' Union of Wales has made a last-gasp appeal to the Government to reconsider the establishment of the meat health service which he said would transfer control of meat inspection from local authorities to the new Meat Hygiene Service. The press release states:
"The new service would have a total budget of £53.4 million and employ a total of nearly a thousand, 872 meat inspectors and vets and 75 management and clerical staff. In a direct appeal to the government to think again, Mr. Parry has told Mr. Waldegrave that some abattoir operators in Wales anticipated an increase of up to 40 per cent. in operational costs and that the agency's budget was over £8 million more than the current service operated by local authorities".
I wonder whether those figures are correct. The press release continues:
Mr. Parry says that abattoirs were going out of business at a frightening' rate and that any increase in operational costs would increase the closure rate".
416
I shall say very little about Scotland because my noble friend Lord Mackie will say a few words on the Scottish aspects of the scheme. The Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers says:
"While continuing to express … total support for the aims of the new Agency providing a cost effective, fair, efficient, affordable, consistent and creditable service to all Meat Plants in Great Britain, there continues to be considerable unease and anger at the manner in which the service is being introduced".
My noble friend will take over from there when the time comes.
The Association of District Councils is not in favour of the change either. It states:
"The Association and its members have always expressed concern about the cost, accountability and role of the MHS. It believes that the service will be more expensive and less accountable than the one hitherto provided by local authorities. More importantly, however, it will be less flexible and less responsive to the needs of small and local businesses which have already experienced some difficulty in coming to terms with regulatory changes in the industry. The MHS will also fragment the existing local authority food hygiene and safety framework with consequences for consumers and business".
I have received a letter from Edward Hamer, one of the biggest wholesalers in Wales. At the moment he is the chairman of the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers (Wales). The company operates from Llanidloes, Powys. He is well known for the service he has given to the industry in Wales and for the number of lambs which he exports to Spain, Italy and other countries. He says:
"In principle we are in favour of the M.H.S. as we were promised a more economic service, a slim low cost structure that was able to service the needs of this industry for inspection and veterinary time far better than 300 local authorities. We were told that the MHS. would be low cost and flat structured. However, what we have seen evolve is a very large, top heavy, overstaffed, expensive organisation formed. Although it has been classed as an executive agency of MAFF, it would appear in all senses to be a quango, although obviously people who are involved are strongly denying this.
As far as the costs to industry are concerned, we are seeing colossal rises in cost per hour and manning levels. This being due to enormous amount of paperwork which has been created. We as an industry were promised full consultation before any of the nuts and bolts of this service were put together. However, there has been no consultation whatsoever. They can argue that there was an industry forum, which was held in York. However, the first many of us knew at the sharp end of the industry was the arrival of thousands of forms which have to be completed. In a plant such as the size of mine, to complete all these forms in the full and proper manner will take two extra personnel full time.
The Welsh Industry has had reasonable rates for authorised meat inspectors and official veterinary surgeons. These rises that we are seeing now are colossal on what many people have been paying. In fact that on an industry wide basis it is 40% more than we were paying in the last financial year".
In the view of the comments of the leaders of the industry in Wales, Scotland and England I believe that the Government should have another look at the scheme in its present form. I am sure that that is the wish of noble Lords on both sides of the House. We do not want to see an industry on which we are so dependent failing.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, it would appear that I may be the only Member of this House to speak in favour of the unified Meat Hygiene Service other than my noble friend the Minister. I speak

417
as someone who has had in his career several years' experience of food hygiene meat inspection in Scotland, where it was a first rate local authority service. Therefore, I am speaking against the prayer to annul the regulations pertaining to the central Meat Hygiene Service.
During the debate on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill in October 1994 I spoke of the importance of the need for a unified meat hygiene service under veterinary direction. I am still very strongly of that opinion. It has been long recognised that the welfare of animals awaiting slaughter and at slaughter, and the wholesomeness and soundness of meat and meat products in the food chain, is best achieved by a single seamless system which is represented by the unified meat inspection service that is in force. I say en passant that this seamless single service is much more liable to avoid the food hygiene problems of infection such as those which have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke.
It is also recognised that while the meat inspection and hygiene services under some local authorities are beyond reproach, particularly in Scotland, nevertheless there were many others where that was not the case. It has been long recognised that England and Wales in particular have lagged behind other countries of the world in meat hygiene. That has meant that until 1993 we have had two hygiene standards; one for export purposes meeting international standards including those of the European Union, and one for home consumption. Surely it is an anomalous situation that our own citizens should tolerate a perceived or otherwise lower standard of meat hygiene than that of our customers overseas.
I am informed that prior to 1993 there were only 78 meat hygiene plants that were licensed for export. That meant there were about 400 or more licensed for domestic consumption only. Surely that is not an agreeable situation. At present there are about 515 licensed abattoirs, 104 of which meet European standards which undertake 67 per cent. of the slaughtering in this country. But there are about 400 plants still not meeting those standards. They are under temporary derogation to allow upgrading to meet the needs of international standards by 1995. I am informed by the Meat and Livestock Commission that it estimates that half of these have no intention whatever of upgrading their premises to a level which must be consistent with good hygiene and good health for our nation.
The regulations pertaining to animal welfare and slaughter and the inspection of slaughtered animals are well known and are codified in the present regulations which are available. It is also well known that these were under the direction of about 300 local authorities looking after about 500 slaughterhouses. That meant enforcement of the rules in these slaughterhouses and licensed meat plants suffered from a lack of consistency and uniformity. These regulations varied enormously. Further, this inconsistency and uneven standards were criticised by bodies which have been mentioned such as the British Meat Manufacturers Association, the
418
Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers, the International Meat Trade Association Inc., the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers, the British Poultry Meat Federation, the NFU, the British Veterinary Association, the Meat and Livestock Commission, and others. All urge the Government to set up a single enforcement body.
I quite accept that there have been teething troubles with the introduction of the new Meat Hygiene Service. Some of these have been detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and other noble Lords. I suspect that there will be more teething problems to come. There are certainly some local authorities and slaughterhouse owners, meat inspectors and veterinary surgeons, who feel aggrieved at how some of these regulations have been put in place. As might be expected, with an industry which slaughters and inspects about 27 million cattle, pigs and sheep and 580 million poultry per year, it would be unrealistic to expect everything to go so smoothly when we are moving to a new system. Nevertheless, it is my understanding that the majority of those concerned with slaughtering meat hygiene across the spectrum welcome the new Meat Hygiene Service. It is my firm belief that this is the most logical way forward to ensure consistency. for a sound and wholesome product in the abattoirs and cutting plants which will eventually end up in the households of the people of this country.
In addition, but also ancillary to the main point, I believe that it will improve the career prospects of those in the field of meat hygiene. It will allow for consistency of training across the country and provide a valuable surveillance system for livestock health in Great Britain. I believe that all of those are important ancillary issues ensuing from a sound and wholesome meat hygiene service.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, has just made a very serious allegation. He said that our meat inspection service has been lagging behind other countries in meat hygiene. What does that mean? Does it mean that the people of this country, over a period of 70 years, have been more prone to food poisoning than people of other countries? The Minister should give the House an answer to that. I hope that he will also be able to assure us that the number of food poisoning cases, as a result of this particular piece of legislation, will reduce. I hope that he will be able to give some figures to support the arguments that this service should be taken away from the local authorities and given to a centralised authority. It is also a condemnation of the local authorities who have administered this service over the past 70 years to say that we have been lagging behind other countries in the meat hygiene service that is given to consumers.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Carter on putting down his prayer and also the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, in tabling his amendment. Those two matters enable us to have a reasonable and good debate today and that is precisely what we are having. As my noble friend Lord Carter said, when this legislation goes through today—indeed, it is already in operation—the Government and certain sections of the meat trade will

419
have attained their objective of destroying the local authority meat inspection service, which I believe has successfully protected the consumer for over 70 years. They will replace it with a secretive, centralised bureaucracy which will be not only more expensive, as we have heard, and destructive of small slaughterhouses, but it will also he dangerous for the consumers in that it will he more liable to corruption and may lead to the development of a cosy relationship between the big boys in the meat industry and the new nationalised Meat Hygiene Service. I say "nationalised" because that is precisely what this transfer of power means. I understood that the Conservative Party did not believe in nationalisation, but that is precisely what is happening here. The local authority meat inspection service is being nationalised and, I believe, for no good reason.
This is yet another centralising act of a Government who pay lip service to local democracy, but by their actions do everything to destroy it—little wonder that there are few Conservatives active at local level. A misnamed "conservative" Government have taken away the opportunities hitherto enjoyed by decent local Conservatives to serve the community in which they live. This is just another example of the centralising Stalinist tendency of this Government.
The Association of District Councils, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, has pointed out that the consultants appointed in 1991 to assist MAFF in its review of options for improving the meat hygiene enforcement system in the light of single market requirements found no conclusive evidence to change the UK's meat inspection system. That confirmed what the Government's Preston Review concluded in 1985— that meat inspection should continue to be provided by local authorities. Indeed, the Preston Committee rejected the case for a centralised meat inspection agency on the grounds of the costs of the central bureaucracy. How right it was—£5.2 million will be allocated in each of the financial years 1994–95 and 1996–97 in addition to the £600,000 that has been spent by MAFF on the project team to oversee the establishment of the MHS.
Furthermore, I understand—we have heard about this today —that the Meat Hygiene Service will cost public funds some £15.4 million, which is additional to the moneys which will be recovered in fees and charges. The recent answer by Mrs. Angela Browning, the Parliamentary Secretary at MAFF, shows that the estimated cost of the MHS in its first year of operation will he £53.4 million as compared with £45 million for the local authority meat inspection service. That additional cost of nearly £9 million a year will mean that, on average, each slaughterhouse will pay £20,000 per annum more for meat inspection, while some will have to pay £80,000 more than they paid to the local authorities.
The Government claim that because the Meat Hygiene Service can operate across local authority boundaries, it can use manpower more effectively. That claim can hardly stand up to examination. In the first place, local authorities can, if necessary, employ agency staff who can also operate across local authority boundaries. Secondly, local authorities can redeploy meat inspectors to other duties when not needed for
420
meat inspection. The Meat Hygiene Service will not be able to do that. Thirdly, for unplanned staff absences and surges in workload, local authorities can call on 6,000 environmental health officers, all of whom are qualified meat inspectors. That is not available to the MHS. Furthermore, the suggestion that the Meat Hygiene Service will unite enforcement functions is, to say the least, misleading.
I refer now to a most interesting brief that has been given to me by the Association of District Councils. It states:
"The Government took a decision, without consultation, to use its powers to issue slaughterhouse licences. It did so without revoking the responsibility of local authorities to issue the same licences, thus creating an unnecessary, burdensome and confusing licensing regime. The State Veterinary Service (SVS) will continue to issue slaughterhouse licences despite the creation of the MHS.
It is difficult to see how enforcement is united when the SVS issues a licence, the MHS is responsible for day to day hygiene and meat inspection and local authorities are responsible for all remaining food hygiene controls in the remainder of the meat sector.
In essence, therefore, one enforcement agency has been replaced by three. In so doing, the MHS has fragmented the existing food safety framework, created confusion and inconsistency and given industry yet another enforcement agency with which to deal.
When the MHS's operation is considered in detail, the arrangement makes even less sense. The MHS will have no remit in premises other than licensed slaughterhouses. In respect of illegal slaughter, animal welfare issues and the licensing of slaughtermen, the local authority will have to continue to act as watch-dog. In some premises, the division between the responsibilities of the MHS, the SVS and local authorities will be so blurred that each will have a role in respect of different aspects of meat hygiene enforcement.
It has even been suggested recently that, when the MHS is called upon to seize unfit meal, it may have to rely on assistance from the local authority due to various legal technicalities which prevent it from taking such action itself'.
So much for the new service which will co-ordinate everything and be so much better for everyone.
I repeat that we see the formation of a centralised, unaccountable, bureaucratic agency which has been set up to replace a democratic service of proved effectiveness. Let us not forget that the local authorities have been carrying out such work for 70 years, without any complaint or legislation except perhaps some government interference over charges. The system has worked effectively and efficiently. Do the Government never learn? Have they already forgotten the lessons of the Child Support Agency, which replaced the courts and which has now collapsed in ignominy and chaos from its original form?
As we have heard, some slaughterhouses are already threatening to withhold the extra payments that will he demanded. What are the Government going to do if they do that? Will they close them down? Will they send the owners to gaol? What will they do? I sincerely hope that the House will pass at least one of the Motions which are now before us so that the Government are in no doubt about the anger that is felt in many parts of the trade, in local authorities and, I hope, also in your Lordships' House.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I declare an interest in this debate. As my noble friend Lord

421
Willoughby de Broke and other noble Lords have so clearly explained, the Meat Hygiene Service will impose increased costs on the production of meat. I am both a grower and consumer of meat. As a grower, I sec the potential to close slaughterhouses as a direct blow against those who have heeded the Government's advice to go into direct marketing in order to increase their margins. I also see it strengthening the hand of the supermarkets as monopoly suppliers.
As a consumer, I am a supporter of the smaller suppliers who, often in conjunction with the ability to slaughter in-house, can offer something better than can be bought from a supermarket. Those are the people who will find the increased cost of the new arrangements hardest to bear. I have no doubt that many noble Lords who are particular about the meat they eat will regret their demise as much as I do.
It always seems to fall to those who have the reputation of being sceptical about the European ideal to raise these issues for your Lordships to consider, when they should be the concern of everyone. I was told at the time of the Maastricht debate that I was wrong to oppose the treaty and that the right way to go about things was to raise troublesome issues when they occurred; matters could then be sorted out by debate in your Lordships' House; and representations made to Brussels.
Your Lordships may recollect that 18 months ago I prayed against arrangements for sheep and cattle quotas. Your Lordships agreed that they were unfair to owners of land and agreed to a Motion which asked the Government to do something about them. The House is still awaiting the judgment of the European Court of Justice to find out whether anything can be done to honour its opinion.
That experience has confirmed my view that we have handed over to Brussels more power than is prudent. How are we supposed to carry out our role when the tradition of the House is to accept statutory instruments by which regulations are imposed upon us without opposition? I find myself also in the rather embarrassing position of agreeing with the lecture we had on Tory principles from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I sit on this side of the House not entirely by custom but by conviction.
I believe in free enterprise and small business, to which over-regulation is anathema. Do we not claim to be the party of deregulation? We see an ever-increasing flow of regulations not just in agriculture and its associated industries, which is now so regulated that it is almost a nationalised industry, but in many other aspects of our lives not germane to the debate. That leads to the closing of businesses and the loss of jobs. I dread to think what that is doing to the party in the country. It is a great disappointment to me that I have to criticise my party for betraying the tenets of its own philosophy.
5.24 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I have given notice to my noble friend that I would speak in this debate. I
422
hope that someone will divide the House on the issue, but I believe that my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke has been—I am not sure that the word "conned" is right—persuaded by the Chief Whip to say that he would not.
These regulations are a disgrace. I do not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and compare my right honourable friend the First Lord of the Treasury to a failed Georgian priest novitiate in the form of Mr. Stalin. I find the idea of him sitting in a monastery outside Tiflis learning about the dual nature of Christ as something slightly odd. But, he that as it may, I come to the debate because it is the sort of thing in which no one is really interested.
I was talking to the chief executive of our local borough council, who by most people's yardstick is regarded as an extremely good chief executive. I believe that Guildford Borough Council is held out as an extremely good local authority, whichever political party is in charge of it. He said, "Yes, of course we have been running our slaughterhouse very well. We do not want it taken away because we think we are doing very well for the public. But it is not something I shall go to the barricades over. The Government will do something more stupid later about which we shall have to get even more cross". Rules about slaughterhouses are not something about which people, except those directly involved, will become very cross.
Again, I spoke to the head of the borough council's meat hygiene service today. As a direct result of the new regulation, the inspection bill for the Guildford slaughterhouse, which is owned by the local authority and let out to a private company, goes from £50,000 to £75,000 a year, without the prospect of one fewer tummy bug. How can my noble friends on the Front Bench produce regulations which are as stupid as this? It is outrageous. I have already had reason to write to my noble friend about some of the civil servants in his office who I believe have been misinforming him about the rules and regulations. He knows about that. I shall not go into further detail. I shall merely hope and listen with bated breath for a reply to the letter which I wrote to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, talked about the variation in the quality of slaughterhouses. There is a book which lays down regulations as to how the inspection is to be carried out. Am I supposed to believe that the regulations have been disobeyed by some local authorities and obeyed by others? If that is the case, the Government have been deeply lacking, as has the state veterinary authority, in ensuring that the regulations are properly carried out. I should like to know whether that is true.
I should like also to know whether the inconsistency of which the Government complain was caused because they insisted on an hourly rate per inspection rather than a headage rate. Under the old headage system, no one complained of inconsistency.
We now have a new agency set up. Mr. Johnston-McNeil will be paid £78,000 a year to run it, which is not a great deal less than the Prime Minister receives. His head of operation, who, it was said, would be paid £50,000 a year, was forced to resign after

423
expenses irregularities concerned with his employment with the Australian Government. It has already been established that it will cost a great deal more. Will there be one fewer case of salmonella, one fewer tummy hug or one animal suffering less as a result of this regulation? If the answer to all of those questions—as I suspect it is—is no, what on earth is the point of increasing the bill for meat hygiene inspections by 50 per cent.? That is government gone mad. I hope someone will call for a Division. I shall vote against the Government with relish.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, this has been a remarkable debate. I begin by apologising to the Minister for not having my name down to speak. It was due entirely to my incompetence, something which he will understand because he has had much to do with incompetence by his department. The strictures the Minister has heard during the debate must have shaken him to the core. I feel rather sorry for him.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Oh!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, indeed. The Minister is defending a situation caused by incompetence and a lack of appreciation of the real situation.
I was delighted by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. He put forward a massive case for the local authorities. He also showed a degree of self-restraint which is unusual in him. I did not hear him once mention the European Union, which shows the depth of his feeling for the case he put forward. I was pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, the only real expert on veterinary affairs we have in the House, said that local authority procedure and practice in Scotland was most satisfactory. We have found it to be so. The Government should have looked, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, at the simple matter of standardising local authority procedures and ensuring that they were carried out. That would have been very much simpler than setting up the new MHS. I am not sure what MHS stands for but we all know that it is a centralised body which is approved of in principle by a large number of people. However, that approval is heavily qualified by the practice once they find it being put into operation.
The Minister must listen to the detailed allegations made by my noble friend and others about the enormous increase in costs to many bodies throughout the country. The local authorities have a vested interest in ensuring that employment continues in their areas. There are far too few useful slaughterhouses and as regards many in Scotland the travelling distance is expensive and is bad for sick animals which must be slaughtered. The Minister must listen to all that has been said and try to do something about the matter. I suppose that it is too late to stop the process but the Minister could do a great deal to cut the bureaucratic costs.
It is difficult to say anything new in the debate because almost everything has been said. The administrator, whose references were found to be all at
424
sea and so forth, has now resigned. That is a measure of the incompetence shown in setting up the body. The fact is that again the Government have made a complete mess. We can advise only that they listen to what has been said and instead of producing the standard brief and reply stating that all is well, that the body is approved and that this is only a small teething problem, they admit that that is not so and that the concept has been wrongly applied.
I do not wish to sit down without saying something nice about the regulations. I ploughed through the 50 pages of each regulation. There are marvellous descriptions of the evisceration of rabbits and so forth but there are some good points which arc the exemptions. The exemption relating to premises where fresh meat is cut up, stored or rewrapped for sale from those premises to the final consumer is a piece of common sense which I am glad to see.
There are in my area a number of people who raise turkeys and sell them directly to their customers at Christmas time. Their premises are inspected by some sensible vets and health inspectors. One such person visited a couple I know who raise many turkeys. He looked round the premises and tut-tutted. He was most polite about the matter but said that he did not think a great deal of the process and the premises. However, when he left he ordered a Christmas turkey for himself and his brother-in-law. That is an attitude of which the Government would do well to take note in dealing with local authorities and sensible people in Scotland.
The other good point about the regulations is that the Minister accepts responsibility. Therefore, we cannot ask him questions and be told, as I have been told so often, that the noble Lord should write to the body concerned because it has nothing to do with the Minister. The Minister has accepted responsibility for the quango and the great deal of trouble that will cause him.
5.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging and at times somewhat impassioned discussion. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving us the opportunity to discuss these regulations and the new Meat Hygiene Service. Your Lordships considered the MHS on 13th October last year, again on the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. On that occasion, my noble friend Lord Ferrers outlined the Government's intention that the MHS would operate to strict standards and would be a better use of resources than the previous local authority system of enforcement. I am glad to be able to update your Lordships on the progress which has been made since last October and I hope to set the record straight on some of the misleading claims and allegations which have been made about the MHS, some of which have been repeated today.
First, perhaps I may say a little about the two regulations which are the subject of the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Apart from the transfer of responsibility from local authorities to the MHS, both regulations are very similar to their predecessors. The

425
fresh meat regulations do, however, make some changes designed to reduce the burden on industry. These changes result from a review carried out in accordance with the deregulation initiative. I know that the House will welcome action aimed at the removal of unnecessary burdens.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend. How can he possibly say that increasing the charge from £50,000 per year to £75,000 per year is reducing a burden on industry? If that is a reduction in the burden, I am in the Majlis in Tehran.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend has already had the opportunity of speaking in the gap. I am sure that he will appreciate that the rules of the House are such that his time for speaking has passed. I shall address his anxieties in the remarks that follow. I have barely begun my speech and I am sure that my noble friend will allow me to continue as I have a great deal to say.
There are those who argue that controls over fresh meat are over-prescriptive and unduly onerous compared to other sectors of the food industry. That premise underlies the position adopted by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. The Government fully recognise that there is a need to review the inspection arrangements to ensure that they are correctly focused on present-day problems. We have commissioned research work in this area and are working closely with our European partners, the European Commission and other interested third countries. But we are not prepared—even if it were legally possible, which it is not—to sweep away the long-standing internationally accepted inspection requirements until the necessary groundwork has been done to replace them with alternative systems which provide equivalent protection for the consumer.
A number of organisms—such as E cob 0157:H7, some salmonella serotypes and listeria monocytogenes—have been implicated in food poisoning incidents associated with the consumption of meat and meat products. Some commentators argue that meat is a low-risk product because it is normally cooked before consumption and that therefore there is no need to be concerned about contamination with organisms of this kind. The Government do not accept this argument for one second. While it is true that thorough cooking will destroy most, if not all, pathogenic micro-organisms, the hazards associated with cross-contamination in the distribution chain or in the kitchen remain a matter of concern. While no one expects an abattoir to resemble an operating theatre, sensible steps must be taken at all stages of production to limit the risk of contamination. The most appropriate point to address the problem of contamination with pathogenic organisms is the slaughterhall. That is what these regulations are designed to do.
Many abattoirs in this country are well managed and produce meat which is of a good hygienic standard. Unfortunately, and I will not go into detail, this is not true of all of them. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart,
426
praised the role of local authorities. The variability of the standards applied by the 300 or so local authorities previously responsible for this work has led to inconsistencies which the MHS will he required to sort out so that consumers of British meat in this country and in our growing export markets can he fully confident about their purchases. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Soulsby for the remarks which he made in that connection.
The export market is important. Our meat exports last year were worth almost £1 billion and that has a very real impact on our livestock farmers. Internationally, trading countries rely on national authorities in the exporting country to provide assurances about the health status of their production. It is no exaggeration to say that we in the UK would not accept imports of meat from a country whose enforcement arrangements do not provide proper accountability from the enforcement officer in the plant to the national veterinary authorities. In order to provide that level of accountability while enforcement remained with local authorities, we had to make special arrangements which were cumbersome and expensive. Those arrangements will no longer he necessary with the MHS.
The MHS will build on the work done by MAFF's State Veterinary Service over the past year or two to develop a risk-based approach to enforcement, focusing on the real hygiene risks. We have introduced, in consultation with the industry, a hygiene assessment system which is used to monitor standards of operation and to identify, in discussion with the operator, the areas where improvements are needed. Last month we published the first results from this system in red meat slaughterhouses. One of the MHS's key performance targets for 1995–96 relates to achieving improvements in premises where that system has identified shortcomings, and we will expect the MHS to increase its enforcement effort at plants which score poorly. Conversely, of course, where plants are managed to a high standard, the MHS should be able to reduce its input. This flexible, risk-based approach should enable the MHS, working in partnership with the industry, to bring about a real improvement where that is needed, and to minimise the burden of enforcement in plants where the management maintains high standards.
There are a good many misconceptions about the MHS. We have heard some of them repeated this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, called it a secretive bureaucracy. He is totally wrong. Perhaps I may begin by explaining how the MHS will operate. It will be answerable to agriculture Ministers who will be advised by an ownership board which will include independent members, one of whom is Mr. John Barratt. Mr. Barratt has wide experience of the meat industry and I am sure he will be able to provide a useful view on the management and operation of the MHS. The chief executive will consult closely with all sectors of the meat industry through the Industry Forum, which includes all the representative organisations including the NFU, the FUW and the QMLA. The MHS is sending all premises operators a customer service statement, together with a document which explains its appeals and

427
complaints procedures. I believe that those procedures are valuable. But Ministers will be keeping a close eye on this aspect of its operation.
The MHS plant staff will he operating in accordance with its operations manual, which will be available to plant operators. That is not a document which the MHS has drafted. The agriculture departments, as custodians of the legislation and the policy in relation to the work which the MHS carries out, will remain responsible for its contents. MAFF has undertaken to review the manual in consultation with the industry and professional organisations in the autumn to ensure that it fulfils its objective of achieving high and uniform standards of enforcement, without imposing unnecessary burdens.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I have listened very carefully to what he said. But will he tell me what will happen if Members of this House or another place wish to raise questions about the new agency? Will Ministers reply directly to Oral and Written Questions, or shall we be fobbed off by a reply from the chief executive of the service?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the annual report of the MHS will be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament. That will enable a full debate to take place in either House as necessary.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, what about Questions? Will Ministers answer them or shall we be referred to the chief executive of the MHS?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the head of the executive agency would normally answer parliamentary Questions on day-to-day operational matters. Ministers will deal with matters of policy, as is reflected in current procedures.
The MHS has only 29 people at headquarters to manage an organisation of around 1,000 people. I believe the House will recognise that this can hardly be described as excessive or, indeed, a bureaucracy. Nevertheless, the management structure will be kept under close review. The MHS will be working to strict financial and performance targets aimed at producing efficiencies not only in its first year of operation but on an ongoing basis. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food published the targets for 1995–96 last month. Parliament and the industry will be able to monitor how the MHS performs against those targets.
Against that background, it is extremely difficult to understand the allegations which have been made about lack of accountability. The MHS's arrangements will be much more transparent and accountable than was possible previously. Parliament, consumers and the meat industry will be much better able to scrutinise how the meat inspection function is being performed.
There is, naturally and rightly, great interest in and concern about the cost of the MHS. Perhaps I may put straight one fundamental point. The amount which the MHS expects to recover from the meat industry in 1995–96 is around £40 million—not £54 million as some
428
noble Lords have indicated. That represents a saving of around 10 per cent. of the estimated total cost of the local authority system. That is a significant saving.
We have heard a good deal about abattoirs which expect to be charged more by the MHS than by their local authority. I can assure your Lordships that there are also abattoirs which will he charged less hut, not surprisingly, they are not lobbying their MPs or their trade organisations about that. I shall have more to say about that in a few moments.
The MHS is still in the process of consulting plant operators about its proposed charges. Therefore, I cannot provide definitive information today on the number of winners and losers. However, I assure your Lordships that the Government are listening very closely to the anxieties of the industry. My right honourable friend the Minister announced on 29th March that he was minded to make some transitional assistance available in the first year while the MHS achieves the efficiency savings which arc possible now that enforcement is organised on a national basis. We are still consulting the industry as to exactly how that assistance should be payable; but I can confirm that it will be of real help to smaller slaughterhouses in particular. I hope that that will be of some comfort to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, who raised anxieties in relation to that. The National Farmers Union described my right honourable friend's decision as,
"A very welcome response to our concerns".
I turn specifically to the anxieties raised by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. I am sure that the House will sympathise with my noble friend's objective to minimise the costs of the MHS to the meat industry and to public funds. However, I remind your Lordships that both the meat inspection procedures themselves and the arrangements for charging for them are laid down in very detailed European legislation. It is not possible for us unilaterally to amend the meat inspection arrangements, although we are working with our European partners in the Scientific Veterinary Committee to update them. I assure the House that, as part of the EC review, we shall look to keep to the minimum the costs needed to provide proper protection of public health.
However, I must express some small surprise at my noble friend's view that it would be possible to contain the total cost of the regulations at £25 million per year. The cost of the current local authority arrangements is estimated at £45 million as against the MHS estimated operational cost of around £40 million. In 1992, before the EC rules were extended to domestic abattoirs, meat inspection was estimated to cost the industry just under £32 million.
It is simply not realistic to seek cost reductions of the order suggested by my noble friend. The MHS, in its first year, is already projecting savings, as I said, of about 10 per cent. of the total cost to industry and the public purse. That is a good start. My right honourable friends and I will be looking to see further savings as the MHS takes full advantage of operating on a national basis. The efficiency targets published last month are challenging and will require the MHS to squeeze costs down as far as possible. However, I am sure that the

429
House would not expect the Government to put the objective of cutting costs above the objective of protecting the consumer or of complying with our legal obligations. I see that my noble friend wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am much obliged. My noble friend the Minister mentioned the figure of £40 million as the total cost of the MHS. However, can my noble friend say whether that is net of the subsidy, which we have been informed will cost about £50 million over the first year, together with start up costs, or whether that is a gross figure?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I was about to deal with the whole question of costs, where I believe there has been a degree of confusion in today's debate. I shall attempt to elucidate the details as far as I can.
My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke indicated that, to his knowledge, some slaughterhouses have closed because of the implementation of EC rules. That is not, on the whole, the case. Such recent closures as there have been reflect the trend for rationalisation which has existed within the British slaughtering industry for over 20 years as a result of over capacity. MLC figures indicate that the number of slaughterhouses was reduced from 1,231 in 1980 to 647 in 1992. That shows that the bulk of closures occurred before the implementation of the directive.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, cited some instances of probable increases in charges to plants. It is clear that some plants will benefit considerably from the establishment of a national meat inspection service. Others will see some increase because of the significant differences in current local authority charges. It is also clear that some local authorities have been subsidising, either directly or indirectly, the plants in their areas. During the first six months of its operations the MHS will be targeting in particular those plants where there is the greatest concern about manning levels. We and the MHS are committed to finding the right levels within the overall constraints of the legislative requirements. I have many examples of prospective overall savings on veterinary and meat inspector costs at red meat slaughter houses. I should be glad to supply those to the noble Lord if he so wishes.
It is not possible at this stage to be definitive about how many plants would benefit from the transitional rebate that I mentioned. Much depends on the through-put of the plants. But, based on a sample analysis of over 50 plants and their estimated through-put, we believe that 75 per cent. of that sample is likely to benefit. As I said, it should be particularly helpful to small or more remote premises.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned a particular plant in Manchester which might be subject to an increased charge. I am not sure exactly which abattoir the noble Lord has in mind, but I am aware of an abattoir in the area which will be making substantial savings with the MHS compared with the local authority system.
430
My noble friend Lord Onslow asked why charging was not based on a headage rate. The idea was discussed, but it was found not to be acceptable to the industry. The charging policy of the MHS has been thoroughly discussed in the Industry Forum.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that the average increase to slaughterhouses would be in the region of £20,000. That is simply not the case. The noble Lord has no basis for making that remark. However, if indeed he has, I shall be glad to know about it. The noble Lord also said that some slaughterhouses were having to pay £80,000 more than they paid local authorities. Again, I do not believe that the noble Lord has any basis for saying that; indeed, the MHS is still consulting about its proposed charges. We would want the chief executive to look very closely at any plant facing an increase of as much as £80,000. As I said, some plants will pay substantially less.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also said that the MHS staffing arrangements were less flexible than those in local authorities. In practice, most local authorities did not co-operate in using staff across local authority boundaries. However, there is no reason why the MHS should not seek assistance from local authorities as well as agencies to cover manpower gaps. There may be advantages to both parties in so doing.
The noble Lord also said that local authorities can call upon environmental health officers to cover gaps in service and that the MHS could not do so. That is not strictly true. The MHS can employ veterinary surgeons under contract, who are required to provide cover for sickness. In addition, the MHS has available to it a number of casual meat inspectors to cover for holidays, sick leave and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to an extra cost of £9 million when compared with the cost under the local authority system. That is a fallacy. The MHS will be cheaper than local authorities. In the financial year 1995–96, there will be one-off, non-recurring costs. But many of those costs will help the industry; for example, by identifying overmanning, removing inconsistencies and buying out the terms and conditions inherited from local authorities.
The MHS is trying to work with plant operators to give them the best value within existing constraints. However, that cannot be only one-way traffic. Plant operators must look critically at their methods of operation and business to see whether they can make changes which would enable the MHS to provide a more cost-effective service. For example, some operators have already changed their working patterns of their own volition, which then enables the MHS to make the best use of its staffing resources in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, expressed the view that the MHS is overstaffed. I do not believe that to be true. The MHS was set up as a very lean organisation. There are only 29 staff in the HQ at York and, at operational level, any overmanning will quickly be removed—for example, by visits from hygiene advice teams.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked how many OVSs would be operating in the service. My understanding is that there would be 168 full-time equivalents. The noble Lord also said that OVS costs were increasing by 50 per

431
cent. In fact, the ADC survey carried out in mid-1994 showed average costs of £35 an hour and that the most frequently used charge was in the range of £40 to £44.
There has been much confusion in the debate about costs generally. The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, quoted the figures of the Farmers' Union of Wales as regards the costs of the MHS. Those figures are not correct. Mr. Parry, its president, has confused the total cost of £54 million in the current year with the chargeable cost of £40 million. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that the MHS would represent a cost to the taxpayer of £20 million. As I said, the cost for 1995–96 will be around £15 million and the cost to the taxpayer after that time will be very much smaller.
My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke asked what would happen when the subsidy was removed. Ministers have made clear that the MHS will not be expected to increase its charges next year to compensate for the withdrawal of subsidy. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the setting up of the MHS. He wanted to know how much of the Government's thinking was due to EC pressure and how much to MAFF ambition. The 1991 review was carried out against a background of the new single market rules. The Government decided that a dedicated agency was the best way of complying with EC obligations. I have already referred to the very important trade considerations which underlie our thinking.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to the Preston Report of March 1985, which recommended that the meat inspection service should continue to be provided by local authorities. All I would say to him is that things have moved on in the past 10 years. The need for consistency of enforcement and charging is now more important. The industry has pressed for this. There is a single market within the Community and our third country trading partners need to be assured that the production of our meat is under proper and effective control.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is there any evidence that it is not at the moment?
Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords, there is. Under the local authority system, as I have already indicated, the standards of enforcement were extremely variable, to put it at its mildest.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the funding of meat inspection services in other member states. All member states are required to charge for meat inspection in accordance with Community rules. They are required to charge at least the minimum charge laid down in Directive 93/118 EEC. The directive also lays down a standard charge below which subsidisation is illegal. In negotiations on the directive in 1993, several member states—Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark—were anxious to have provision to recover full costs and the directive was amended to permit full recovery of administrative costs. Previously there was a flat rate administrative charge which did not necessarily reflect the full cost.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the question I asked was, who pays? I understand there are regulations on the
432
level of costs; but as I understand it, in France and Ireland for example, although these charges meet the standard, they are met by the taxpayer not by the farms or the abattoirs.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the trouble is that there is no single document which describes the arrangements in other member states. Of course we have clear ideas about the overall structures, if not always the day-to-day arrangements. Our perceptions are borne out to a large extent by two Meat and Livestock Commission reports last year. The directive firmly requires meat inspection to be under the control of veterinarians who may be assisted by what are deemed auxiliaries, or meat inspectors as we know them. All member states involve vets fully in the meat inspection process. The majority of them also use meat inspectors to a greater or less degree.
My noble friend Lord Willoughby suggested that greater through-put in slaughterhouses would mean greater contamination. I would say to him that greater through-put does not mean greater contamination. The whole point of veterinary inspection is to make sure that the animals are in a fit condition to be slaughtered and that there is proper control of hygiene and, indeed, welfare. It is the hygiene control which prevents faecal contamination of carcasses; that is to say, the spread of pathogens.
The noble Lord. Lord Geraint, was concerned about consultation with the industry about the operations manual. The MHS has undertaken to review the operations manual with the industry organisations in the autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said that the Government should have looked at standardising local authority procedures. This was looked at as part of the 1992 review, which preceded the decision to set up the Meat Hygiene Service. But, as he will know, local authorities are autonomous. The Government cannot direct them to standardise procedures and experience shows that many local authorities have disregarded the SVS's advice in the past. When all is said and done, there is little that we in the Government can do about that short of setting up a system, as we have done.
It has been suggested that the Government's decision to set up the MHS was to satisfy the ambitions of a few self-seeking officials in the Ministry. I have had the privilege of being a Minister in MAFF for three years now and it is absolutely clear to me that that is not the case. There were a number of important reasons behind the decision, which I shall summarise. These were to meet the long-standing requests of a majority of representative organisations in the meat industry; to improve the service offered to consumers, retailers and the meat trade generally; to maximise efficiency and to minimise costs; to improve accountability to Parliament, to the public and to the industry which pays the charges; and to satisfy the requirements of our trading partners and safeguard our meat exports worth almost £1 billion in 1994. Those are ambitious objectives. It is not possible to judge the success of the MHS today when it has only been in operation for 18 days. However, I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that despite their concern about charges all but one of the industry's representative organisations continue to support the concept of a single national Meat Hygiene Service.

433
I urge your Lordships to take full account of the views of the industry as a whole, not just of the individuals who attracted the most publicity. I hope that in the light of the explanation I have given the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend will feel sufficiently reassured about the Meat Hygiene Service to withdraw their respective Motions. I, of course, stand ready to follow up with them and with other noble Lords any queries raised in this debate which remain unanswered.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. When I heard from all around the House the description of this costly, Stalinist, centralised, bureaucratic organisation, I began to think that perhaps I should have put down a litany instead of a Prayer. I remind the Minister that all the organisations he referred to were in principle—as I said in my opening remarks—in favour of the MHS. Every one of them, without exception, has referred to the argument about excessive costs.
I shall be extremely brief in winding up. I found the Minister's comments about costs rather airy-fairy as regards winners and losers. I remind him that it has never been statistically proved that the swings equal the roundabouts. We shall have to watch this matter carefully. Some of the cost increases to which I, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and others have referred have serious implications for small businesses. Virtually every speaker referred to the matter of costs. The noble Earl can be sure that we shall be giving this matter serious consideration as the organisation develops. As regards a seamless robe of efficiency, the fact is there are still three agencies involved: the State Veterinary Service, the Meat Hygiene Service and the local authorities. The upgrading of abattoirs is required by the European Union anyway. That has nothing to do with the MHS and the point is not relevant in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, referred to teething troubles. When one considers the 40 per cent. increase in costs that some slaughterhouses are having to bear, I would only say that we are talking about some quango and some teeth! Of course the large slaughterhouses support the measure because they can see the smaller ones going out of business. We also understand why the veterinary profession supports the idea.
I am aware of the conventions of the House as regards statutory instruments. I put down the Prayer to make sure that we had a good debate. I believe we have had a good debate. I believe the MHS and the government department have now been warned that we are giving this matter serious consideration to make sure that costs are controlled and that the extra layer of bureaucracy produces the reduction in food poisoning which I believe the noble Earl referred to as one of the targets. We shall be giving that matter close consideration. However, in line with the conventions of the House, it is with some reluctance that I withdraw the Motion. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Home Energy Conservation Bill
6.8 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As the Long Title states, the Bill is to provide for the drawing up of local energy conservation reports relating to residential accommodation. I am reminded of two short but significant facts. The first is that domestic energy use accounts for somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of the nation's CO2 emissions. The second is that in assessing whether a house is fit for human habitation as a basis for grants or for legal action, a number of criteria are considered, but those criteria do not include energy efficiency.
We know the sorry figures of the house condition surveys. Some 1.5 million dwellings are unfit and more than 13 per cent. of the housing stock in England is in need of urgent repair. But how many more may be inefficient in their use of energy? It is important, at many levels and for many people, to know this information. It is important if you have asthma or are affected by air pollution. The Government acknowledge that in the second year report, This Common Inheritance, which states:
"Using energy efficiently is the quickest and most cost-effective way of reducing CO2 emissions".
If you are one of the eight million "fuel poor" struggling to heat your home, it is important to have that information. If you see your heat literally disappearing not out of, but through, your windows and your walls and roof, it is important. Often it is those with the lowest means who have the most expensive forms of heating. It is important if your health is vulnerable. Suffering hypothermia in one's own home is a tragedy for the individual and a scandal for society. I join with those who say that the most important contributions to health are environmental factors.
It is not surprising that the Bill attracted such all-party support in another place and outside Parliament. More than 700 local authorities are known to have passed supportive resolutions. Voluntary organisations and interest groups ranging from Friends of the Earth to the Construction Industry Council, from Age Concern to the RSPB, and from MENCAP to the Trades Union Congress have also expressed support.
Your Lordships may have heard from the local authority associations. Local authorities will be at the heart of the application of the Bill. The associations of district councils, county councils and metropolitan authorities wholeheartedly support the principle of the Bill and believe that, as now drafted, it provides,
"a workable and practicable model".
They say:
"An understanding of need will drive future energy conservation policy and most effectively target those resources available for energy efficiency works. Support for the principle is apparent also from the majority of individual councils which uphold the principle of sustainability and moves to reduce global warming, emissions to atmosphere and fuel poverty. They believe also that they are best placed to collect this information and assist in its productive use".

435
Before turning to the detail of the Bill, I must pay tribute to the Members of all parties who supported the Bill in another place and to those Members who introduced predecessor Bills, including the honourable Members for Wyre and Dundee East, the honourable Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke North, and in particular my honourable friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed whose Energy Conservation Bill is a very close relation of this Bill. Finally, I should like to pay tribute to my honourable friend the Member for Christchurch who, when she came first in the ballot for Private Member's Bills in another place, received more letters from individuals in support of this issue than all others put together and who piloted the Bill through another place. I hope that I do both the Bill and my honourable friend justice.
I turn now to the detail of the Bill. It applies to England and Wales, to Scotland and to Northern Ireland where the Housing Executive will be the energy conservation authority. Each authority has a duty to prepare a report whose contents are listed in Clause 2 of the Bill. Clause 2(2) provides that the report is to set out energy conservation matters which the authority regards as practicable, cost effective and likely to result in significant improvement in the energy efficiency of the residential stock in its area. Energy conservation measures are defined widely to include advice and information as well as other matters.
Clause 2(3) sets out what the report must include, and Clause 2(4) sets out matters which may be included if the energy conservation authority considers that to be appropriate. Those matters may include assessment of the number of jobs which may result from the implementation of the measures. Many of your Lordships have argued that promoting better energy efficiency will result in the creation of jobs.
The Bill does not provide for an audit of individual buildings. Rather, it provides for a survey of types of housing. I was surprised to learn that there is a limited number of types of housing. Therefore, information about the materials used can readily be made available.
Nor does the Bill set out how the information should be obtained. Your Lordships may be aware that already a number of authorities use imaginative methods to assess energy efficiency in their areas. Those include thermal imaging by means of aerial photography. I suppose that that is the modern technical equivalent of observing snow on roofs. Authorities as far apart as Sutton, Belfast, Nottingham and Westminster—to cover both the geographical and political spectrum—have used that method. I understand that it has attracted a great deal of interest because individuals can look at the photographs and identify their own houses.
Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill set out the duties of the Secretary of State, including the guidance that he is to give. The guidance will deal with targets for savings. Those targets are not set out on the face of the Bill in order to allow for a degree of flexibility.
I believe that there was originally some anxiety that setting targets would be toughest on the authorities which had to date been most energetic and had achieved most in securing energy efficiency savings in their own areas. However, it was not those authorities which
436
protested. They understood how much more there was to do and that the work done to date was confined to their own stock and this Bill applies to all of the housing stock. Therefore, it is for the Secretary of State to give guidance as to what improvements may be regarded as "significant" rather than setting a numerical target. Having received the report from the energy conservation authority the Secretary of State shall, under Clause 3(2), give the authority a timetable for its work and may himself take steps to achieve certain measures.
To quote my honourable friend the Member for Christchurch, this is not a Bill which creates a "thermal thought police". Indeed, Clause 6 firmly limits the powers given to energy conservation authorities.
This is an apparently modest little Bill, but it is of enormous importance because of its place in setting an energy conservation strategy for the nation. It is a short Bill, but your Lordships will be aware that it is always much harder to be succinct than to go on at some length. I commend the Bill to the House for its brevity, but in particular for its quality. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Hamwee.)
6.18 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords—
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I gave notice that I should like to say a few words in the gap.
I must declare an interest as the immediate past president of the Combined Heat and Power Association.
I welcome the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I interject to reinforce what she said. Although this is a short Bill, it is very important. Energy conservation is the perfect answer to global warming. It is a much better answer than windmills, solar heating, wave power or a barrage across the Severn. The best way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is not to emit it. It is as simple as that. That is what we achieve when we conserve energy.
When I was president of the Combined Heat and Power Association I toured Scandinavia. I was encouraged by the extent of energy conservation there. For example, in Finland loft insulation, double glazing, triple glazing and quintuple glazing (which was the most I came across) reduced energy consumption to a high degree. So economic is heating in Finland that it costs the same to heat air up to room temperature there as it does in southern Italy. However, in this country it costs a lot more. In the United Kingdom we waste energy more than in any other west European country. Therefore any measure which achieves a saving is a measure of excellence. Quite simply, that is why I support the Bill.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I had not meant to pre-empt my noble friend by jumping into the gap in the list of speakers, which, in this instance, seems to come at a rather strange place with regard to the normal modus operandi of your Lordships' House when discussing matters on Second Reading.

437
First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on picking up her honourable friend's Bill, which went through another place with some speed. There is no doubt that perhaps the major gap in energy conservation matters in this country is that no one has overseen it on a local scale. Over the years, under all governments, local authorities have sometimes done valuable work especially regarding council houses, and especially in the houses of those people on what is now called income support. Nonetheless, there has been no overall consideration on a local basis.
Two points occurred to me when considering the Bill. First, the provisions of the Bill will be a cost to local authorities. I hope that the Minister or the noble Baroness when she winds up will be able to say from where the funds to meet those costs to local authorities will come and whether that cost will be an amount to be included in the standard spending assessments of local authorities in the normal grant format.
Secondly, at the time that the gas and electricity industries were privatised, the Government set up the Energy Savings Trust. It was due to be funded out of some of the profits from the privatised energy utilities. In recent months—it is just over a year—I understand that somewhat of a blight has been put on the funding of that organisation, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Moore, because the Director-General of Ofgas has been making somewhat deprecatory noises. Indeed, I understand that gas funding has not been going into the trust in the way anticipated. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something about that when he responds to this very worthy Bill.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I have no hesitation in warmly supporting the Bill in this debate so ably introduced by my noble friend. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, it was moved with speed by my honourable friend in another place.
It must be admitted that much has been done in recent years to stimulate energy efficiency. However, the Bill fills an important gap. It can be capable of bringing together many existing initiatives, introducing new initiatives and expanding and combining them in a way which could lead to better results.
The Bill applies only to domestic heating. However, that is an essential part of the total energy usage of the country. It represents the most diverse and complex area because of the multiplicity of domestic dwellings. As my noble friend pointed out, at least a quarter of CO2 emissions come from domestic dwellings. Half of final energy is used in buildings of various types in this country. The bulk of those are domestic dwellings. Therefore there is no doubt about the importance of the Bill.
I referred to the various initiatives which have already been taken. Perhaps I may mention in particular a body in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and I are much involved, Neighbourhood Energy Action. That organisation has existed for over 10 years. Its prime purpose is to insulate the homes of people on low
438
incomes, in particular the elderly. I am glad to say that well over a million homes have already been insulated in that way and the lifestyle of those people fundamentally altered for the better. Through the funding of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES), the Government have much increased the available resources for this purpose. I understand that in 1995–96 the rate of improvement in insulation for homes in that category could rise to something like 600,000. As my noble friend pointed out, there are 8 million homes in this country which need such treatment, so there is a long way to go.
There are, of course, all the other homes whose owners could probably afford to introduce effective insulation and other energy efficiency measures but who may not have the incentive or the knowledge to do so. That is where the surveys can be particularly useful. Like my noble friend, I regret that no target is mentioned in the Bill. A target of a 30 per cent. improvement was originally included but after much debate in another place it was eliminated. I am a little surprised, because the Government have introduced targets for many purposes—CO2 reductions, energy efficiency savings in government buildings, recycling of domestic waste, reduction of road accidents and many others. People understand targets; they motivate and stimulate. I would have seen no harm in including a target.
My noble friend pointed out that those local authorities which mainly object to the use of targets are not those which have achieved most. If one talks about a target of 30 per cent., those which had gone some way to achieve it would be able to take that factor into account. However, as I understand it—no doubt the noble Viscount will confirm this—in the guidance which will be given to local authorities a target of that order will be mentioned. That is how I read the sense of the debates in another place.
I hope that the various reports will stimulate home energy rating. The rating of individual homes is what really counts. The Government have standardised the assessment procedure (SAP) for home energy ratings. There were two or three different systems; they are now standardised so that they can be more effectively applied. I am very pleased to learn that the Government intend to include an obligation in new building regulations that all new homes should include a standard energy rating. That will mean that those homes will be built to a much higher energy saving standard than previously.
For the SAP grades, 100 is the maximum. The figure of 70 would represent a very good achievement. I would expect new homes to be of the order of 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. From sample surveys taken in various parts of the country, the average efficiency in existing houses on the SAP basis may be between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. I have had experience of this type of assessment in my own home. I rather pride myself on my knowledge of energy efficiency. I had thought that I had done almost everything. However, as a result of the survey I found that I achieved a further 10 per cent. saving through relatively little expenditure.
While it is very satisfactory that the assessments will be included with regard to new building, new building represents only about 5 per cent. of the total amount of

439
buildings in this country. What is important is that the assessments should be extended to existing buildings. That can best be done as part of the mortgage lending process. Building societies have to make a survey of buildings before they advance a mortgage. I am glad that two building societies—the Nationwide and the Halifax—already include energy rating in their surveys. Since it can involve little extra expense, I hope that as many as possible of the other building societies and financial institutions which lend money for mortgage purposes will be persuaded to move in that direction. Perhaps the noble Viscount can indicate what the Government are doing to persuade them to move towards that.
The labelling of appliances which use energy in the home is important. More and more fridges, cooking and heating appliances and so on are being used. I am glad that the Government have already adopted EC regulations on the energy labelling of fridges and freezers. There is also the labelling of domestic boilers. The whole range of domestic appliances should be labelled. On the Government's own figures, the savings which could arise from that amount to something like 40 per cent. if the right appliances are chosen.
In my opinion, the Bill gives a further major boost to promoting energy efficiency in the home. For five reasons, it is vital that it should get through the House as quickly as it did in another place, if not even more quickly. First, it could help to save lives. My noble friend referred to the problem of fuel poverty. The fact is that in this country the difference in the mortality rate in summer and winter is larger than in any other Western European country. We have a difference in the mortality rate of the order of about 20 per cent., which represents 50,000 people. We are talking of many more people dying in winter than in summer. The average for the Continent is in single figures; in France, for example, it is 6 per cent. In some Scandinavian countries—notably Denmark, where traditionally people attach great importance to home insulation and improvements in heating—there is no difference between the death rate in summer and that in winter. Thus I have no hesitation in saying that the Bill will help to save lives.
Secondly, it will help to save money. Up to one-third of fuel bills could be cut by carrying out the surveys indicated in the Bill and applying the recommendations that the surveys will contain. Thirdly, it will increase comfort in the home. There is no doubt that much of the energy we use goes to waste through gaps in windows and doors, through badly insulated roof spaces and so on. Fourthly, it will reduce CO2 emissions. We have heard about the substantial amount of CO2 emitted from domestic dwellings. Finally, it will stimulate employment in the sector which provides insulation and other improvements in the home. For all those reasons, I hope that the Bill will achieve a speedy and unanimous passage through the House.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, we too welcome this straightforward and sensible Bill. Other speakers have already mentioned the many advantages
440
of having a national strategy on energy saving. It would not only bring benefits through savings to individuals and the nation in terms of lower costs in fuel bills; it would also assist to reduce the problem of global warming. It would improve the health of old people and also of children. There is substantial evidence that, particularly in Scotland, allergic reactions to mould in houses cause bronchitis and colds which profoundly affect children in their ability to go to school and become educated and, therefore, ultimately to become useful working members of our society. The Bill also indirectly assists with employment in that one hopes that more houses will be insulated, which will provide jobs.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the Bill is widely supported by local authorities and all the other organisations which are worried about the right to warmth, the right to energy and the right to fuel. The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, mentioned Scandinavia which has a much better record than we do on this front. The extent to which their houses are double or triple glazed provides a shining example of what can be achieved on the energy saving front.
We regret that to some extent the Bill was watered down by a series of compromises elsewhere: "duties" became "powers", "shall" became "may". It was not felt possible to have a specific target, though obviously individual local authorities could set targets for themselves. We hope that guidance from the Minister will encourage local authorities to do so because that often encourages action; plans are much more effective if people set targets for themselves.
We believe that many local authorities are achieving good results on the energy conservation front and encouraging the insulation of homes. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, organisations like the Neighbourhood Energy Action group, with which we are both involved, have done a good deal to insulate homes in our country. Nevertheless, there is a patchiness about the provisions. The Bill should serve to provide a comprehensive national strategy, with much better co-ordination, and the opportunity for individual local authorities to learn best practice from each other. It will therefore help to drag those local authorities which lag behind up to the standards of the best local authorities. In that way, many more households will be able to conserve energy and afford adequate heat to keep themselves warm. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, fewer old people will die in our winters. We shall have a healthier, better warmed nation which contributes less to global warming and which conserves energy, therefore achieving savings in the budgets both of individuals and of the nation as a whole. We welcome the Bill.
6.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on introducing the Bill and on setting out its provisions so clearly. I welcome the opportunity the debate offers to restate the Government's commitment to energy efficiency and to outline the Government's views on the Bill, which I hope will have a smooth passage to the statute book.

441
The environmental importance of energy efficiency has been highlighted recently by the First Conference of Parties to the UN Climate Change Convention in Berlin. The Government are confident of meeting, and indeed exceeding, the UK's existing commitments up to the year 2000 under the convention. The UK Climate Change Programme was the first national programme to be submitted under the convention. The Berlin conference adopted a mandate for negotiation by 1997 of further commitments for the period beyond the year 2000 to combat the threat of global warming. The UK is calling for all developed countries to agree to aim to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions to a figure between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. below 1990 levels by the year 2010. Achieving reductions in total greenhouse gas emissions represents a challenge when set against projections of likely economic growth. However, the prompt and successful implementation of the UK's existing commitments and the continuing effects of measures already taken put the UK in a strong position to start to work towards achieving such an objective.
What I have said concurs with everything that noble Lords have already said, in that the UK is well placed and is seized of the effectiveness of energy efficiency. Talk of climate change may seem to be on a rather different level from the Bill before your Lordships, which is concerned with the energy efficiency of homes. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, advised the House, over 25 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions are attributable to energy used in the home. Therefore, it is a sector which cannot be ignored in considering the environmental impact of energy use. It is also one where the individual can make a direct contribution. Every one of your Lordships is in a position to influence the amount of energy used in his or her home, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, indicated in his speech. But of course the benefits of reduced consumption are not only environmental. It also brings about lower fuel bills or increased comfort levels, with fuel providing useful heat rather than being wasted because of inadequate insulation or draught-proofing.
The Bill's definition of energy efficiency measures is rightly a broad one, covering information, advice, education and promotion, as well as making grants and loans and carrying out works. In fact the main challenge in seeking to improve energy efficiency in the home is in changing behaviour and, where appropriate, purchasing habits. It is important to improve awareness among individual householders of how they can reduce their fuel bills and be more energy efficient.
There is a role for central government in increasing awareness of the opportunities for increasing energy efficiency in the home. The current Wasting Energy Costs the Earth initiative is part of that awareness programme. Some of your Lordships may have seen the television and press advertisements featuring a family of dinosaurs or the associated promotions of energy-saving materials in shops. The campaign is intended to educate householders about the link between cost-effective energy use and the threat of climate change. It is also intended to bring about changes in behaviour, drawing
442
attention to simple no-cost or low-cost measures such as draught-proofing, loft insulation, low-energy light bulbs and others. With such measures, an average household can save about £100 on fuel bills.
Of course there are some, particularly the elderly, who may need financial or practical help or both with energy efficiency measures. The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme provides grants for basic energy efficiency measures for householders over 60 and those receiving certain benefits. The HEES budget received a 45 per cent. increase, to more than £100 million, this financial year.
There are many other schemes and projects being run and managed by the Department of the Environment's Energy Efficiency Office designed to improve energy efficiency in homes. For example, it is working closely with mortgage lenders to encourage them to incorporate energy ratings into their survey reports and to offer green loans or other financial services to help home owners take measures to improve energy efficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, indicated that from his knowledge the Nationwide and the Halifax building societies had already undertaken this. My honourable friend has had a meeting with mortgage lenders to pursue this very appropriate avenue of approach.
Progress is also being made with introducing energy labelling for domestic appliances so that consumers can make an informed choice between available models. Again that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I may tell the House that the first energy labelling directive came into force in the United Kingdom on the 1st January. This requires large energy information labels to be fixed to all domestic freezers and refrigerators displayed for sale. Directives covering similar labels for washing machines and tumble-dryers are to come into force in the United Kingdom by 1st March 1996. More products are to follow. The European Commission has recently proposed a directive on minimum energy efficiency levels for refrigerators and freezers with a view to removing the most inefficient products from the market. I believe that we are taking the right steps in the right direction.
The Bill, however, concentrates on the important role which local authorities can play in encouraging energy efficiency in homes. They are ideally placed to identify what needs to be done in their own communities and to know what local networks are available for getting messages and advice across to people. There will be scope for involving schools, businesses, libraries, local newspapers and no doubt many other organisations. Housing authorities are of course also directly responsible for their own housing stock, and the Government will continue to look specifically at energy efficiency measures in the context of housing investment programmes. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, called that a national strategy and I would not disagree with the words that she used.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already said, the Bill will focus local authorities' attention on measures which would produce significant improvements in energy efficiency for housing in their areas and require them to draw up reports on those measures and send them to the Secretary of State. The

443
Government believe that this will lead to the production of cost-effective assessments of where energy may be being used inefficiently and help to bring about real savings and affordable warmth for all households. The Secretary of State will be able to provide appropriate guidance to local authorities and to set timetables for them to report on progress. He himself will also be required to report to Parliament on what local authorities have done and on certain steps he has taken.
There was considerable discussion in another place about whether the Bill should include specific targets for local authorities. Of course there is no point in a measure which will not achieve anything at the end of the day, and setting targets is an excellent way of concentrating effort: I would not for one moment dispute that. The Government are certainly anxious that local authorities' plans should, in the words of the Bill, identify measures which will lead to significant savings.
However, the Government's view, which was accepted in another place, was that it was best to leave specific targets to the guidance to be produced under Clause 4 of the Bill. I repeat to your Lordships, and specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, the assurance from the Government that was given in another place: we shall be looking for savings of the order of 30 per cent. overall, and the guidance will make this clear. A target on the face of the Bill would be inflexible and make no distinction between those authorities which have already taken an active approach to energy efficiency and those which have not. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, questioned that, but I believe that that is indeed one of the problems. The department will be talking to local authority associations and others about guidance over the coming weeks and months.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, talked about the energy rating of homes. As he indicated, the standard assessment procedure for the energy rating of homes is now a fairly scientific process which has been developed recently. This, as he indicated, can measure the energy efficiency of a dwelling on the scale of one to 100. The SAP, as it is called, has already been incorporated into the building regulations, as the noble Lord indicated, and from this summer all new dwellings will be required to have a SAP. The SAP also provides a ready-made method of measuring the improvement in the energy efficiency of dwellings and it is very likely that some of the targets we shall set local authorities under this Bill will be based on SAPs.
My noble friend Lord Mersey, agreeing with the Government on the requirement for energy efficiency and what could be done with combined heat and power, will understand that the Government fully recognise the energy efficiency and the environmental benefits of combined heat and power. I am sure that, as a past president of the Combined Heat and Power Association, he will understand that, through the Department of the Environment's Energy Efficiency Office, we shall continue to promote and encourage its use in all cost-effective areas. CHP has become an integral part of the department's strategy for the 1990s and beyond. As part of the Climate Change Programme, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the
444
Environment has set a CHP target of 5,000 megawatts installed capacity by the year 2000. I am glad to report that very good progress is being made on the take-up of CHP: over 1,100 megawatts of new capacity has been contracted for since electricity privatisation.
Your Lordships would not expect the Government to be indifferent to the financial and other burdens which the Bill may create for local authorities and, indeed, for the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as a local councillor, will no doubt have that particularly in mind. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale also indicated that it would not come without cost.
I am glad that consideration of the Bill in another place resulted in something which in the Government's view will be more workable and less bureaucratic than the version originally introduced. It complements and rests on authorities' existing powers. It is certainly not the intention that there should be intrusive and costly powers or duties requiring authorities to carry out extensive surveys or to force householders to carry out work. However, the Government have made clear that the new burdens procedure will apply and that there will be a suitable transfer of resources to local authorities.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale also asked about the progress of the Energy Saving Trust. Two recent developments have affected the trust. It has become clear that the steep increase in funds from the gas and electricity customers will not materialise. The Government have announced that they are confident in meeting their commitment under the climate change convention and that they now expect to exceed it. The trust is revising its plans in the light of those changes and attempting to develop its role as an effective catalyst for change. It intends to develop new and innovative ideas which will promote the efficient use of energy at a time of increasing competition in the gas and electricity industries. The Government have taken powers under the Environmental Protection Act which will enable them to contribute to the trust's running costs.
The Bill before us has widespread support, not only from noble Lords who have spoken today but also from individual householders throughout the country, energy efficiency organisations, pressure groups for the elderly and others for whom affordable warmth is of particular concern and, most importantly, the local authority associations and many individual authorities. The Government's approach in another place was widely acknowledged to be constructive, and that will remain the case as the Bill proceeds through your Lordships' House, against the background that any new duties placed on local authorities should be the minimum necessary to achieve the Bill's aims and ensure that it provides a tool to help central and local government in directing effort and resources where they are most effective. The Government welcome this Bill, and I wish it well.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The congratulations offered are not due to me but to my honourable friend. I merely have the privilege and

445
indeed the pleasure of taking up the Bill on its passage through this House. I thank the Minister particularly because the fair wind offered by the Government is most important.
I shall not take up the time of the House in answering in detail the points made. I shall merely say that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, in regard to the sharing of best practice is an important one. It is part of a continuing exercise. I welcome the Government's assurance in relation to the targets—or whatever term one uses—to be contained in the guidance. If one reads Clause 4 carefully, one sees that it is very much a code for there being targets, but there may he different targets rather than one unyielding target to be applied inflexibly across all authorities.
I was interested in the point made by my noble friend Lord Ezra regarding building society assessments. What is important is that the assessment of energy efficiency becomes a matter of routine and in that way efficiency savings will be made. The noble Viscount said that climate change may be an odd topic to refer to in this context. That is not at all the case. It is precisely the right topic and this Bill, above all, is a good example of thinking globally, acting locally and acting individually. I ask this House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill
6.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill of extreme importance that was taken through another place by Mr. David Jamieson, the honourable Member for Plymouth, Devonport. It is important because it refers to safety measures for the younger end of the spectrum, covering people up to age of 17. Moving the Second Reading in another place, Mr. Jamieson said,
"It is a rare honour that the House bestows on a Back-Bench Member to have the pleasure and privilege of introducing a Private Member's Bill. It offers me a special opportunity to present a Bill on behalf of my constituents, which is relevant to parents throughout the country".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/95; col. 590.]
Members who have stayed behind this evening and those who wish to take part in the debate will be aware of the appalling tragedy in the Lyme Bay area when four teenagers from the Southway School died on a canoeing exercise. Unfortunately, it was no accident. They died due to the criminal neglect of the people whom they and their parents thought were responsible for them; that is, the people who were running the St. Alban's activity centre.
The managing director of the centre is now serving three years for manslaughter. While one may say that it is a punishment which is well deserved, it gives no comfort or succour to the people who lost those children in such terrible circumstances. I am blessed with two grandsons who are now reaching the age when they are
446
beginning to feel their way in life and are eager to take part in those sorts of outdoor activities. I know what a blow it would be to me, to my wife and to the parents if something happened to them because somebody was not performing properly. The Bill is an attempt to plug the hole in that type of situation.
Parents, governors of schools, national and local education authorities, teachers' unions, organisations involved in running activity centres, townswomen's guilds and many others have called for action because the strongest instinct of any parent is to protect their child from danger. That is the history behind the Bill.
As it stands the Bill has the fullest support of the Government. I express my thanks and those of other people involved to the Government for the speed with which they have acted, allowing the Bill to make such rapid progress. They are to be commended for that. Those like myself and the mover of the Bill in another place are extremely grateful.
The Bill seeks to protect people under 18 years of age. After that time they are adults and can make their own judgments about what they do. The measure will bring into being specific regulations which will do away with self-regulation. The regulations will be made by Government Ministers. The Bill has cross-party support and is backed also by the Government, by educational organisations, by sports groups such as the Central Council for Physical Recreation, by local authorities—I received communications from some today—and by the ACC, the ADC and the AMA. They all want to see the Bill progress as quickly as possible. There is a need for urgency. I hope that your Lordships' House can proceed in a manner which will put the Bill on the statute book by the time we rise for the Summer Recess.
I express my appreciation to the Department for Education for a document it sent me explaining the Bill in detail. I shall not go through it this evening because it is rather long. But should any noble Lord wish to examine it in order to discuss it at a later stage I shall be happy to make it available.
The Bill contains four main elements. First, it sets up a licensing authority which will oversee the accreditation and licensing of activity centres. In particular, centres will have to agree to follow a code of safety practice which will include the suitability of equipment and the qualifications and experience of instructors. The code of practice currently being finalised by the Activity Centres Advisory Committee will, I am sure, form an excellent basis for that.
Secondly, the Bill establishes an inspectorate to ensure that centres abide by the code of practice. When the inspectorate encounters activities that are causing immediate danger to children it will have powers to stop that activity immediately. If it encounters sloppy or potentially hazardous activities and practice, it will be able to issue notices of improvement to give centres a period of time to improve standards. It is my hope that such powers, over time, would lift the standard of centres that were not operating to proper and desirable safety levels and bring about higher safety standards as quickly as possible.

447
The ultimate sanction on a recalcitrant centre that continued to ignore high standards of safety and put children at risk would be the removal of its licence after which it would be an offence for the centre to continue trading. If it did, the result could be a heavy fine or imprisonment.
Thirdly, the Bill sets up a complaints procedure for consumers or others who have reservations about the safety of activities at a particular centre. Such complaints could be quickly followed up by competent independent inspectors. If that procedure had been in place in 1992, Joy Cawthorne, the former instructor at the St. Alban's centre, who warned the managing director that unless his safety standards improved he would have to explain one day to parents why their child was not coming home, would have had somewhere to take her complaints.
Fourthly, following some government pump-priming funds, the scheme should be largely self-financing with centres paying for their accreditation. That is similar to car owners paying for their MOT certificates.
The Bill is enabling legislation which sets out the framework for safety in outdoor centres. If it becomes law, following a period of consultation with the industry and other legitimate interests, statutory instruments will have to be laid before the House for the detailed legislation. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that if the Bill becomes law he will act without delay to ensure that the secondary legislation is introduced. I hope that that can be completed quickly to allow the legislation to take effect early in 1996. I ask the Minister to make it plain —I think that he has already indicated it in conversations —that the Government will expedite the business as quickly as they can.
I do not want to say more. I think I have explained what the Bill is about. It is about ensuring as far as one possibly can that youngsters up to the age of 18 do not go on outward bound courses, whether at sea or on shore, where they are at risk because someone who is in charge of them is not qualified and cannot look after their interests to the maximum. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dean of Beswick.)
7.3 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I shall not delay the House very long for the simple reason that there is not very much to say other than that this is a very good Bill. It is a pity that Parliament once again finds itself being reactive but I am afraid that that may be the nature of some of our jobs here. Unless we have a fault pointed out to us in the first place, we cannot correct it. As the noble Lord, Lord Dean, mentioned, one tragedy would almost certainly have been avoided if what is suggested in the Bill had been in force at the time.
It is odd that the Bill applies only to those who are under the age of 18, although those who are minors should undoubtedly be first to receive the protection of the law. It is to be hoped that older people in outdoor activity centres will receive some knock-on effects, for
448
one would have thought that someone who discovers rock climbing at the age of 40 would need just as much support from the law and from regulation as someone who is aged only 16. Indeed, knowing how reflexes slow down, one would have thought that they might need more. We desperately need such a Bill.
I shall draw my remarks to a close for the simple reason that my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie is an expert in this field and knows far more about the practicalities of this subject. In those circumstances, I shall sit down and allow him to enlighten the rest of us.
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Addington, I rise to support the Bill. I thank my noble friend for his extremely kind words and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, on introducing the Bill. It seeks to ensure that adequate minimum standards are maintained by the operators of activity centres when offering adventurous recreation and training to young people under the age of 18.
I should declare my interest. I am an active canoeist and hill walker. I hold qualifications as a joint services mountain expedition leader and as a British Canoeing Union instructor for the open canoe. I am a member of the Scottish Canoeists Association and have built 15 open canoes. I lead an outdoor group in Clackmannan and offer canoeing instruction on a voluntary basis. I am therefore very interested in the proposals in the Bill, as I am certain that all my fellow outdoor pursuits instructors will be thankful that they will be able to avoid being browbeaten by their managements into instructing in subjects that they know they do not have sufficient experience or qualifications to teach.
The national centres of excellence, such as Plas-y-Brenin and Glenmore Lodge, recruit only very experienced instructors with substantial formal qualifications, employing them as instructional officers grade one. These are people who can offer senior instructor qualifications in at least four disciplines. However, there is no requirement at present for the various organisations which offer outdoor activities to maintain this high standard, because, of course, they are required to run as businesses and to make decisions orientated towards the marketplace rather than towards excellence. I accept that that is probably a little unfair, as many outdoor organisations have the aim of introducing people to activities and getting them started rather than pursuing their activity to the utmost degree.
In the world of outdoor activity in general and canoe instruction in particular there are generally three types of organisation involved. First, there are activity holiday companies, which offer one-off introductory sessions—a different one each day. Secondly, there are education authority centres, which generally offer instruction within the context of a personal development course. Thirdly, there are the outdoor activity centres, which offer specific training in the techniques and philosophy of the chosen activity. Those centres have a skills-based approach.

449
The prospect of a requirement for more experienced and qualified instructors poses not too much threat to those already in the industry. For existing instructional staff, the prospect is that there will be a greater emphasis by managers on career development for their staff. There is no pool of higher qualified instructors currently unemployed waiting to move into jobs which are currently filled by less qualified staff.
I should like to raise one or two questions about the operation of the Bill as an Act. I hope that the Minister will be able to help me with them. First, will the Secretary of State be required to consult the governing bodies of each outdoor activity? Clause 3(3) seems to imply that he or she will, but Clause 3(4) implies that such advice may he overridden or dispensed with.
Secondly, can the Minister clarify exactly which Secretary of State we are talking about? For example, will it be the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Welsh Secretary of State or which one will it be? Thirdly, following along that vein, I wonder why this sensible legislation is seen as inappropriate for Northern Ireland, which is an area with exceptional opportunities for outdoor activities. Fourthly, like my noble friend, I ask whether there is any prospect of this legislation being extended to cover all activity centres. Why should slapdash management be allowed when only adults or those over 18 years of age are to attend? Might that not mean that companies may switch away from the under-I8 market, denying them the chance to adopt activities that may become a distinct part of their whole lifestyle?
I can see that adults should be better able to discern the inadequacies of the instructional arrangements they may find, but halfway up a rockface is hardly the place to discover that the instructor has little experience and is under-qualified. In any case, adult trainees are attending because they do not know and want to know more. Similarly, there may be adults attending who have been sent by a third party to attend as part of a wider programme.
I conclude by saying that these outdoor activities are safe and reasonable activities to be introduced to young people of all ages. There have been tragic but very rare incidents involving new entrants to outdoor activities; namely, the Cairngorm and Lyme Bay tragedies. Most fatalities in outdoor activities occur to experienced participants.
In any outdoor activity the management has to take into account the weather and to plan flexibly around it, sometimes disappointing trainees. For example, my solo canoe trip journey down the Beauly Firth last Thursday was wholly appropriate on Thursday, but it would have been ludicrous on Friday. Your Lordships might not have needed to hear me had I tried to undertake that journey on Friday. Anticipation of difficult weather conditions and the ability to understand the practical consequences of weather forecasts is vital. Programmes must be advertised as flexible and staff trained to offer many activities to meet that flexibility. The increased use of radios and portable telephones readily recommends itself. I hope that the regulations will make the provision of voice communication mandatory.
450
My final point is that I hope that an anomalous situation will not arise about the use of a centre's facilities by a top athlete who is aged under 18 years. Those with their own personal training programme often make use of the facilities of their local centre to undertake training far in advance of the centre's usual programme. I hope that there is no intention to prevent that from continuing. I commend the Bill to the House.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene very briefly from the Labour Front Bench, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Dean upon so comprehensively bringing to this House a Bill which was introduced in the other place by his parliamentary colleague, David Jamieson. Having read Hansard and having terrible memories of the events which caused this Bill, one can appreciate that there can be no one in either House who wishes to delay the passage of this Bill. I am certainly looking forward to hearing the Minister giving the assurances which my noble friend Lord Dean requested for the record.
The House is indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who, out of the blue as it were, turns out to be someone who is perhaps better informed than any of us on the nature of this Bill and the need for it. It is an interesting feature of this House that one never knows who will bring his or her experience to bear. Certainly, my noble friend Lord Dean has demonstrated the width and breadth of support for legislation of this kind.
When I knew that David Jamieson had had the good fortune to conceive and produce this Bill because of his association, my memories went back to Devon. It is more than 50 years ago that I came across a place called Slapton Sands. Royal Marine commandos were trained there during the war and I was one of them. Terrible tragedies occurred there. There was the incident of German E-boats turning up in the middle of the night and shooting down many brave American soldiers who were training. Those were virtually man-made tragedies, but this particular tragedy could and should have been avoided. This Bill is going to provide a mechanism whereby such tragedies should be avoided in future.
My memory also went back to a number of other things arising out of the pressure on teachers and the teaching profession, including governors and head teachers. There is a range of things which they now do which they never did before. My mind brings up the issue of mini-buses. Legislation is required as a result of the genuine desire of the teaching profession to be helpful to youngsters so that they can lead a better life and take part in wider activities. What we have is born out of tragedy, and perhaps we can do things better in future.
I also like to believe that what we are doing will bring a little solace to the parents of the youngsters who were the victims of this dereliction. Nothing can bring back their loved ones. But I believe that they will feel a little easier in their minds that something is being done. I refer not only to the parents and the friends of those who lost their lives, but also to the rising generation

451
and the teaching profession. We in Parliament, given the opportunity, must not hesitate to seize it. I very much hope that the Minister will say the right words.
I very much hope too that this Bill does not fall foul and become the victim of what I call "parliamentary skulduggery" in the other place. I do not believe that there will be any intention to sabotage the Bill, but there are Members of this House who are as experienced as I in the ways of the other place. Very often such matters may get into a queue. Because people have their own imperatives this legislation could fall victim to parliamentary skulduggery without the aims of the Bill being necessarily thwarted or upset. I greatly look forward to the Minister saying the kind words which should be helpful. In this House it is good to have an opportunity to say that here is a piece of legislation about which there is no animus, and to which all of us, including the Minister and the department, are willing to give a very fair wind. We on these Benches certainly wish the Bill well.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I too congratulate Mr. David Jamieson on bringing forward this Bill. Fortune, it seems, favours the persistent. It is a great tribute to Mr. Jamieson that we are here today to debate this important matter. Many in another place have made glowing reference to his sterling and unstinting efforts over the past two years to raise the profile of safety in outdoor centres. It is with the greatest pleasure that we add to these tributes. He has succeeded in persuading us all of the merits of the case for change. Party politics have been set to one side and that is as it should be where children's safety is concerned. We are delighted too to see the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, presenting this Bill. His wide knowledge of the subject is well known and he has given the House a clear understanding of the Bill and the intentions that underlie it.
Perhaps I may set things out as we on the Government Benches see them. This Bill seeks to provide for the regulation of centres and of the providers of facilities where those under the age of 18 engage in what the Bill describes as "adventure activities". Two years ago in Lyme Bay four youngsters—Claire Langley, Rachel Walker, Simon Dunne and Dean Sayer—needlessly lost their lives. I have found it as heart-rending to listen to noble Lords today as it was to read the press coverage after the accident and during the trial. We all mourn the loss of those young lives. Our hearts go out to their families, who have borne this loss with such impressive dignity.
The Bill envisages the Government bringing forward detailed provisions under regulations. We agree that that is the best approach. Much of the detail can be settled only after an extensive consultation. As part of that process, it is envisaged that the Health and Safety Commission will be conducting consultations of its own and will bring forward proposed health and safety regulations for the Secretary of State's consideration. It is important that the new arrangements fit properly with what already exists.
452
Perhaps I can give some comfort to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. We shall be consulting extremely widely should the Bill come into law. However, I cannot tell him at this stage which Secretary of State will be involved. That will depend very much on the nature of the consultation. As far as the Bill is concerned, the Secretary of State must remain anonymous.
Turning to Northern Ireland, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which the Bill serves essentially to reproduce, does not apply to Northern Ireland. Technically, therefore, the Bill could not be applied there. The Northern Ireland Office is, however, looking carefully at the provisions of the Bill to decide how it might be emulated there—quite possibly through Orders in Council.
On the points about extending the Bill to all activity centres and to people over the age of 18, perhaps I may say that such activities are already within the scope of the health and safety legislation. We do not envisage using the Bill to extend that legislation, but perhaps the success of the measures introduced under the Bill might in the future lead to their emulation.
The Bill stipulates that there may be conditions in licences relating to inspections. We think that that, too, would be absolutely the right way of proceeding. A centre offering an activity covered by the regulations would not be able to operate without a licence, and one of the conditions of the licence would be that the centre would be subject to inspection.
Inspectors would need to look at a variety of things, but we believe that it is important that they adopt the lightest touch consistent with satisfying themselves as to the safe conduct of activities in the centre. Most importantly, inspectors would need to look at the competence of those with responsibility for young people, and at their training and qualifications. If the two leaders involved at Lyme Bay had been appropriately qualified those fateful events might not have happened—indeed, they probably would not have happened.
We also consider it important that inspectors should look at management issues. For instance, centres should have sensible safety policies and should conduct assessments of risk. But we would not intend that inspectors should interfere in matters that relate, for example, to comfort or welfare.
Should this Bill reach the statute book, the Government would wish to consider very carefully and precisely, and to consult fully on, which outdoor activities should be governed by the regulations. At this stage, it seems to us that there are certain activities which probably should fall within the scope of the statutory registration scheme. Mountaineering, canoeing, some small boat sailing, wind-surfing, mountain-biking, caving and rafting spring to mind. A case can no doubt be made for others.
It also seems to us that (subject to consultation) it would be appropriate to exclude from the regulations single sports private clubs offering facilities for their members, like football or rugby clubs and the local yacht club. We would not—I want to make this absolutely clear—be seeking to require licences for low-risk activities, or those which just take place from

453
time to time on a voluntary basis. Perhaps I should add in response to the last concern expressed by the noble Earl that his point about top athletes training at centres has been registered and will be taken into account in our deliberations.
I should also make clear how we see the respective roles of inspectors from the licensing authority, from the Health and Safety Executive, and from local authorities. We must be sure to avoid duplication of effort, but at the same time ensure that each is clear about their duties so that nothing slips through the net.
Health and Safety Executive and local authority inspectors will continue to have their powers of inspection under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, and will still have the power to issue improvement and prohibition notices, and to take prosecutions wherever they consider this necessary in the interests of health and safety. They will also have powers to investigate accidents and incidents, and to follow up complaints. This Bill will enhance those provisions.
The new licensing authority inspectors would be inspecting adventure activity centres and providers solely in the context of duties specified in the Bill. If the licensing authority inspectors discovered dangerous practices they would have the power to place restrictions upon the provider's licence, or indeed to revoke the licence altogether. Should enforcement through the courts be necessary, the licensing authority would notify the Health and Safety Executive or the local authority immediately of the need for enforcement, and they would carry that forward.
We do not see any need for a vast bureaucracy resulting from this Bill. It is difficult to say in advance of consultation precisely what would be required. But we envisage an operation of no more than, say, a dozen to 20 full-time equivalent inspectors.
The Activity Centres Advisory Committee, in the work that it has done towards a voluntary scheme, has estimated that some modest pump-priming government money would be needed over the first two years or so. We agree that this is likely. It is intended that thereafter the scheme should become self-financing. Fees to providers should be modest and a sliding scale of fees could be introduced to lighten the burden on small-scale operators.
Safety cannot be guaranteed by statutes and regulations. Outdoor adventure is a most excellent experience, but it will always be a risky one. The risks are all the greater because young people are, by definition, inexperienced.
But it has struck me from today's debate that the very act of, and success in, coping with danger is likely to give children a higher regard for safety. For that reason, it is educationally desirable that tutors should set challenges which entail some uncertainty, But that must be within reason and within an environment that is controlled enough for potential disasters to be averted. That is what this Bill will help to do.
We are content with the Bill in principle; we are content with it in detail; and we wish it a swift and easy passage through this House.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation to the Members of your Lordships' House who have participated in this debate, which has been extremely interesting. I do not have much to say in reply.
I should like to thank both speakers from the Liberal Benches for their contributions. I thank particularly the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for his detailed questioning. He is obviously pretty much an expert on this subject. I say "pretty much" because it is a question of how one evaluates things. However, I believe that when the Government consult people in an advisory capacity, it is people like the noble Earl who should be consulted and who should have some input. That would be of immense benefit to everybody.
I was glad that the Minister took the trouble to reply to the question about people over the age of 18. He said that their position was covered by other legislation. When one is dealing with an organised activity involving people both below and above the age of 18, legislative problems can arise. Nevertheless, I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister for his detailed answer to the points that have been raised.
I hope that the Bill will proceed as rapidly as possible. I know that that is the wish not only of the sponsors, but of the Government who want to look after the youngsters and to prevent a recurrence of the appalling tragedy that took place in Lyme Bay. The sooner that such events become history, the better for everybody. I hope that your Lordships' House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Building Societies (Switched Accounts) Bill [H.L.]
7.29 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
At the outset perhaps I may declare an interest in that I have a small sum of money in one of the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society accounts, although I am bound to say that, if the Bill goes through, at best it could not make any difference to my assets and at worst I might be worse off if the amount of money available for distribution has therefore to be spread more thinly. Although I appreciate my noble friends' laughter, they have not scored a hit.
Earlier today the House gave a Third Reading to the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill. I greatly welcomed that decision. I had previously introduced a Bill which I withdrew in favour of the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill. Both Bills sought to deal with the position of widows as second named joint account holders after the death of the first named joint account holder.

455
I am not an expert on building societies, although judging by some of the letters that I have received from all over the country, it seems that people expect us here to be experts. I am doing my best to respond to the many questions which have been put to me. Some of the letters I received at the time of the original Bill drew attention to many other problems. Had it been possible or advisable to amend the Bill to which the House gave a Third Reading earlier today, that might have been one approach. But it was neither possible nor advisable because, had we made that Bill more complicated, it might not have gone through the other House quickly, which is clearly everyone's hope, and it might not have been possible to amend the Bill because of its Long Title. So I now introduce a Bill which deals with one of the other problems which many people have raised and with which the earlier Bill, as I said, could not deal.
Perhaps I may first mention briefly a number of the other injustices which I feel remain. In dealing with the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill, the Minister referred to some of the other injustices, as did my noble friend Lord Eatwell. It is difficult to reach the end of the line on this. Additional problems arise. The whole matter is complicated. They are worth mentioning because the Government have made a commitment to look again at the whole issue of building societies.
There are situations which were not mentioned when we debated building societies earlier. I shall give just three. One relates to where there was a joint account and where, for tax reasons, the name of one of the joint account holders was withdrawn. That left the second named joint account holder. What happened was that the building society closed the first account and opened a new one, and so, as I understand it, that person is now ineligible to benefit from the distribution of the bonus. That is unfortunate and tough.
There is another example where a wife has an account to which the husband later adds his name so that the account becomes a joint account. As a wife said in a letter to me, by convention building societies put the husband's name first. In such a situation there appears to be no entitlement to bonus.
The third example is of where an individual, wanting to set up a trust for his daughter, became a trustee and was accordingly made the first named of a joint account with his daughter. He then withdrew as a trustee, presumably because his daughter was no longer of an age when such a trust was necessary. That happened just before the qualifying period and so the entitlement was lost. I have given three examples, but I am sure that there are many others. They are signs of continuing unfairness from which people have suffered and which represent a real injustice.
The Bill is not concerned with such situations but I wanted to get them on the record so that we all know that there are many other difficulties which must be dealt with by the Government, as there is a limit to what Private Members' Bills can achieve.
The Bill deals with one specific and narrow situation. It is where an individual has switched from one type of account to another within the qualifying period. Typically in the case of the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society, that happened where an individual had
456
a London share account and switched to a deposit account. That happened to a number of people, because the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society advised people who had money in the London share account that they would be better off if they switched to a deposit account.
It is good that building societies give such advice, because there have been many complaints over the years that when interest rates are varied, people who had money in one type of account were not given that advice by building societies. It would take a suspicious mind to say that there was any relationship between that advice and the subsequent announcement of the takeover of the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society by Lloyds Bank. It would take a suspicious mind, but the point has been put to me more than once. I do not wish to comment upon it.
The matter then went to the High Court. Perhaps I may summarise the decision, and not being a lawyer I hope that I have it right. The High Court decision was that, if someone within the qualifying two-year period had switched from one type of share account to another, that person's entitlement to a bonus was maintained. If during the two-year qualifying period someone had switched from one type of deposit account to another, that person was all right; but if within the qualifying period someone had switched from a share account to a deposit account, he was no longer entitled to a bonus.
I think that I understand the legal basis for that High Court decision, although at one level it does not seem logical. It is an extremely unfair decision because people did what they were advised to do and they are losing out for reasons which are totally obscure to all the people who have written to me and, I am sure, to many others. That point came up earlier, and perhaps I may quote what the Minister said on 15th March:
"I can tell both noble Lords that, as part of his wider review of the 1986 Act, my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury has now proposed that in future all retail investors in building societies should be shareholding members. Legislation to bring this change about will be introduced as soon as an opportunity arises. Obviously, I can go no further than that. As regards other short Bills that may be introduced by noble Lords or Members of another place, I can say only that I am sure that my right honourable and honourable friends in Her Majesty's Treasury will give them the appropriate consideration.—[Official Report, 15/3/95; col. 920.]
It is that appropriate consideration which I hope has happened. I hope that the Government can give the Bill as much positive encouragement and help as they gave the earlier Bill. I am aware that the powers given to a building society to distribute bonuses under this Bill and the earlier Bill are permissive and not mandatory. I have no knowledge of whether the Cheltenham and Gloucester/Lloyds set-up would make such payments, which they would have the power to make were the Bill to go rapidly through both Houses. I hope that they will seriously consider responding to the legislation if it becomes law by 1st August.
By all accounts, the present position is illogical and unfair. It is bad for the reputation of building societies as a whole that that situation should pertain. It is of even greater importance that the rights of individuals should

457
not be prejudiced and that they should be given the bonuses to which, in justice and fairness, they are entitled. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—
(Lord Dubs.)
7.39 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs for introducing his Private Member's Bill so clearly and pointing out yet another of the significant anomalies which are appearing in building societies' legislation and which were revealed in our discussions on the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill which was passed earlier today to general approval.
The case which my noble friend has put forward is one which we discussed earlier today. It is an obvious case of an anomaly which will lead to inequities in the distribution of bonuses on the sale or merger of building societies. It is understandable that such anomalies are emerging; the existing legislation was not designed for the situation in which we find ourselves. Enormous changes are taking place in the building societies industry which are throwing up problems that would never have been expected when the original legislation was drafted. For that reason there is a need for fundamental review and we all await the Government's forthcoming review with interest.
In the meantime, I suggest that there is a degree of urgency in dealing with some of the inequities which are becoming evident. There is a degree of urgency, first, because we have a responsibility to minimise the inequities and obvious unfairnesses which were unwittingly contained in earlier legislation that was not designed for the current circumstances.
I suggest that there is a second reason for urgency and a reason why this anomaly, which is so clearly identified and dealt with, should not be left for the later review. It is that the Government have a degree of responsibility for the inequities because the changes in the building societies industry, which are revealing them, have been encouraged by the Government. The Government are in favour of the changes in the structure of the financial services industry, and, given that they are encouraging those changes, they are responsible for those inequities and unfairnesses. However, they are, of course, unwittingly responsible because when the legislation was drafted they could not have known that such problems would arise.
I therefore suggest that we have before us a short Bill which needs a little technical redrafting but which essentially achieves a limited goal and achieves it well. It is a Bill which deserves government support.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by declaring that I too have no personal interest to declare. However, I give that purely as a personal interest and cannot speak for my family.
458
I acknowledge the noble Lord's keen interest in the provisions of the Building Societies Act relating to conversions and takeovers. We were most grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the Bill that was introduced in another place by my honourable friend Douglas French to allow those inheriting joint accounts to benefit from a distribution provided that they have been shareholding members of the society for at least two years. That Bill has passed through all its stages in this House and was returned to another place only a few hours ago. I believe that all noble Lords present will wish it well.
Perhaps I may make one or two brief points about a number of other alleged injustices to which the noble Lord referred. As he admitted, many of them go way beyond the provisions of his Bill. He accepted that to some extent some of them were dealt with in the announcements by my honourable friends in the Treasury made late last summer and in February. I prefer to write to the noble Lord in greater detail but I believe that two of them were dealt with by the earlier Bill relating to joint account holders. I understand the point that the noble Lord made about splitting for tax purposes and the fact that the wife's open account should be dealt with by that Bill. However, I prefer to write to the noble Lord in greater detail on that point and it would be better if I did so.
We are less enthusiastic about the proposals which the noble Lord has introduced in relation to those who have switched money from share to deposit accounts. The measure, unlike the other Bill, will have no practical effect on either of the takeover or conversion proposals currently in the public domain. It might be worth commenting on the two particular takeovers. The members of the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society have already voted to accept the offer from Lloyds Bank. Those who switched funds between share and deposit accounts during the qualifying period and were shareholding members at the time that the takeover was first announced are not eligible to receive the cash payment. I understand that funds have not been set aside to pay for those who have switched accounts, even if the law is so changed as the noble Lord suggested. However, £on has been set aside to make payments to widows provided that the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill is enacted before 1st August, as we very much hope.
I turn to the proposal made by the Halifax and Leeds Permanent Building Societies to merge and convert into a bank. I believe that the societies intend that all those who were members at the time the deal was announced and remain members until conversion should benefit from a distribution of shares when the combined society turns into a bank. I very much doubt whether any shareholders at the time of the announcement will have since switched funds into a deposit account and so lost their membership rights.
The House will be aware that my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury announced in February the outcome of the Government's review of the Building Societies Act. As well as giving societies enhanced powers, the Government intend to implement a 15 point accountability package which will improve

459
the awareness among members of their rights as shareholders in a mutual society and make it easier for those who want to become more actively involved in running their society. One of the measures announced by my honourable friend will remove the distinction between shareholders and retail depositors in a building society, replacing them with a single class of investing member.
It would be contrary to the greater emphasis that we are placing on the importance of membership to extend the benefits which may be enjoyed by those who have switched out of share accounts and so do not have a continuous record of membership of the society. However, as I said, the distinction between depositors and shareholders is to be abolished when the Government introduce new building society legislation.
I understand the noble Lord's desire to enable those who have switched from share to deposit accounts to benefit when their society converts or is taken over. However, the proposed amendment to the law would not appear to benefit depositors in either of the two mergers to which I have referred. As the Government are to address the distinction between shareholders and depositors at a suitable opportunity through new primary legislation, I do not believe that a piecemeal change of the kind proposed by the noble Lord is necessary. I therefore cannot offer Government support for the Bill and I ask the noble Lord to consider whether he believes that it is worth pursuing the Bill in this House.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Minister has put me in some difficulty and I am thinking my way through it as rapidly as I can. I listened most carefully to everything that he said. The Government's main argument appears to be that the Bill, even if it became law by 1st August, would not influence the distribution of bonuses to people who switched from a share account to a deposit account in the case of the Cheltenham and Gloucester takeover nor in the case of the other takeover. However, provided that we give the building societies concerned the power to make such a distribution they would be able to do so, notwithstanding the fact that the vote on the approval has taken place. It may well be that the directors of the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society and Lloyds Bank would not wish to make any further distribution, but if the Bill became law they would be able to do so.
Given that originally they had intended to do so and were prevented from doing so by a High Court decision, surely it is appropriate for Parliament to say, "Fine, we note the High Court decision. We believe that the decision was good in law under the existing legislation. We therefore propose to change the legislation in order that the situation becomes fair".
At no point did the noble Lord say that the way in which people who had switched accounts were being denied a bonus was not all right. After all, any individual who had a deposit account throughout the period would receive the benefit of a bonus. It is only the people who move from one type of account to another who do not receive the benefit of a bonus. By passing this Bill we will be putting a little pressure on
460
the respective building societies and the bank in order that they could reconsider whether they would not be better off and whether it would not be fairer if they made such a bonus distribution.
Notwithstanding the Government's reluctance or lack of enthusiasm, I am not persuaded that the argument stands up, unless the Minister is speaking with the full authority of the building societies concerned. I doubt whether the Government are speaking on their behalf. I sent my draft Bill to the chief executive of the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society and I received no response from him. I did not ask for a comment but he did not suggest to me that the Bill is now too late or inappropriate. Therefore, I am rather surprised that the Minister makes that point.
Furthermore, if the Government intend to change the law relating to building societies and if the proposals of my Bill—although it may be that they are not in the form of wording which may appeal to the Government—give effect to that intention, then there can be no difficulty with allowing my Bill to proceed with Government help. That would make the subsequent legislation simpler because some of the provisions would have been dealt with. There is nothing wrong with piecemeal legislation if it does not detract from the logic of dealing with the situation which the passage of time has made inappropriate.
The Government's arguments are not persuasive. I believe that it is right to proceed with the Bill and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Chechnya
7.51 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton Lord Belhaven and Stenton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have made to the Russian Government to end their repression of Chechnya; and whether they will urge the Russian Government to respect the right of the Chechen people to self-determination.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank in advance those noble Lords who are to speak in this short debate as I shall not have an opportunity to do so later.
In speaking of Chechnya, we are indeed speaking of a far country of which, until recently, most of us knew very little. Therefore, if your Lordships will bear with me, I shall begin by giving a brief resume of the history of the country over the past 200 years.
The area of the country is about the size of Slovenia or about two-thirds the size of Wales. Its original inhabitants are not Russian or Slav. They speak a Caucasian language and they are Moslem by religion. They had little contact with Russia until they were threatened in the late 17th and early 18th century by the expansionist policies of Peter the Great.
The threat became real in 1818 when, under the Russian General Yermolov, Grozny was established as a fortified base and used for punitive expeditions against

461
Chechens and other Caucasian mountain people. Grozny is named after Ivan Grozny—Ivan the Terrible—and it is clear that that name was deliberately chosen.
One saying of General Yermolov has come down to us. He remarked that he would not rest while one Chechen was left alive. Thus was Chechnya taken into the Russian Empire, or the Russian Federation as it is today.
The history of the 100 years or so between the Russian occupation and the Russian revolution is an appalling story of bloodily suppressed uprisings which amply proves the point that at no time past or present did the Chechen people submit willingly to Russian rule. If that makes Chechnya an integral part of the Russian Federation, we should reclaim Southern Ireland immediately.
The coming of the Russian revolution gave the Chechens and their neighbours an opportunity to declare their independence, which they did. However, in 1922, after the Bolshevik victory in the civil war, they were tricked by Stalin, who was not yet in complete power but sent there to head a Soviet delegation, into agreeing to be part of the Soviet Union. They were given all kinds of guarantees in relation to religion and so on which pleased them greatly at the time, but the good times did not last for very long.
Time does not allow me to describe the unceasing atrocities, murders and uprisings in the Soviet period from 1922 to 1937. Again, all I will say is that after a very brief honeymoon at no time did the Chechens submit voluntarily to the Soviet system.
The climax came in 1937 when the NKVD—the forerunner of the KGB—carried out:
"The general operation for the removal of anti-Soviet elements".
Thousands were arrested and deported or shot, including the entire regional government. It never ceases to surprise me that in the West the Russians seem to be allowed to get away with such behaviour, whereas all the weight of international disapproval is brought against Germans, Turks, Serbs and others when they behave in a similar way.
During the Second World War the Chechens and their neighbours, the Ingush, were not allowed to enlist in the Red Army. The official reason was that they did not eat pork, which may or may not have been the real reason. However, they were allowed to form two divisions of what one might call auxiliaries which were ill-armed and which suffered heavy casualties at Stalingrad.
On 23rd February 1944, all Chechen males were invited to meetings at village Soviet buildings. When they were all gathered, a decree of the praesidium of the Supreme Soviet was read to them. They were then loaded into Studebaker trucks supplied by the US lend-lease programme. With their families and only 20 kilograms of baggage per family, they were deported to Kazakhstan in Central Asia. It is estimated that the entire Chechen and Ingush population of approximately 425,000 people were deported. I believe that that is about the size of the Catholic population of Ulster.
Your Lordships should note that the trucks in which they were transported were supplied by the United States. The object of supplying those trucks was to assist the Red Army to win the war against Germany and not for carrying out mass deportations. The Chechens were not the only people to be deported. There were the Crimean Tartars, the Volga Germans and many others. In that context, it is pertinent to ask how much of the recent financial aid by way of loans and handouts to Russia has gone to finance the military operation in Chechnya. Last Thursday, The Times estimated that a recent IMF loan was about enough to finance the Chechen operation.
One could ask also what the situation would have been had we deported the Ulster Catholics or the Welsh to, for example, Canada or Australia in 1944. That is not merely to the country next-door. Does anyone imagine that those people would thank us for that? On their return, could they be expected to nurse feelings of loyalty and affection for the British Crown? I put it to your Lordships that it is far more likely that they would wait with longing for the time to come when the United Kingdom collapsed and they could cut their ties with a state and nation which had treated them so atrociously.
In any event, that is more or less what did happen in Chechnya when the Soviet Union collapsed. They established the Chechen Republic, with its own flag, government and parliament, It is interesting to note that the fairly large Russian population of the area did not seriously oppose that. Relations between Russians and Chechens were quite good before the invasion, although it is true that many Russians left because they feared for the future, and not without reason.
The question arose as to whether the government in Moscow would accept the new state. We all know that it did not. Instead it insisted that Chechnya was an integral part of the Russian Federation. It all sounds quite sensible until one remembers the history of the region and, indeed, the history of the whole vast area of Europe and Asia which had fallen under Russian and then Soviet domination.
Time does not permit me to go into the complicated and frequently tortuous negotiations between the Russian Government and the Chechens, led by President Dudayev. It is true to say to their credit that many Russian politicians and much of the Russian media oppose the use of force. Perhaps I may quote Mr. Yeltsin's words in August 1994, less than a year ago. He said:
"An armed intervention in Chechnya is out of the question. We in Russia have uniquely succeeded in avoiding inter-ethnic conflicts because we refuse to use force. Should we violate this principle in Chechnya there will be a general uprising in the Caucasus. There will be so much chaos and bloodshed that no-one will forgive us".
That is a strange source for such a prophesy.
The tragedy is that what happened happened. The Russian Government, acting out of fear of the dissolution of the remains of its empire and for other reasons, ordered an invasion. The brutal results of that order will be familiar to your Lordships and were reported widely both on television and in the responsible newspapers. I have to say to your Lordships and to my noble friend the Minister that the repercussions of that

463
barbaric action by Russia have been to reactivate all the fears of Russia's neighbours and former client states. The Tsars and the Soviets may have departed but the Russian bear has not changed. That is the message that has gone out far and wide. I know that to be the case.
I do not believe that the efforts apparently being made by western governments—although my noble friend Lady Chalker denied this—to brush the affair under the carpet are very wise. From what I have seen, it seems quite possible that the Russian policy is now one of genocide. Successive Russian Governments, from General Yermolov in the early 19th century until Stalin, have seriously considered genocide as a way of solving the Chechen situation. It ought to surprise no one if the present regime—or what passes for a regime—has now decided finally to implement the policy. If there are no Chechens in Chechnya, there will ipso facto be no problem. The West can then be invited to do business as usual.
After all, they may say, why not? The West made a temporary fuss over Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Poland and goodness knows where else. It did not even bother to notice the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s or the deportations of the 1940s. Given a lot of vodka and a few twangs of the balalaika, the West will conveniently forget Chechnya and the show can go on. Large and expensive loans will shore up the military after its painful experience in suppressing a nation of 1 million people who no longer exist anyway. If we react in that way, we shall be doing a profound disservice to the future of all mankind, not just to the Chechens but to the Russians as well.
There are those in Russia—not presently in power—who implore us not conveniently to forget what has just happened and what is still happening. There is an evil genius in the Russian polity which is reasserting itself. It must not be encouraged. The idea that British and Russian troops should be employed side by side in peacekeeping anywhere in the world must, in the light of events that have just taken place, be considered to be obscene.
We have witnessed on our television screens and with our own eyes what the present leadership of the Russian Army considers to be peacekeeping. The bombardment of Grozny and the systematic destruction of towns and villages in Chechnya are supposed to be the restoration of law and order. The Chechen fighters are dismissed as bandits, as, incidentally, were the fighters in the Polish Home Army in the Warsaw uprising. I would say to your Lordships that bandits do not fight like that—day after day, street by street and village by village. Those who are defending their homeland do exactly that. What profit could a bandit possibly derive from such a resistance?
I do not ask Her Majesty's Government to send an army to help the Chechens, but I do ask them to uphold the true tradition of this country by making it plain beyond peradventure to the Russian authorities that the barbaric behaviour that they are indulging in is not acceptable. I would also urge Her Majesty's Government to consider very carefully their support for the integrity of the Russian Federation. I can see no
464
reason whatever to justify the forcible inclusion of a whole people in a state which is abhorrent to them and which they have consistently resisted for 200 years.
It has recently become fairly obvious that the Russian military is anxious to finish the Chechnya operation before the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of VE Day. Their method of doing that appears not to be to negotiate a permanent cease-fire but to burn and destroy and kill as much as possible. To some extent Her Majesty's Government hold in trust the conscience of the British nation. I believe that they should now consider very carefully what message they are sending to the peoples of Europe and to the peoples of the world by attending the celebrations in Moscow next month.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, very warmly on his able and persuasive account of Chechen history and of the developments since the declaration of independence by President Dudayev on 29th October 1991. At that time, the Russians, after making a half-hearted attempt to arrest the president, withdrew from the territory leaving their weapons and ammunition behind them. As the noble Lord described, for the next three years the Russians tried to bring Dudayev to heel by coercion. They imposed an economic blockade; they armed the opposition to Dudayev and sponsored the terrorism of those people, including attempts to assassinate Dudayev; and they conducted a vigorous campaign to label the Chechens as criminals.
What happened in the three years following the declaration of independence is seen rather differently by Mr. Douglas Hogg, who has said:
"Unlike other leaders of ethnic regions in Russia, including those with a muslim population such as Tartarstan, General Dudaev refused to negotiate on the status of the republic within the Federation. Under his rule, the economy was allowed to collapse, crime dramatically increased and democratic opposition was stifled. Over 100,000 people fled the republic".
That is the view of the Foreign Office. It is an analysis which is economical with the truth. Chechnya did not secede from Russia but from the Soviet Union, which allowed for secession in its constitution. It was neither a party to the original treaty which formed the Russian Federation at the end of March 1992, nor did it subsequently enter into treaty negotiations with the federation as Tartarstan did, probably against the wishes of the majority of its own inhabitants.
Dudayev tried to negotiate without preconditions, but the Russians demanded that Chechnya first accept that it was part of the Russian Federation. It is possible that a compromise could have been reached if the West had not acquiesced in treating the problem as purely an internal one for the Russians. If we had tried instead to promote talks under a neutral chairman, as we did with the discussions between Georgia and Abkhazia, the loss of 24,000 civilian lives and 2,000 Russian servicemen, the permanent disablement of thousands of men, women and children, the creation of over a quarter of a million

465
refugees, and the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of economic potential might have been avoided.
The economy collapsed because of the Russian blockade, the general decline which occurred all over the former Soviet Union after 1991 and—a smaller factor—the stoppage of pensions, which were not paid by the Russians to retirement and other pensioners in Chechnya. But, in 1994, there was some recovery in the Chechen economy, which the Foreign Office chooses to ignore.
Crime statistics are not available for Chechnya, but those who know both capitals say that Grozny is not nearly as dangerous as Moscow. According to Police General Vladimir Kelesnikov, contract killings in Moscow rose from 289 in 1993 to 562 last year. People forget that the Chechen mafia, as it is called, is largely Moscow based and that it supports the opposition, together with people like the defence minister of the puppet opposition, who became a millionaire out of bank frauds.
Dudayev did dissolve the Parliament in April 1993, but that was at least partly because the Russians had armed and supported the opposition who were then seen as quislings. With regard to the exodus from Chechnya, Russians also left the Baltic states and other former colonies of Moscow. So Mr. Hogg tells only a fraction of the story. He concludes that,
"the authorities in Moscow were reluctant to allow this situation to continue unchecked",
as if to say that the Russians had at least the semblance of an excuse for using military force.
Not only is the war in Chechnya continuing, as the noble Lord described, but new atrocities are being perpetrated almost daily. On 7th April, following a night of bombardment by artillery and warplanes, Russian troops, allegedly high on drink and drugs, moved in to massacre 300 people hiding in their cellars in the village of Samashki, using grenades and flamethrowers. That was followed by a massive artillery attack on the neighbouring village of Belmut last Sunday, 16th April. Women and children fleeing the bombardment of Samashki were arrested and sent to detention centres in North Ossertia and Russia, a new development, as up to now only men had been detained.
That follows the promulgation of a new law by President Yeltsin on 3rd April extending the power of the Federal Security Service into internal policing and giving it unspecified,
"broader rights and possibilities to carry out our duties".
So the KGB has been reactivated, with unlimited powers to operate against the citizens of the Russian Federation. Not only may Chechen civilians now be detained arbitrarily for indefinite periods, but critics of the operation like the human rights commissioner Sergei Kovalyev and former chairman of the Duma defence committee Yushenkov may be next on the list.
There can be no justification for the use of military force in Chechnya. Claims to self-determination must not be dealt with by the imposition of solutions at the point of a gun. Such disputes between peoples and states have to be solved within the framework of law. We
466
cannot play down the slaughter of tens of thousands of human beings by saying that it is within the internal competence of the state concerned. Still less can we subscribe to the appalling doctrine which was promulgated by President Shevardnadze in his recent address at Chatham House that,
"all prompt and necessary measures, heedless of the cost and criticism",
should be taken against what he described as the "epidemic of disintegration". He was the only head of state in the whole of the former Soviet Union to have supported Russian military action in Chechnya up to the hilt.
Throughout recorded history, borders have changed, states have come and gone, empires have risen and declined. The only new feature in the 20th century is that imperialism is universally condemned, but, while the empires of the western European states have been dismantled, the Russian empire has only been partially freed.
Within the Russian Federation, Tatarstan was blackmailed into signing a treaty with Russia in February 1994, Chechnya is being ground to pieces by the millstone of Russian military power, and the other republics of the north Caucasus have little choice but to submit for the time being. But in the long term, changes in the configuration of states and their boundaries will continue, and the question is whether this process is to be accompanied by armed violence or achieved through peaceful mechanisms, developed in the context of the United Nations.
In the meanwhile, as the noble Lord said, Russia must be called to account for violations of international agreements to which it is a party. General Pavel Grachev, the Defence Minister, has announced that Russia cannot honour the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, which limits the number of troops and tanks it can station in the Caucasus. Will the Minister say what action the Government are taking over this deliberate and brazen violation of the treaty?
The Budapest Declaration, agreed by the OSCE in December 1994, commits participating states to limit the use of armed force in internal security missions to a level,
"commensurate with the needs for enforcement".
If for three years there had been no need to use any armed force in Chechnya, what justification can there be for the blitzkrieg launched against Grozny in December, and now being extended to other towns and villages?
The Budapest Declaration provides that,
"the armed forces will take due care to avoid injury to civilians or their property".
The total destruction of Grozny, and the indiscriminate use of artillery, mortars and jet bombers against villages, is a deliberate violation of this provision, and of common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions, which applies to internal armed conflicts.
The capability of the OSCE to tackle human rights problems was significantly enhanced at Budapest, according to the Foreign Office Minister, David Davis MP. The Chairman in Office now has the right to put issues on the agenda of OSCE's Permanent Committee,

467
which can then make decisions on the monitoring of alleged violations, though it still has no power to impose material penalties on guilty states. The Minister observes that,
"the effectiveness of … the OSCE generally, will always be governed by the willingness or otherwise of the participating states to live up to their commitments".
No one could argue with that.
In the case of Chechnya, the OSCE sent a mission to the republic on 27th January and it made a flying visit to Grozny. Mr. Hogg said they met,
"representatives of General Dudaev's administration",
but the leader, Ambassador Istvan Gyarmati, told Russian news agencies that he intended to meet only the leaders of the Chechen opposition, but not the Dudayev side because,
"it was hard for technical reasons".
He said that,
"Dudaev cannot lay claim to the role of legitimate leader of the Chechen people, since no free elections have yet taken place in Chechnya".
Mr. Gyarmati said that, despite the shortness of the visit and the limited range of people he met, he had seen everything he wanted to see and had got a full picture of the situation. He did not mention that Sergei Kovalev, the Russian human rights commissioner, was prevented from accompanying the mission, or that he failed to visit Nazran to meet the Ingush President, Ruslan Aushev, who had offered to mediate, and, in a press conference in Moscow on 30th January, he claimed that foreign mercenaries were fighting on Dudayev's side—information he could only have got second hand. He described Russia's attitude as "very positive".
Not surprisingly after that, the OSCE Permanent Council, which of course includes Russia, passed a milk and water resolution at its meeting of 1st February. It expressed deep concern over the disproportionate use of force by the Russian armed forces but failed to demand that indiscriminate bombing and shelling cease immediately. It expressed concern over the atrocities committed by unspecified parties, but made no call for war crimes to be investigated, and those responsible brought to trial, as in Bosnia or Rwanda. If the criminals know they are not going to be tried, the offences are likely to be repeated.
The Permanent Council did call for an immediate cease-fire; for the ICRC, UNHCR and other humanitarian organisations to be given free access to all areas of Chechnya, and for the ICRC to be given access to detainees. None of these things happened. The ICRC was kept out of Samashki before, during and after the massacre of last week. In the second OSCE mission, from 22nd to 26th March, Gyarmati was more critical in Grozny, but reverted to appeasement in Moscow. There he welcomed the "constant improvement" in the dialogue with the Russian authorities, despite the fact that neither the mission itself, nor the European Parliament delegation, was allowed to visit the areas not under Russian control. He insisted that,
"the OSCE and Russia understand each other better and better".
468
These statements were made just after the Russian bombing of refugee camps in the south-east—an action denied by the Russians but which has been confirmed by Sebastian Smith of AFP, who counted 20 bomb craters in the camp of Elistanzhi alone.
The agreement to establish a permanent OSCE mission in Grozny, which was to have been signed on 6th April, has now been deferred. Sergei Stepashin, head of the Federal Security Service, the new KGB, said that,
"peace will be established before the end of April",
in the west of the republic. Perhaps they do not want observers to see that process. Only yesterday there were reports of a fresh assault, this time on the village of Damut, near Samashki. That shows the need for the OSCE mission to be on site now and to have access to all parts of the country.
The conflict in Chechnya now threatens to spread to Ingushetia, where there are at least 130,000 Chechen refugees added to the native population of 350,000 and the 45,000 people who are displaced from North Ossetia. Even worse consequences may follow the lack of any concrete measures to bring home to Moscow the unacceptability of its conduct in Chechnya. The noble Lord mentioned that the IMF has just agreed a massive 6.8 billion dollar loan. He quoted The Times as saying that that was about equal to the cost of the Chechen war so far. The Russians may well be encouraged to believe that any military adventures that they undertake will attract no more than a slap on the wrist. To counter this impression, and to avert a whole series of aggressions being added to those in Tajikistan and Afghanistan as well as in Chechnya itself, the question of Chechnya ought to be raised in the United Nations Security Council. I know that Ministers say that only resolutions which are certain to be passed are ever tabled, and in this case no doubt the Russian veto would be exercised. But does that mean that the United Nations is permanently emasculated and prevented from considering atrocities which are committed by one of the permanent members of the Security Council?
There is one other lever that we have, and the noble Lord referred to it. On 9th May the Prime Minister together with President Clinton and other leaders are due in Moscow for the fiftieth anniversary celebrations of the ending of World War II. Unless the Russians stop all offensive military action in Chechnya forthwith; unless they allow humanitarian agencies to operate throughout the republic and the ICRC to visit places of detention, including those outside Chechnya; and unless they permit the immediate deployment of the OSCE mission, democratic leaders ought not to be part of the Russian celebrations. If the Russians, having been asked very politely by the OSCE Permanent Council on 3rd February to accept their legal obligations, continue to ignore them, it would be wrong for us to join them at their party and pretend that nothing is wrong.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, for raising this Question tonight. It seems a serious omission that your Lordships' House has not since December debated this very unsatisfactory situation. It is sad that it has taken the

469
tragedy of Chechnya to remove many illusions. We can now see that in dealing with Russia we are dealing with a semi-barbarous state and a society that only knew a measure of democracy for a few years before the First World War. Russia has therefore had to start from scratch in trying to establish a new culture of democracy. It has been doing so under almost impossible conditions of economic change, accompanied by the break-up of an empire.
It is clear that in Chechnya there has been a totally disproportionate use of force. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated, well over 24,000 Chechens have been killed and many wounded. I should not be surprised if many of those wounded had subsequently died. Grozny and other towns have been totally destroyed.
Given the history of wartime deportation of Chechens by Stalin, it was surely incumbent on Russia to proceed cautiously, perhaps by mediation, arbitration or third party conflict-resolution process. Instead, the unilateral declaration of independence had been largely ignored since 1991 until excessive force began to be used last December. It continues to this very moment. As I indicated, we are observing the operations of a barbarian state capable of massacring not only its Chechen citizens but also ethnic, native Russians.
What, therefore, should be the western response? I suggest that we should withdraw economic aid from Russia and grant no new loans. We should continue to block the admission of Russia to the Council of Europe. On the other hand, we should encourage to the maximum extent possible dialogue, cultural contacts, visits and exchanges. Normal trade and investment in Russia should continue. The provision by our Government and other governments of know-how and training is more delicate and questionable. I should like to see such offers of technical assistance being made subject to solid guarantees that democracy will be allowed to continue to develop within the Russian Federation.
What should we do with those resources that will be released by ceasing to aid and grant loans to Russia? I suggest that those could be very well employed within the Ukraine, for example, in the making safe of the nuclear power station at Chernobyl and any other dangerous installations. Massive investment is also required in the Ukraine to replace and bring up to date obsolete and military industries. There is considerable scope for agricultural development. If that is not enough we could also well have in mind both Georgia and Armenia where timely assistance is likely to lead to a greater measure of independence for those states.
The Question on the Order Paper raises the issue of self-determination in Chechnya. Your Lordships are no doubt by now familiar with the notion of Matrioshka nationalism: each doll has a smaller one inside it, as one discovers as one unpacks them.
I want to argue that self-determination does not necessarily mean independence or secession. That is well explained in an article by Professor Rosalyn Higgins, of London University, in the bulletin of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe,
470
volume 2, no. 3, of 1994, stating that self-determination is a right of peoples freely to determine their internal and external status in accordance with the United Nations covenants on civil and political rights of 1966 and the Helsinki Final Act. One can think of many such free choices that have already taken place; for example, in Newfoundland, Puerto Rico, Gibraltar, Cyprus, Namibia, the Czech and Slovak republics and, indeed, in Tartarstan. Such choices are often impossible under one party or military rule.
I agree with Professor Higgins that,
"no legal right of secession exists, where there is representative government".
She goes on to say:
"Minorities, as such, do not have the right to independence or secession".
I deduce from that that the Chechens, in common with the Trans-Dneistrians, the Abkhaz and, as has been mentioned, nationalists in Northern Ireland, do not have a right to secede provided that their social, economic, cultural and religious rights are protected and respected. That is a major proviso, and it is one that falls strictly in line with Article 27 of the 1966 convenants. If and when the Chechens achieve autonomy it will be incumbent on them to respect the human rights of the Russian and other minorities on their territory.
Autonomy has been negotiated in Tartarstan, an equally Moslem and equally strategic republic 600 miles to the east of Moscow. I ask Her Majesty's Government to press for a similar solution together with compensation to the Chechens for the wanton damage and destruction they have suffered.
8.25 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, has done this House a service. I have been moved this evening by the interventions of all noble Lords on what is a most distressing situation.
Russian affairs have come before this House recently. Concern was expressed at that time over her application to the Council of Europe. We are now faced with human rights violation in Chechnya of monumental proportions. It is a deplorable state of affairs. We must send a clear signal that a reaction of this nature is not the way civilised peoples of the world behave.
Chechens have paid a heavy price for Russia misunderstanding their commitment to independence. The question before us is clear: does the right of self-determination, to include independence, apply to the people of Chechnya?
Can we realistically encourage Her Majesty's Government to take a tough stance? I fear not. We in the United Kingdom recognise the right of self-determination. Our position on the Falkland Islands is evidence of that. Indeed, self-determination is a legal principle in international law, and discussions and decisions when the principle is in issue should not be impeded.
A UN resolution of 1976 upholds:
"the principle of self-determination of all peoples and nations".

471
but it was left deliberately ambiguous as certain colonial powers were against that ruling. That has meant that the principle of who constitutes a "people" has not yet been determined, or what constitutes the "self of self-determination and what self-determination amounts to: full independence; the freedom to operate politically and economically within the framework of a sovereign nation; or the right to secession. All those ambiguities apply to Chechnya.
It appears that Chechnya does not have international support for independence. The United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union have all declared the conflict to be an internal matter in which they cannot therefore intervene. Since nearly all conflicts engendered by calls for self-determination are internal, that would seem to indicate that the international community is unable to cope with tensions between governments and their peoples. It has been easy for the international community not to intervene. Russia has always maintained that it launched its assault in the name of territorial integrity. It is when a case such as Chechnya arises that a gap in international law, with all the shades of self-determination, is exposed. Clarification is urgently required.
The Chechens were also ill advised. Tartastan, which in 1991 was in exactly the same position as Chechnya, finalised an agreement with Russia giving it associate status with the Russian Federation. That permits them to sign trade agreements with other countries, hold elections and have their own flag and anthem. I am bound to say that a similar agreement could possibly have been negotiated giving the Chechens enough independence to be able to determine their political future but yet satisfying the Russians. Such an agreement might still be a possibility.
In conclusion, while not ruling out independence for Chechnya, given the instabilities within both governments, associate independence is, I believe, the most practical solution. I would urge Russia to address this situation with all haste.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate on an issue of the most profound importance not simply for Russia and Chechnya but for the international community. A telling indictment of what has occurred was made by the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, and by other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
I cannot help feeling—I do not intend to repeat the earlier discussion—that it is a somewhat bitter irony that this massive indictment of actions wholly in breach of human rights should take place on the same day that the Government chose to put before the House a partnership deal with Russia. I drew attention to the inconsistency of that earlier. With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for whom the whole House has a high regard, I feel that many elements of that proposal are inconsistent with the situation which has arisen, and which will arise over the next few weeks, in connection with the meetings which are to take place between President Yeltsin and western leaders.
472
I do not depart for one moment from the charge that I made earlier. I believe that entirely the wrong signals will have been given to the Russian Government by the unnecessary step of pronouncing on the need for Britain to ratify the partnership agreement. There was no urgency. The Government themselves admit that it is impossible to go on to ratify formally so long as the Russian Government persist in their actions in Chechnya. Therefore, one has to wonder why the Government brought the matter forward today. They must have known that this debate was to take place. Perhaps they felt that if they were to withdraw, it would be seen as a sign of weakness on the part of the Government. With great respect, I believe that the contrary is the case. It would have been more telling if the Government had indicated that they were not prepared to go ahead with that business in the light of the debate that would occupy your Lordships' attention tonight.
I question some of the arguments raised earlier by the noble Baroness. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate will not take refuge in the argument that it has all been discussed before. We have not had an opportunity to digest what the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said earlier. What she said was quite extraordinary. She said that to refuse to go ahead with the agreement would have been disproportionate having regard to Chechnya. Disproportionate, my Lords? What has been wholly disproportionate is the way in which Russia has reacted to the situation in Chechnya.
The noble Baroness went on to say that within hours, or perhaps a day or so, flagrant violations of human rights in Shali had been reported. That is disproportionate. Yet how can she complain about that and then in the same breath go ahead with the agreement upon which the Government have chosen to embark?
She stated that now is not the time to slow down our support for Russia; that it would be counter-productive. I understand the argument. Of course no one wants the ordinary people, the mass of Russian people, to suffer for one moment longer than they have already suffered and are suffering at present. But the fact is that the Government will not actually go ahead with the agreement with Russia at the present time. So why is there haste in the light of what has been said in your Lordships' House tonight?
Let me make this absolutely clear. I believe—I assume that most of your Lordships would believe—that in the long term a deal along the lines of that agreement has to be struck to ensure that Russia can go down the democratic route and to sustain those forces genuinely believing in the democratic process so that the many will benefit and not simply the few who currently exploit the chaos in Russia to their singular advantage. But it is a two-way partnership. If President Yeltsin subscribes to the doctrines of democracy and wishes to draw aside from the embraces of those neo-fascist forces which are yapping at his heels, then he has to give some further thought to what is happening. It is imperative that those who wish Russia well make clear that in practical, demonstrable terms Russia must understand that what is happening is unacceptable in a civilised community.

473
The breaches of human rights which have occurred were amply demonstrated by noble Lords who spoke so eloquently tonight. It does not help if I repeat those charges. Perhaps it should be said that the Chechens themselves cannot emerge from the situation totally with credit. There are reports of manifest breaches of human rights on their side too. It is a war situation; and war begets terrible excesses. It may well be, too, that the Russians have been drawn into the conflict for a variety of misguided reasons. Perhaps there has been collusion on the part of some in Moscow who do not intend well so far as concerns President Yeltsin and who have encouraged the demands mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, which he felt might have been handled somewhat better by the Government of Chechnya. However, that does not alter the fact that what has happened is a blight on humanity.
Not only do we have a situation where the population was decimated. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, put it, perhaps thousands more may have subsequently died. We do not know. There has also been vast destruction of property. Grozny has been virtually destroyed. All that will cost a great deal of money to restore—money which the Russians simply do not have.
There is a continuing problem because people are trying to survive in appalling circumstances. They are without running water, electricity and the proper means of sewage disposal which is likely to endanger life. We do not know the entire cost—whether 40,000, 60,000 or 100,000 civilians have been killed. Large numbers of young Russians have been sacrificed in the conflict.
Words of condemnation come readily to the lips of Ministers, but I believe that they are not enough. Ministers genuinely feel anxious about the situation, and of course they have great anxiety. They are not bad people. They would not wish the situation to persist. However, even though I do not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I believe that more is required from the Government than words of condemnation. To withdraw economic aid from Russia is not likely to be the right course, for the reasons that I explained. However, blocking Russian membership of the Council of Europe at this stage is a desirable course which ought to be taken, It is right to continue normal trade, but it is not right to start fresh agreements. The Government have conceded the point, so why bother at this stage?
I turn to the situation of the Chechen Government. In these circumstances it is difficult to know who is speaking the truth and whether it is being uttered by anyone. Mr. Dudayev says that he wants a real cease-fire, with no preconditions, monitored by international observers. He wants the creation of safe havens in non-occupied territories where people can receive medical treatment and food directly from international humanitarian groups. Mr. Dudayev says that he wants direct negotiations at any mutually agreed level between the legitimately elected Chechen Government and representatives of Russia under the auspices of international mediators. He says that he wants parliamentary and presidential elections this year under international supervision. He ought to be put to the test. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, it is not enough simply to rely on arguments about the internal
474
affairs of a country disqualifying anyone else from some form of intervention. We do not argue for military intervention there but for some form of intervention along the lines I mentioned earlier and stated at least in part by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
If the situation is allowed to persist, the repercussions will be enormous for Russia itself. Day by day the probability of a classic guerrilla war emerges, continuing for a long time. There might be a declaration of a Moslem jihad. It is abundantly plain that extraordinary incompetence has been displayed by Moscow, coupled with the sheer brutality that has also emerged, perhaps because of that incompetence and because certain elements of the Russian army are outside the control of Yeltsin. Who knows?
I do not trust the words of President Yeltsin, as I would hope in such circumstances. He has promised over and over again that there should be a peaceful end to the conflict, Yet virtually within days the evidence has been forthcoming of exactly the opposite. There are certainly problems for President Yeltsin in the current domestic situation. He fears that he will not be re-elected. I fear that those doubts may be compounded by what is happening in this unfortunate and disastrous situation. It is an explosive mix. It has resonance with the situation which occurred in Afghanistan and which led to so much unhappiness, doubt and anxiety in Russia.
Dialogue is critical. Surely, we can do more than we have been doing to promote that dialogue. It must be genuine; it must not assume that the Chechen people can be likened to brigands and then expect progress to be made. Neither the Russians nor the Chechens are free of Mafia influence and those mafioso-like gangs which betray Russian society so manifestly today. Human rights campaigners in Russia like Sergei Kovalyev are astonished that the West has been relatively compliant with the Russians. Yet Russian extraction from the position is vital in her own interests. Russia will be humiliated in international circles if the brutality continues. It can do the Russian people no good. There is no future in enabling the neo-fascist potential dictators of Russia to be pacified. Their appetites are insatiable. The cost is likely to be unbearable. There must be an end to it and surely we can do more than we have been doing hitherto to try to gain that objective.
Finally, once again I thank the noble Lord who initiated the debate. It was worth having.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton for the opportunity to debate this topic and to all other noble Lords who have contributed. Chechnya is sadly back in the news again. The overall destruction may have been at a reduced level since the levelling of Grozny, but the military operation continues and with it the suffering inflicted on a civilian population who desperately want a return to peace and normality. Worryingly, there have been further recent reports of atrocities. It is casting a shadow over Russia's relations with the international community. For that to change, a solution has to be found, and found soon. The Russian Government must know that, but nevertheless

475
fighting and human rights violations continue. The international community stands ready to help resolve the conflict.
There are some positive signs. The Russian Government's recent decision to support the establishment of a permanent OSCE mission in Chechnya is an important step forward. It offers a real opportunity for progress which must be fully exploited, but there is still more to be done. Her Majesty's Government have consistently—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, can he say what happened about the postponement of the agreement to station the OSCE mission in Grozny? It was supposed to have been signed on 6th April but was postponed sine die. Can the Minister also say whether the OSCE mission will be permitted to leave Grozny to investigate what is happening in the villages?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my understanding is that there are certain administrative matters within the OSCE which need to be finally resolved before the mission can go to Chechnya. However, it would probably be helpful if I were to write to the noble Lord giving him the fullest details that I can.
Her Majesty's Government have consistently, both in public statements and in private meetings with Russian leaders, made known their concern about events in the region. Our message, as was explained earlier today by my noble friend Lady Chalker, remains clear. First, the fighting must end as quickly as possible. The Russian troops have taken control of most of the Chechen strongholds, but the air raids continue and the ground fighting still appears some way from being finished. We realise, however, that an end to the fighting does not lie solely in the gift of the Russians. The Chechen separatists have to share the responsibility for its prolongation.
Secondly, aid must be allowed through to those in need. The situation in this respect is now much improved. After constant lobbying, especially by the European Union, the Russian authorities are allowing the international agencies to carry out their work. Thirdly, any solution which is to last must provide an effective way of enabling the Chechen people to express their identity within the Russian Federation.
One of the most worrying aspects, which I have already mentioned, is the fact that there have been various reports of atrocities being committed by both sides, although not all those reports have been substantiated. We have made known our concern about human rights abuses. They must stop. The presence of a permanent OSCE mission will enable us more closely to monitor the situation. We are particularly concerned about the reports which were first raised in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, concerning the massacre of civilians in the village of Samashki just over a week ago. A number of sources have alleged that Russian forces were responsible, although the full facts remain unclear. What is clear though is that this is a further flagrant example of the violation of basic human rights which we have frequently condemned throughout this conflict.
476
On 15th April the European Union issued a statement condemning the continuing human rights violations in Chechnya, calling on the Russians to cease all acts of violence against the civilian population. We associate ourselves fully with that statement and further call on the Russian authorities to investigate rigorously the events in Samashki and to bring the perpetrators to justice.
The question of self-determination for the Chechens was raised both by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. In international law the right of self-determination is recognised and specifically in international covenants on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights, both of which the United Kingdom has ratified. However, the exercise of the right must also take into account questions such as what constitutes a separate people and respect for the principle and territorial integrity of the unitary state. In the case of Chechnya no country has recognised President Dudayev's unilateral declaration of independence, but we have repeatedly called on the Russians to work for a political solution which would allow the Chechen people to express their identity within the framework of the Russian Federation. It is worth remembering in this context that the Russian Federation comprises 89 separate units and that the relationship of their component parts with the centre varies from one unit to another; so there is an inherent flexibility in the constitution which ought to assist in this matter.
We believe, with the other member states of the European Union, that the role of the OSCE, which has been at the forefront of international efforts to reach a solution in Chechnya, is one that should be supported. It is the case that the involvement of the OSCE has been accepted by the Russians. On 11th April agreement was reached on the mandate for a permanent mission to be established in Chechnya. The mission's objective will be to contribute to efforts to secure a cease-fire and a political settlement. We want to see this operation up and running as soon as possible and we hope that it might be in place by the end of this month.
We support the process of political and economic reform in Russia and of dialogue with Russia on the basis of commonly respected principles and standards. These processes are represented by many of the Russians who have been most critical of the events in Chechnya. Both President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin have renewed their broad commitment to reform. We hope that this will be reflected in specific policies. We will continue to watch developments closely and to exchange views with our partners. To isolate Russia now as a result of the Chechen situation would damage the cause of reform and risk giving comfort to those extremist forces in Russia who wish to cut their country off from the West, many of whom are the most vocal advocates of repression in Chechnya.
All our European Union partners share the view that the fighting in Chechnya needs to be brought to an end and negotiations started on a political settlement. The European Union has given its full support to the OSCE's efforts to help find a lasting solution, and its position has been made clear in statements issued by the Foreign Affairs Council and through a number of démarches in Moscow.

477
Reference was made earlier in the debate, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to the interim European-Russia trade agreement, which incidentally does contain important provisions on respect for human rights. European Union Foreign Ministers have agreed that it would be inappropriate to sign this agreement until the Chechen situation improves. The Ministers have established four criteria against which we would judge whether to sign it. They are: a permanent OSCE presence; progress towards ending the fighting; discussions leading towards a political settlement; and access for humanitarian aid.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why the haste? Why could not these matters have been delayed in order to see how the situation in Chechnya might have developed in view of the blandishments which have been offered by the Government? We are talking to the Russians and we are doing this, that and the other, seemingly with little effect.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the important point here is that the final decision on whether to proceed with the agreement itself, which is, after all, the nuts and bolts of what is under discussion, has not yet been taken. We are waiting to see what occurs. We have shown our position and our preparedness to go forward in appropriate circumstances.
Reference was made earlier in the debate by my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton and by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to the International Monetary Fund's support for Russia. It is true that on 11th April the IMF board agreed a stand-by arrangement worth 6.8 million US dollars. It is designed to help the Russian Government stabilise the economy. In turn, we believe that that will help to provide political stability, and that will be to the advantage of all the Russian people. It will be disbursed over several phases during the course of the year and the IMF will continue to monitor the economic situation closely to ensure that its conditions are met. We do not believe that economic anarchy will offer any help to those whose human rights are being abused.
Reference was also made by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton, and Lord Clinton-Davis, to the possible membership of Russia of the Council of Europe. Following a debate in February, at which a Russian delegation had the opportunity to state its case, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly decided to suspend consideration of Russia's application for membership. The Russians appear to have accepted this. We welcome the fact that dialogue between the Council of Europe and Russia is continuing and we hope that in due course Russia will be able to satisfy the Council of Europe that it meets the conditions for accession. Once that has been achieved, we then would look forward to welcoming Russia as a member.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made reference to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, which was signed in 1990 by NATO and the then Warsaw Pact member states. It establishes numerical limits for different types of military equipment in different regions
478
of Europe to be achieved by November this year. The Russians have been arguing for some time that the limits originally agreed for her southern flank zone, now encompassing her troubled southern border area as well as Chechnya, are insufficient for her security needs. We and our allies have been discussing this problem since well before the Chechnya crisis erupted last December. We have argued that there is sufficient flexibility in the treaty to address Russia's security concerns and that we would be seriously concerned if Russia were to end up in breach of the treaty in November. We have also said that we are ready to look again at the matter when the treaty falls to be reviewed in 1996. NATO has also proposed that a working group be set up in Vienna to address a range of issues connected with the implementation of the treaty. We shall continue to press the Russians to agree pragmatic solutions which will avoid the risk of undermining or breaking the treaty's provisions.
The Russians fully supported the adoption of the OSCE code of conduct which sets out norms for proper conduct of military forces within a democratic society. We have urged them to act in accordance with the code, particularly Article 36, which links deployment of armed forces on internal security missions to constitutional procedures and asserts the minimum use of force. We and other members of the OSCE have urged the Russians to comply with their commitments. Obviously it is not possible for governments to pick and choose between them. Equally, the Vienna document of 1994 commits members of the OSCE to provide notification of movements of concentrations of military forces involving more than 9,000 troops. Russian deployments in Chechnya exceed those limits. We have reminded the Russians of their obligations and urged them to comply.
In concluding, I must again condemn unequivocally the killings and human rights abuses which continue to take place in Chechnya. But while the Chechnya conflict reveals how far Russia still has to go before it finally shakes off its past, it also shows just how far it has come. Many predicted an authoritarian clampdown in the wake of events in Chechnya. We have not seen that occur. Instead, there has been genuine critical and unfettered debate. The media, far from being muzzled, has been able to bring home in an unprecedented way the true horrors of what has been going on.
A further sign of the changes in Russia is the government's acceptance of an international monitoring mission's presence on their territory. That offers us a real chance of achieving our objectives of a peaceful and lasting settlement. We and the international community at large will put our full weight behind the OSCE mission, and we offer our gratitude to the Hungarians who hold the chairmanship of the OSCE. We must now ensure that the mission receives the support which will enable it to play a full part in helping to bring these tragic events to a conclusion and to re-establish peace, democracy and respect for human rights.
House adjourned at one minute past nine o'clock.