Lords Sitting of 3 April 1996

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

Small Businesses: Late Payments
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to protect small businesses from late payment and bureaucracy; and, if so, which department will be responsible for its introduction.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Government fully recognise the problems that late payment of invoices and bureaucracy can have on small businesses and have an ongoing commitment to work with business to address these issues. The Prime Minister announced on 11th March this year a package of new measures to tackle late payment and deregulation which will be taken forward by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Cabinet Office respectively.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and welcome Mr. Major's statement of some weeks ago. However, the Minister must be aware that substantial numbers of small companies are still going bankrupt because of late payments. Therefore, will the Government urgently consider introducing legislation to make the practice of withholding payment illegal? If it is not made illegal, there will still be victims of the predators in big business who indulge in this practice far too frequently.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord appreciates, in 1993–94 we consulted on measures to tackle late payment, including the possibility of legislation. At that time very divided views were put forward on whether that was desirable. However, my honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for small businesses indicated in January this year that he is prepared to consult business again on the need for legislation and in the light of the responses would hope to announce the outcome of that shortly. Every recent indication has been that most of the organisations representing small businesses, with one clear exception, seem to have shifted their position and are no longer in favour of legislation.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that in 1980, 1991 and 1994 I asked similar Questions to that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick? The Answer I received in 1994 was that ministries were instructed to pay their bills within 30 days. Is that still the case, or has the position improved since then?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there are certainly clear guidelines to government departments on paying bills on time. Some perform better than others; but there is generally a clear indication of the payment that should be made. We should look not only at payments made by public bodies but, as the Prime Minister indicated, there will now be some consultation on whether public companies should be under a requirement to publish their payment performance. That might be of significant value to small businesses.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that serious consideration should be given to the imposition of mandatory interest for late payers? There should be mandatory interest on late payment by public offices and local authorities because if a taxpayer is late in paying income tax he is charged interest, whether he likes it or not.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend will recall, in his statement of 11th March the Prime Minister indicated that there would be more rigorous measurement and reporting of government payment performance and there would be discussions with the Audit Commission to ensure that local authorities follow the lead of government. With regard to his point on legislation, I can only repeat that further consultation is under way, but there appears to have been something of a shift in attitude among those who represent small businesses as to the desirability of such a step.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord inform the House whether the Government have had consultations with the Deputy Prime Minister, the right honourable gentleman the Member for Henley, who demonstrated in writing some time back the skills of his companies which enabled them to avoid prompt payment? Has the right honourable gentleman had a change of heart; will he be advising the Government; or what?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister set out his views fully in an article in the Mail on Sunday of 11th February which drew on his experience as a small businessman. What he indicated clearly is that where small businesses have troubles, it is not surprising that they look to their own cash flow problems before they look to those of their creditors.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that if statutory interest for late payment is imposed, it must go hand in hand with a fast and cheap summary legal procedure for creditors to collect late payments without having to use a lawyer? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that that would make things much easier and improve the position a great deal?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the key question is to determine whether there should be such legislation. My understanding is, as I say, that more recently those who represent small businesses have been shifting their position, appreciating that if such legislation were to be introduced, small businesses might be reluctant

269
to use it for fear of jeopardising future business. It is not so much a matter of whether lawyers' fees are too great, but reluctance to use legislation because small businesses want to keep existing customers happy.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that in using the word "slowly" regarding the Government's procedures on this matter, my noble and learned friend is using the slogan of all late payers all the time; namely, always slowly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not sure that I used the word "slowly". I have indicated that the Prime Minister wishes to ensure that where the Government make payment their performance should be more rigorously measured and monitored.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend the Minister look kindly on the owners of abattoirs and other beef-related businesses who, having spent a vast amount of money in trying to comply with EC regulations, now have very little income at all to pay off bank loans and pay other organisations requiring money from them?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am only too well aware of the difficulties confronting abattoirs and other businesses connected with the beef industry at the present time. I am bound to say that my noble friend's question goes a little beyond the issue of late payment to small businesses. But I am sure that my noble friend is well aware that the Minister for Agriculture has been in Europe for the past few days and been as vigorous as he can in promoting the cause of those businesses.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take it that the Minister is not saying that legislation is in the post? Clearly, the Minister is right in that if we take the legislation further, businesses will be a little worried for fear of losing customers. Does he agree at least that if a culture of non-payment begins to dominate British industry, to say the least it will add to inefficiency? In essence, a great deal of trust is involved here. That trust is deficient if we end up with people not paying; it makes businesses that much harder to run, which may benefit lawyers and banks, but it certainly will not benefit the real economy. Will the Minister confirm that that is the real problem that we have to solve one way or another?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if there is a culture of non-payment developing, and if to any extent public bodies are responsible for it, I very much hope that the approach that the Prime Minister has urged is welcomed by one and all—that is to say, if government payment performance is slipping or is not as good as it should be, it should be carefully measured and reported on. Similarly, local authorities should have their performance on payments monitored. It might be equally desirable, as I indicated, to ensure that public companies are under an obligation to publish their payment performance. I would have
270
thought that that package of measures will go a considerable way to destroying the type of culture which the noble Lord is anxious should not emerge.

Aircraft Bulkhead Width Proposal
11.15 a.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name in the Order Paper and to declare an interest. I am president of the Air Safety Group.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made following the recommendation of the Civil Aviation Authority to extend the bulkhead width in a passenger carrying aircraft from 22 inches to 30 inches.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, following the accident at Manchester Airport in 1985, the Civil Aviation Authority commissioned a study into the effect of cabin configuration on aircraft evacuations. This study concluded, among other things, that the optimum width for passageways between floor to ceiling rigid structures, such as galleys, was 30 inches. The Joint Aviation Authorities have developed proposals based on this study and will be consulting on the proposals in the near future.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that most encouraging Answer. As regards the proposals and recommendations, has he any news as to when they can possibly become fact?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I said, we hope that the consultation will commence very shortly. I understand that it may be as soon as next month. We hope that it will be taken forward as quickly as possible. There will then be a process to be gone through, depending on the results that come forward, for formal proposals to be developed. It is possible that the rule-making process can begin perhaps in late 1997.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, can my noble friend give me some advice as to the measurements and what dimensions in the aircraft are referred to? I have to declare an interest as a frequent traveller between Edinburgh and London. I find that small is beautiful in climbing in and out of the seats. What exactly is the purpose of the extra eight inches? Will it give me more headroom or legroom?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not believe that it will affect my noble friend's physique in any way whatever. Where there are two rigid structures, such as a lavatory on one side and a galley on the other, or two galleys, or whatever, and there is a gap and a barrier which goes right from the floor to the ceiling the present minimum width is 22 inches. The study undertaken at Cranfield shows that the optimum width for that gap in

271
order to evacuate people quickly from the aircraft is 30 inches. Any more than that and other problems of crowding arise.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that this improvement is the result of the exercise by the Civil Aviation Authority of its very great experience in aviation matters?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, I can, my Lords. It stems from a recommendation from the Air Accident Investigation Branch which was taken up by the Civil Aviation Authority. It commissioned the Cranfield study, which was a long and serious study. The results have gained very considerable acceptance. The CAA has largely been the driving force behind this change.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not a very long time since the Manchester air accident from which these recommendations flow? I understand from the Minister that there is to be further very considerable delay. In view of what is an unsatisfactory situation—and I am in no way denigrating the Civil Aviation Authority, which is a very reliable organization—what other recommendations by that body flowing from the accident remain unimplemented?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, on the question of time, it is important that these things are done as quickly as possible. I understand that the Cranfield study into physical aspects did not report until 1989; so that was part of the delay. Since then the proposals have been referred to the JAA which we believe is the proper authority if we are to get as wide as possible harmonisation and acceptance of the proposals in order to make them worth while and workable. All that has taken time. We want the matter to be pursued as quickly as possible, and we are pushing hard through the Civil Aviation Authority.
Other recommendations were brought forward for consideration on, for example, cabin water-spray systems for aircraft, as recommended by the AIB. The CAA considered that recommendation but rejected it. The reasoning behind that is lengthy and could perhaps form the subject of another Question. A similar story prevails in relation to smokehoods, but floor lighting has been adopted.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, given the fact that the aircraft industry is, above all, international, are there automatic provisions to ensure that new requirements apply to all airlines and all aircraft manufacturers, or do they apply only to British ones?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is an important point. It is why the proposals have been taken forward through the Joint Aviation Authorities. That will mean that all members of the JAA adopt a harmonised standard. The other very big block, affecting a large part of the industry, is the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States. It is looking carefully at what the JAA are doing and there is good liaison between those two bodies.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, following the question from my neighbour, the noble Lord,
272
Lord Lyell, are there any regulations about the distance there between seats? I have been in aircraft where I found it impossible to get into the seat—and I would certainly have found it very difficult to get out. Can aircraft manufacturers pack as many people as will tolerate it into an aircraft or is there a limit?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the reasons for the noble Lord's difficulties could be numerous. But there are minimum regulations for airlines. Depending on which class of passenger they carry, they might make different commercial decisions. However, minimum standards are laid down and must be strictly adhered to.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind the international responsibilities of the Civil Aviation Authority, is it not strange that it has not converted to the metric system but continues to prefer inches?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I dare say that converting 22 inches and 30 inches into metric measures would be straightforward. Indeed, the conversion is probably concealed somewhere in my brief. However, for the purposes of presentation to your Lordships' House, I think that perhaps inches are preferable.

Northern Ireland Police Authority
11.22 a.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the circumstances and what are the implications of the dismissal of the chairman of the Northern Ireland Police Authority, Mr. David Cook, and one of the members, Mr. Chris Ryder, by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has a statutory duty to appoint and maintain a police authority. Following votes of no confidence in Mr. Cook and in Mr. Ryder, and after consideration of the issues involved, the Secretary of State concluded that the authority could not function effectively with Mr. Cook and Mr. Ryder as members. The issues at stake were not substantive policy questions but involved the way in which business was conducted. The deputy chairman, Mr. Pat Armstrong CBE, has been appointed chairman. Members are now continuing their important function of securing an adequate and efficient police force.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Clearly, this is now water under the bridge. But I wonder whether I may ask her in these unhappy circumstances and at this sensitive time in Northern Ireland, first, whether this might not be an opportunity for the Northern Ireland Office and the Government to express their appreciation of two people who have given considerable public service in Northern Ireland over the years and, even more importantly, whether the Minister can reassure the House that the process whereby the authority has been

273
driving towards greater accountability for the police in Northern Ireland, which is surely crucial—it proved to be crucial in South Africa in cementing the idea that the police force there was the force for the whole community—should in no way suffer in the change of personnel at the top of the Police Authority.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is precisely because we did not want that important work to be impeded in any way that the Secretary of State took the action that he did. We have just had the most comprehensive review of public opinion on policing in Northern Ireland which has ever been undertaken. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that 600,000 homes received mailshots and that there were public opinion surveys and a series of meetings. All of that work continues, including a review of the structure of the Police Authority and the police force.
At the forefront of the Secretary of State's mind has to be the proper functioning and credibility of the authority. That is why he took the action that he did. The votes of no confidence were overwhelming and they were followed by interviews with each member of the authority. It became clear that there was so little confidence in those two gentlemen, Mr. Cook and Mr. Ryder, that it was in the best interests of the authority that they should be removed.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in my view the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had no option but to act as he did given what happened on the Police Authority? However, will she indicate to him that I hope that the services of those two men will not be lost? Chris Ryder knows Northern Ireland inside out. He used to work for a British newspaper and it was worth buying that weekend paper because he knew what he was talking about. That is true also of David Cook. Their views on these matters are well worth listening to, even if they did not act wisely on the Police Authority.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a distinction should be made between the proper functioning and authority of the Police Authority and the particular service of those two gentlemen. It would be improper of me to secondguess how the Secretary of State dealt with the matter when he visited those two gentlemen. He gave them both the opportunity to present their cases to him, and I have no doubt that he would have done that with the utmost courtesy, recognising the positive contributions that they have made. However, for the proper authority of the Police Authority it was important that he took the action that he did.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, is there any difference in terms of policy between Mr. Cook and Mr. Ryder on the one hand and their remaining colleagues on the authority on the other, or was it simply the case that personal relations had so broken down that the efficient functioning of the authority could not be guaranteed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it was mainly a question of style and of the way in which those gentlemen
274
operated as a member and chairman of the authority. That came across clearly in the interviews with members of the authority.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does not my noble friend the Minister agree that the issue has been that those two men, valuable though everyone recognises them to be, chose to discuss a leaked document and thus to pre-empt the discussions and consensus view of an authority of 20 people, which by any standards is not very sensible, and that as a result they have perhaps put a rather good consultation process in jeopardy? I am sure that that is the last thing that they would have wanted to do, but it has been the effect.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point which was indeed material. The way in which some information of the authority was represented not as the collective view of the authority but as individual views, and the fact that information was often injudiciously placed in the public domain, were two of the reasons behind all this. I refer to the conduct of the chairman and the member.

Road Signs: Sponsorship
11.28 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have for the sponsorship of road signs by firms who would contribute to the costs of installing them.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government are looking at the possibility of encouraging the private sector to contribute to allow earlier upgrading or replacement of direction signs or provision of other information signs such as variable message signs. However, the display of messages acknowledging business sponsorship on traffic signs is not permitted under current legislation. Even a trial scheme would involve amending the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It is too early to invite comment on specific detailed proposals.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. If a scheme is adopted, will the logos or advertised names have to be approved to ensure that they will not dangerously distract drivers? Will firms be able to chose their areas? The Middlesbrough area, for example, might be appropriate for the chemical industry, and Northampton for the shoe manufacturers. On the other hand, there could be pitfalls. Yorkshire Water would probably not want to be identified with signs pointing

275
to a nearby town called Leek; nor would the makers of Easter eggs want to be identified with signs to Nuneaton.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I extend my seasonal greetings to the House. There would be strict controls on any such scheme. Any logos on signs would need to be discreet, carefully positioned and such that they would not distract drivers. We recognise that people might have concerns about any such proposals and careful controls will therefore be applied.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in addition to the interesting points just made, is the department prepared to consider the correct location of road signs so that they are helpful to motorists and pedestrians? Road signs can be very helpful if they are properly located.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point. The location, visibility and clarity of signs are of primary importance in these road safety issues.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that many roads signs—I refer to the brown and white tourist signs—are already sponsored? All of them have to be paid for by the tourist attractions on instructions from the local road authorities.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. I understand that brown and white tourist signs are paid for by the attractions to which they relate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in our view this idea should not be lightly tossed aside but thrown away with great force, as Dorothy Parker once said? Where do we go next? Will Ministers be sponsored? Perhaps we may start with Eurostar sponsoring Mr. Portillo or McDonald's sponsoring Mr. John Selwyn Gummer.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me far. I can think of all kinds of companies that may wish to be associated with the success of the Government. Of course, we would not wish to have any conflicts of interest whatsoever. Serious points have been made with regard to these proposals. We do not wish to do anything to undermine road safety.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that some months ago a statutory instrument was passed by the House which was one inch thick and contained coloured photographs and descriptions of how each road sign had to be measured from various distances and roundabouts? Every road sign throughout the country is already specified in terms of size and position.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we believe that in this country we have very good and clear signing. The
276
reason for it is that the dimensions, details, locations and types of sign are closely controlled in the rules laid down.

Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill
Brought from the Commons earlier this day, printed pursuant to Standing Order 48 and read a first time.

Business of the House
11.33 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The purpose of the Motion is to enable the House to take all stages of the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill today. As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill provides additional powers to the police for the prevention of terrorism. I am happy to say that the purpose of the Bill received considerable support in another place yesterday. There was a considerable measure of agreement that these powers should be granted as swiftly as possible. That being the case, I hope that your Lordships will be content to agree to this Motion without prolonged debate, reserving comment on the substance of the Bill for the proceedings on the Bill itself.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate now that, at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate, it will be proposed that the House do adjourn during pleasure for 20 minutes to give noble Lords an opportunity to ensure that they have copies of the amendments which have been tabled and to ensure that the Committee stage can be begun in an orderly manner. I beg to move.
Moved, That, the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill having been brought from the Commons, Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Bill to he taken through all its stages this day before the Motions standing in the names of the Earl of Shrewsbury and the Lord St John of Bletso.— (Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister and the House will be aware that my friends in another place agreed to a comparable Motion there yesterday. I wish to make it clear from the outset that we, too, are not opposing the Business Motion before the House. I shall not seek to trespass in any way on the Second Reading debate and address the virtues or otherwise of the Bill itself, but I have to say, although we have agreed, and we shall not be opposing the Business Motion, that this is not a happy day for the House.

277
It can only be under the most exceptional circumstances that we agree to the curtailment of parliamentary debate in this way. Fortunately we are in no position to agree to the extent of curtailment of parliamentary debate that took place in another place yesterday, because there is no possibility—thank God!—of a Guillotine Motion in this House as there was in another place yesterday.
In the event, because of the Guillotine Motion, even the consideration of Clause 1 was not completed in Committee, and the other clauses—it is a substantial Bill of 12 pages—were concluded without debate being possible. That is not possible today. In fact your Lordships will recognise that the, perhaps feeble, attempts I have made to understand the full import of the issues in the Bill, and the feeble result in terms of amendments that I have been able to put down, are nothing like the consideration which the Bill deserves from your Lordships' House, and not merely from the Opposition Front Bench.
There should be much more considered debate of the issues, and that has just not been possible, not only because of the Motion which is before the House, but because of the very short time that has been available since the matter was first raised with my honourable friend Mr. Jack Straw last Thursday, and the public announcement of the Bill by the Home Secretary in another place on Monday. There has just not been time for the degree of consultation with outside interests, and the degree of scrutiny of the Bill by Members of the Opposition, for us to undertake the kind of scrutiny which we believe the Bill and all legislation deserves.
I regret, in particular, that the timetable Motion in another place, which was carried yesterday, included a guillotine on consideration of any amendments from the House of Lords. That may be an academic issue in the sense that it may be that your Lordships will not seek to make any amendments to the Bill, but, nevertheless, the precedent of having your Lordships' amendments subject to a Guillotine Motion in another place is one which, in particular, we would seek to resist and restrict to the most dire emergency.
I noticed, when looking back at the history of such Motions, that when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was obliged to introduce the original Prevention of Terrorism Bill in 1974, it was done by a Business Motion which provided for multiple stages to be carried through on one day, but there was no Guillotine Motion. I commend the example which the noble Lord set to another place at that time. I regret the Guillotine Motion, and the Business Motion which we have before the House today.
In the light of the crisis which has been identified and the security briefings which have been given to my honourable friends in another place, there is no alternative but for this Business Motion to be carried. However, it should not be taken as a precedent, and it should not be repeated except in the most extreme circumstances.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, perhaps I may first remind your Lordships that we on these
278
Benches have supported and will continue to support every reasonable measure to combat terrorism. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was responsible as Home Secretary for the original legislation when it passed through the other place in 1974. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, as some noble Lords will remember, piloted the Bill through your Lordships' House on 28th November that year. Only a fortnight ago, on 19th March, I spoke in support of the renewal order. So our record is plain, and we shall not oppose the Second Reading today.
We recognise also the need, if the circumstances are exceptional, to take a Bill through the House on one day. Of course, 1974 is a good example. Those of us with experience of government are fully aware of the circumstances, rare though they may be, when that may be necessary. Nevertheless, there are disturbing aspects of how the matter has been handled. I believe it right to set them before your Lordships this morning in debating this important Motion.
I expressed my anxieties on behalf of these Benches when faced with the surprise of the Statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on Monday evening. I said then that we were disturbed about the Government bringing forward this legislation on the eve of the Recess. Nothing that has happened since, neither anything said in this Chamber nor anything said to another place yesterday, has made me change my mind.
If the Government want all-party support in both Houses, they should go to some trouble to get it and not assume that it is there whatever they may do. At the very least, there are a number of courtesies which should be involved. I absolve the noble Earl, who was in no way responsible; I hope that I can absolve the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde; but nevertheless these questions need to be addressed.
The first I heard about this legislation was indirectly at 4 p.m. on Monday afternoon. I was then led to believe that the Business Statement would come the following day. There may have been a misunderstanding about that, and I shall not pursue the matter further. Although consultation—this is the important point—took place between the Home Secretary and opposition parties in another place last week, at no time have I or any of my noble friends received any communication from the Home Secretary or from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on his behalf. I have received no indication and there has been no suggestion at any time that I or any of my noble friends should receive a briefing from the police. I should like to ask the noble Earl when replying to tell us why it was thought appropriate, given the responsibilities of the House, to offer briefings to Members of another place but to offer no briefings, at least to Members on these Benches. There are four or five Privy Counsellors, including myself, on these Benches, if it had been thought to be a Privy Council issue.
I do not believe there is any need to say much about why we should be anxious. This is a Bill, so the Home Secretary told another place yesterday, which is sensible and practical, and so it may be. He said that the Bill was

279
subject to clear and careful safeguards. No doubt we will examine that today. But the Bill involves giving the police new powers or putting existing powers on a statutory basis. It is inevitably an intrusion into privacy and a reduction in the freedom of the individual. Whether or not it is a necessity, it cannot be welcomed in this or any other House. It may be a necessity, but we recognise that we are once again balancing personal freedom against the need to deal with those who would seek to destroy it.
The resurgence of terrorism occurred with the Canary Wharf bombing eight weeks ago. I understand that discussions between Home Office officials and the police have taken place since then. Indeed, there is nothing in the Bill with which your Lordships will not already be familiar as matters which have been put forward by the police from time to time as those which statute should embody. So, why now, this day, eight weeks after the Canary Wharf bombing; why now on the eve of a Recess has the Bill been brought before us? There is insufficient time to scrutinise something which strikes at the heart of our civil liberties, however important the Bill may be.
There is another point which I would ask the Government and all Members of your Lordships' House, respectfully, to consider. All in this House believe that this House has a role parallel to that of the other place in Parliament. Indeed we believe that to be our justification. Further to that, we believe that this House can spend more time, more usefully scrutinising legislation put before Parliament than can the other House for many different reasons. If that is the case, and this House is as important as we all recognise it to be, and if the Bill deserves proper scrutiny, why was it that more trouble was not taken to inform noble Lords on both sides, and principally the principal political parties, that the Bill was coming forward?
As I said, I, with other noble Lords, spoke on 19th March on the order renewing the Act. I have re-read the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and there was no hint that this Bill was coming forward. Surely it must have been in the Government's mind at that time, given discussions between the police and the Home Office, that such a Bill might be needed. There is nothing new—no new emergency—and, thank goodness, no new terrorism attack. Why could not the Minister have then said to your Lordships' House that it might be necessary to come forward with a Bill with further powers? We might even in the course of discussing that order have formed a view of what those powers might be.
I hope that your Lordships will recognise that what I have said has been said in a constructive spirit and in defence of the proper role of your Lordships' House. I should like to make two practical suggestions. If the noble Earl cannot give a positive response today, I hope that he will convey the thoughts to his noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and will make a Statement to your Lordships' House at an early date.
As the noble Earl will recall, and certainly the Home Secretary must know, the Bill introduced into another place by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead in
280
November 1974 was reintroduced 18 months later. As noble Lords will find if they scrutinise the Official Report, it was set out clearly in your Lordships' House at that time by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich that he and the Home Secretary recognised that there had been inadequate scrutiny of the Bill. It had been brought forward as an emergency after the Birmingham bombing. Therefore the Bill was reintroduced early in 1976 in order that the scrutiny could take place on a Bill which had been on the statute book for 15 months.
My suggestion is that during that relatively quiet time that your Lordships' House normally experiences after the Queen's Speech and before the Christmas Recess, the Government should bring forward the Bill again in the way that the 1974 Bill was brought forward again so that we can then scrutinise it in full detail and in the light of experience of it during the interval.
The second point I put to the noble Earl is that I do not wish to pursue this matter further today. It would be inappropriate. I do not know how many noble Lords may wish to do so, but clearly something has gone wrong. Without wishing to attribute blame, and without wanting to argue now that any harm can be undone, there is a case for the Procedure Committee to consider how to deal with emergency legislation, when a Statement to the House should be made and what time should be provided for discussion of it. The Procedure Committee may well endorse the Government's conduct in this case, in which case I shall be satisfied. However, we should at least take the matter out of the arena of discussion across the Chamber. I have tried to make my point on a non-party basis. I suggest that the Procedure Committee should look at the Bill and report to your Lordships' House; we should then not have such problems again. We must all work together to combat terrorism but there is a right way and a wrong way of going about it.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, says because he has repeated much of what was said in another place. I was a Member of the other place when the original Bill was passed and I opposed it for similar reasons. Eighteen months later it was admitted that we had been right in saying that there was insufficient discussion and scrutiny of the Bill.
I am puzzled by the fact that only a couple of weeks ago the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was debated and discussed. It must have been known then that the Government intended to take extra measures. We know that the police authorities were in constant discussion with the police forces and no doubt with Government Ministers long before the Baltic Exchange explosion and since. Why was it not possible, therefore, to announce the changes two weeks ago during the debate on the Prevention of Terrorism Act? That is a puzzle which no one can solve. Perhaps the need to rush the Bill through is a further example of government by decree rather than the democratic process to which we have become accustomed. There can be no democratic process given the time that has been allotted to discuss a most important Bill.

281
We are dealing with a Bill which could have dramatic and disastrous consequences for the community relations with the police which have been built up over many years. A great deal of work is being done in that respect; it will be put at risk if the Bill goes through in such a rush. Obviously, there will be a dramatic increase in police duties at a time when there are insufficient policemen to carry out the duties placed on them by other legislation and by the general increase in crime. At a time when they face an uphill task in almost every other respect they are being told that virtually everyone with an Irish accent is suspect and should be stopped and searched.
The Bill is being rushed through and discussion is being denied. When I telephoned to put my name on the list of speakers I was told that it had closed last night at 6 p.m. I was amazed. I did not know that the list would be closed at that time and I do not recall anyone mentioning it. I therefore intend, if allowed, to speak for the allotted time in the gap because that will be the only opportunity to mention some of the more worrying aspects of the legislation.
I am also aware that I am much inhibited by the unfortunate statement from my noble friend on the Front Bench that there is cross-party agreement before the debate has even taken place. From the Back-Bench point of view, that is unfortunate because I knew nothing about it. Had I known I should have been opposed. I take the opportunity therefore to record my opposition to the rushed procedure on an important Bill which will have dire consequences. I reserve my right and privilege to speak in the gap.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stallard has been involved in Irish affairs for a long time. In his constituency in north London he represented large numbers of people born in the Irish Republic. However, I have been involved for only 25 years, since I first visited Long Kesh when it was opened. Family-wise, I have been involved for a little longer. My father, who was a Welsh private soldier, was at the Easter rising in Dublin as part of an Irish regiment. Therefore, I knew that Ireland existed before I took my O levels, or whatever they were called. I have no doubt that if Parliament has to act to deal with terrorism it should act, and should act quickly, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. It should not allow procedures to prevent change taking place.
I do not wish to discuss the Bill because there is little point in doing so. No amendments can be tabled and received in the other place. I speak on the Business Motion only because I am surprised and perplexed about why the legislation is being pushed forward. I do not wish to transgress the rules of the House, but perhaps I may say that Clause 1 raises matters of public interest as regards civil liberties and needs to be examined carefully. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 are highly technical. I see no reason why the legislation should be taken so quickly. If there was need to take it quickly it should have been debated last Thursday and Friday after the Cabinet meeting and the discussions with the shadow Cabinet. I do not understand the situation.
282
I am not sure whether the gossip at the other end of the Palace reaches this end. When I asked what it was all about, I was told, "It's the Home Secretary being political". He is the least political Home Secretary I have ever come across in my career. Political? I would not say that about the Home Secretary. There must be a better reason. There are dark hints about the Unionist vote but I do not see how that comes into the matter. People are thinking around the issue because they can find no good reason for the Bill being dealt with in this way.
There is no point in staying here for the rest of the day because we can do very little and we should be wasting our time. We can make our views clear now, which is what I am trying to do. I am perplexed and surprised. I was privileged to come to this House. But what part can we play? To a large degree we are wasting our time. Today's procedure has been decided. I shall not vote against the Bill. If I did so it would be misunderstood.
One can read the debate which took place in the other place yesterday. It would be very dangerous to become involved in narrow, silly politics, as happened there yesterday, particularly when the Government are talking to the IRA on one side of the water and trying to deal with it on this side. If one became involved in such politics it would be to the detriment of both Houses and to the detriment of Irish policy. Your Lordships have seen the paintings outside the Bishops' Bar. The fact that the politics of Ireland were so involved in party politics was one of the reasons why the aims of the then Liberal Government failed. I do not want that yet I do not understand the Bill. There seems to be no urgency in it. It is highly technical. Clause 1 should be examined most carefully. I shall not vote against the Bill. In my view, we are wasting our time here today.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish to make two brief points, to one of which I hope I shall receive a satisfactory answer. First, I should welcome a categorical assurance that another place will still be in session when we complete consideration of the Bill. Secondly, I still do not entirely understand what is claimed to be an emergency. Of course, I understand that some of the evidence on which that may be based could be difficult to put forward. However, the evidence that has been put forward puzzles me somewhat. We are told that it is the 80th anniversary of the Easter rising. I should exaggerate if I said that we have had 80 years' notice of that, but I should not exaggerate very much. We are told also by the Home Secretary in his appearance on "Newsnight" that it is possible to carry a bomb which may be concealed in a pocket. I accept that. It is clearly true, But it is not new. I remember—I think it was something over 20 years ago—during the Christmas shopping rush in Dickins and Jones somebody whom I shall not describe as a dumb animal concealed those in one of every 10 fur coats in Dickins and Jones. Therefore, the Home Secretary has had 20 years to get used to that idea. Why has he only just discovered it now?
12 noon
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to make only a couple of very brief points to follow on from other remarks which have been made. I remind the House and the country that this is the only second Chamber that we have. If it is a second Chamber, it should be allowed to do the job of a second Chamber; that is, to revise and advise. It is being prevented from playing that proper role which has been with us down the centuries and, indeed, which is enshrined in the Parliament Acts which are apparently being set aside.
The other point that I wish to make is that we now appear to have reached a situation in which, if the two Front Benches that is, the Government and the Official Opposition—reach an agreement on something, then Parliament's view matters very little. Even the Liberal Democrats, apparently, have not been consulted.
But I reserve my greatest sympathy for my noble friend on the Front Bench who will advise us to pass this Motion and, indeed, will advise us not to vote against the legislation. My honourable friend in the other place, Jack Straw, has had the privilege of a security briefing. Therefore, he is able to advise in the House of Commons. But my noble friend has had no security briefing; or has he? He did not say so. Therefore, he is advising us in the dark as to what we should do on this Bill. I really do not believe that that is good enough.
I have a final question to put to the Minister. If the Official Opposition had said no to this Bill, had they said that they would not agree to the Guillotine and this procedure which we have before us, would the Government still have brought forward the Bill?
Lord Elton: My Lords, this is an interesting and important debate and I think that in most of your Lordships there is an internal conflict of interest. There certainly is within me. As a member of the Government in Northern Ireland for two-and-a-half years and in the Home Office for three years, I see the pressing need for instant reaction to imminent danger. As a Member of this House for 23 years, I see the importance of protecting the liberty of the civilian and keeping a close eye on the work of the Executive.
In the particular circumstances in which we are today, we must have a certain trust in our system and in our colleagues. What has been delegated by both Houses de facto is a decision as to the urgency of the situation. Those who are a party to that knowledge, the knowledge on which that decision has been taken, are those who have been preferred by the two principal parties as at least capable of taking that sort of decision on their part.
I believe that it would be entirely irresponsible now to throw a spanner into the works on the basis that they were not trusted; to delay the legislation; and to leave the guard of this country down when they say that it should be up. Therefore, I support Her Majesty's Government in their wish to carry through this legislation with the support of Her Majesty's Opposition.
But I do see that it is a matter of close interest, even after the event. I have been involved in a sufficient number of debates on police, criminal evidence and
284
other such legislation to know how delicate are some of these issues when it comes not just to questions of the liberty of the individual generally but the preservation of a bearable or good relationship between the police and, for example, ethnic minorities.
Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will have a later opportunity to look at this legislation when it has been in place for some time. The best thing would be if my noble friend could say whether that is feasible, but I doubt that that can be written into a Bill. I hope that in 12 months' time we may have a debate on the functioning of the Bill. If we can have something of that sort, I shall be warm in my support for Her Majesty's Government in relation to this Motion.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, at a time when rules are being set aside, it is comforting to know that some rules are in place and are being applied and that there are also mechanisms to circumvent that, if I can put it like that.
I start my remarks by apologising to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, because last night I was unable to place my name on the list of speakers for the Second Reading debate and so I should also like to speak in the Gap. I know that that will restrict me to four minutes and no doubt that will come as a tremendous measure of relief to your Lordships' House.
But I went to the Chief Whip's Office last night at seven o'clock thinking that it would be polite to let the Chief Whip know that I should be speaking today. I found that the list of speakers had been opened and had already closed. That was in relation to a debate as to which, in theory, there was no certainty that it would take place today. But we have heard—and a number of noble Lords alluded to it—that there has been an agreement between the two Front Benches that this legislation shall go through.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already alluded to the fact that the Government had some notice that this year would be the eightieth anniversary of the Easter Rising. But we can see also that the Government have had effectively eight weeks' notice of the fact that the ceasefire has broken down. It is only two weeks since we debated the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In that debate, I referred to a problem which appeared to present itself because of the requirement following a European Court decision to change the operation of the mechanism in relation to exclusion orders. At this stage I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for responding to my comments and for subsequently writing to me.
While I accept the assurance that she has given from her point of view, I still believe that there is a problem with that particular piece of legislation and effectively we are losing an opportunity to consider that. That could have been included in a Bill such as this. We could have taken that through both Houses of Parliament, not necessarily in the two or three months which it normally takes legislation to pass through, but we could have done it over a period of several weeks. That would have enabled Parliament to scrutinise this legislation and, if necessary, add other parts to ensure that we were protecting ourselves from adverse criticism.

285
We must ask ourselves why the Government are bringing forward such legislation at this time. I wonder whether it has anything to do with the fact that they are facing a by-election in South Staffordshire. Of course, I could not possibly comment on that. We are advised that the Home Secretary and the Shadow Home Secretary have received security briefings which indicate that there is an urgent necessity for the legislation. While it would be wrong at this stage in the debate to look at the detail of the Bill, if there is some security information which is of such a precipitate nature, is it right that we should be thinking in terms of legislation rather than actually warning the British public of the information which is available? Again, I could not possibly comment.
While I support virtually everything that has been said by other speakers, perhaps I may pose a question to the Minister. Can he say whether it would be possible for the House to adjourn for a period after the Committee stage, where, I suspect, no amendments will be passed, which means that there will be no Report stage? To ensure that it has the ability to do as much justice as possible to our responsibilities of scrutinising the legislation, I believe that it might be useful for the House to have a gap between the Committee stage and Third Reading to give your Lordships, having taken cognisance of what is said in Committee, the opportunity to table manuscript amendments which could then be considered on Third Reading. I make that suggestion in the hope that it will be recognised that what I am seeking to do is to protect the good name of this House as regards its reputation for scrutinising government legislation effectively.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I shall be brief. I have been most disappointed with some of the things that I have heard, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The question has been asked as to why this legislation is being introduced. I would have thought that an infant would understand. Obviously, the Government have good reason to do so. If the liberties and rights of our people outside the House are at risk, I should point out that there are times in the history of Parliament when it is necessary to put trust on both sides. We have all done so when we were Ministers. Indeed, every Minister talks to his opposite number and takes him into his confidence if there is a special difficulty.
We are not taking anything away from the authority of this House if we realise that, on a special occasion when the life and liberty of our own people are matters that have obviously been brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government, the least we can do is to try to see that they have the weapons that they require at their disposal.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
12.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it does not fall easy to any government to propose such a Motion because we have the rules of procedure in order to guide the way in which
286
we conduct the passage of our legislation. It is only on very rare occasions that it is necessary to change those procedures and then one can only do so with the approval of the House. If I may say so, I agree with the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, in what I thought had the merits of being a short, succinct and totally sensible speech, in contrast, as the noble Viscount himself said, to some of the other speeches that have been made.
Perhaps I may deal first with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He asked whether the other place would be sitting when we disposed of the Bill. I thought that that was an extraordinary question. The noble Earl knows perfectly well what are the rules of the House. The fact is that Royal Assent cannot take place without both Houses sitting. Therefore, the other place will be sitting in order to pass the Bill into Royal Assent. The noble Earl then made what I thought was an astonishing and remarkable suggestion—and I measure my words in this respect. He pointed out that such incidents had been known about for 20 years, and asked why on earth it had taken the Home Secretary 20 years to get used to them. I found that to be a most infantile comment.
That speech was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The fact is that we are dealing with terrorism. Terrorism is wicked, it is subversive, it is dangerous and it is unpredictable. All those factors must be taken into account. The police sought powers after South Quay which were based on their experience of using the existing Section 13A powers, which have only ever been applied after that incident. It is quite clear that there is a real and continuing terrorist threat. That is the reason why the Bill has been brought forward today.
I can understand anyone who feels that this is a petty exercise because it is not possible to make amendments to the legislation. Well, there are occasions when parliamentary processes have to be fairly swift. But if one has to have such swift processes in order to protect the public, I believe that the House would agree that your Lordships' personal interventions might possibly take second place to the protection of society. I was, frankly, horrified by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that the introduction of the legislation might have something to do with a by-election. I believe that that suggestion must have made his own Front Bench cringe as much as it made all of us cringe on this side of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said that it was bad to have such a process on the eve of the Easter Recess. Of course, this is not necessarily a time of one's choice. However, one does not have choices when dealing with terrorism. The fact is that the legislation is both necessary and required now. That is why it is being put through Parliament at speed.
The noble Lord was also concerned because he did not know anything about the legislation until Monday afternoon. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary had discussions with Mr. Straw, the Opposition Shadow Home Secretary, last Thursday on the matter. He also had discussions with the Metropolitan Police, and I understand that Mr. Beith was also consulted. That was the Government dealing

287
with the Official Opposition in another place. It was after that weekend and as a result of those discussions with the police that the Opposition Shadow Home Secretary agreed that it was necessary. That has been agreed, and the Liberal Democrats also had discussions.
My noble friend the Chief Whip offered to make a Statement to the House on Monday afternoon, but that was declined by the Opposition for reasons which are understandable to them. Therefore, he made a Business Statement. In the circumstances, I do not believe that we can be accused of not having taken into account those people who should have been consulted. If there have been breakdowns in communication between people within their own parties, that is a matter for them. Governments do not push such measures through Parliament without having first secured the agreement and approval of Opposition parties. Indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, pointed out that that has often been done.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, together with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell—and that is a curious combination—and I believe one other speaker, complained that they had wanted to put down their names to speak on Second Reading but found that they could not do so because the list was closed at six o'clock. Of course that is perfectly true. That is part of the procedures of the House. When a debate takes place at 11 o'clock the next morning the list closes at six o'clock but, as both noble Lords will have observed, they can speak in the gap. I remind them that they would be restricted to four minutes.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Earl says that this is part of the procedure of the House. However, we are not dealing with procedures in a normal way. This is not a normal procedure. There is something abnormal about the whole set-up. Why, then, should we be told that it is part of the normal procedure when we are dealing with an abnormal suggestion for carrying the Bill through in a rush? There should have been more leeway given in view of the emergency situation and the need that the Government feel for the Bill to go through in a few hours. I repeat that this is not a normal procedure.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, makes an astonishing intervention. Of course, the procedure for this Bill going through the House is different from the normal procedure; that is why we are having the debate. But to say that all the procedures of the House should therefore not take place is quite erroneous. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has known since Monday—as has everyone else—that this debate was to take place. If he does not acquit himself of knowing what the procedures are and attempts at seven o'clock on the evening before the debate to add his name to the list of speakers when the rules of the House state that his name must be put down by six o'clock, that is the responsibility of the noble Lord. However, we shall have the pleasure of listening to him. I am sure that if he speaks for four minutes his speech will be concise and worth listening to, as are all his speeches.
288
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, says that his right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary had the privilege of a briefing which his own Front Bench had not had the privilege of receiving, and that Mr. Straw could therefore advise his people in another place which way to vote, or what to do with the measure, but the Leader of the Opposition here was denied that privilege. I would not wish to intervene in anything that the party opposite does. But both Houses—and the Front Benches of both Houses—know what the position is. I can only suggest to your Lordships that while we all recognise that this is a difficult and an unusual situation, terrorism has to be dealt with and we have to take such action as is required. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, say that if Parliament has to act, it has to act. I was a little disappointed when he said that he was wasting his time this afternoon. He has been a distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and he knows that these things have to be dealt with quickly. I hope that now that your Lordships have expressed your concern, which I understand, your Lordships will agree that the Motion should be approved.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I intervene briefly, partly because as the author of the 1974 Act I have been referred to several times, but I have even more of a reason for intervening. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, did not, in my view, reply to any of the serious points which were put to him, particularly by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. The noble Earl seems to be in a bad temper today. He has found every other intervention astonishing. I must tell him that I found his reply astonishing because of his refusal to apply himself closely to any issue, his attempt to bluster every point, and his self-righteous unwillingness to believe that anyone else's view is worth considering. On a day when he is seeking all-party agreement, I would say with respect to the noble Earl—of whom I am most fond—that that is foolish conduct. I think that when noble Lords read his speech they will reflect upon that.
The principal point which my noble friend Lord Rodgers put concerned why the Bill cannot be brought back for reconsideration—it can be in operation in the meantime—at some date in the future. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, it was not mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. At the time of the 1974 Act when we were operating under a much more dreadful immediate tragedy—the worst of all things, the Birmingham bombings—we did not have a guillotine, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out. The Bill was debated—this was a telescoped period—for over 18 hours in the other place. Moreover, we brought the Bill back to be considered, not under a renewal order, but so that it could be debated in an open-ended way as a new piece of legislation in February 1976. A serious point put to the Government by my noble friend Lord Rodgers—which the noble Earl did not even mention—concerned whether the Government would give serious consideration to following that procedure. It is by far the best guarantee against the evils of hasty legislation.

289
The dilemma was well described by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We all appreciate the dilemma; namely, to respond quickly to terrorism on the one hand, given the knowledge, on the other hand, that hasty legislation tends to have faults. One cannot go fully one way or the other but surely the best balance is achieved by giving serious consideration to the proposition which was put forward clearly by my noble friend Lord Rodgers and echoed to some substantial extent by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It is totally unsatisfactory to let the matter go without having some response from the Government to that serious, major and obvious problem.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would be the first to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, if he thinks that I was cross or in a temper. I was not in the slightest. If I gave that impression, it was a wrong impression. I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks I was blustering. I tried to respond to a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. However, he made a number of points over a certain period of time and I apologise if I did not answer them all.
One of the complaints of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, was that he knew nothing about the procedures until the evening he mentioned. I have replied to that point. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that I did not answer the point about the re-introduction of the Bill. As long as we require the Prevention of Terrorism Act, that Act is already subject to annual renewal, and the debates on the renewal are informed by the report of the independent reviewer who scrutinises its operation. Therefore, it will be discussed in the future.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is a difference between annual renewal when there is merely a Motion before the House and what we did following the 1974 Act, which was to re-introduce the Bill as a new Bill in which case it is open to Committee stage, Report stage, Third Reading, and therefore subject to amendment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that really is a matter for discussion on the Bill and not for discussion on the Motion that the Bill is passed through all its stages now. Certainly that point will be considered. However, if the noble Lord thinks, when my noble friend Lady Blatch is taking the Bill through, that the Bill ought to be re-considered or another Bill brought in later on, that is a perfectly reasonable debating point. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, it is not relevant to the debate we are now having which concerns whether all stages of the Bill should be taken on one day.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, it is not a debating point. It is a procedural point and wholly apposite to the procedural Motion.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether we shall proceed much further with this discussion. The fact is that we are debating whether or not the Bill should go through its paces in one day. It is perfectly
290
reasonable for any noble Lord to say that he is prepared to let it go through its paces in one day but that he thinks it ought to be re-introduced at a later stage. As I understand it, that is what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is saying. All I am saying is that I think that that is a matter for discussion on the Bill itself rather than on this Motion. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will take the opportunity to do that.
I do not disagree with the noble Lord. A number of points need to be discussed. However, we are debating whether it is right to have the Bill considered in one day. That is the Motion which is before us. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is appropriate that that should be done.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then Standing Orders No. 38 and No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to resolution):

Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill
12.31 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave notice of his intention to bring forward this Bill when he made a Statement on Monday in another place. As we have always made clear, this Government have no relish for the use of emergency powers. But such powers are needed to protect the people of this country from the violent actions of the terrorist who seeks to destroy both life and property and to dominate and disrupt our very way of life. The Bill will give the police a number of further practical powers which will strengthen their ability to protect the public against this threat.
The measures now before your Lordships' House were debated last night in another place. Naturally there were concerns about the limited time available to debate the measures, and I am sure that that concern—we have heard it today—will be shared by many noble Lords. But as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made clear, this Bill has been brought before Parliament as expeditiously as possible; and in view of the present security situation, we cannot take the risk of waiting until after the Easter Recess. I am pleased to say that this view was shared by the Opposition Front Bench in another place, and the Government welcome the co-operation shown in securing the swift passage of this Bill.
It is important to set this Bill in the context of recent events. Members on all sides of this House were horrified and appalled by the resumption of violence which occurred on 9th February. The bombing of South Quay, in which two lives were lost and when many others were injured, dealt a cruel blow to the hope of people in this country. Following the end of the IRA ceasefire, my right honourable friend discussed with senior police officers whether any additional powers were necessary to help them safeguard the public.

291
We have concluded that additional powers are now necessary. This Bill will add five specific new powers to the armoury of the police in their fight against the terrorist threat.
I recognise and share the concern of this House for the protection of the liberty of the individual. There is, however, no liberty more important than the right of men and women to life. That is a liberty for which the terrorist has no regard. This Bill makes a number of amendments to the PTA which will clarify and strengthen the powers of the police, reinforcing their ability to protect the public against such threats. The Bill will enable the police to stop and search pedestrians for articles which can be used in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorist acts; to search non-residential premises for evidence which will be of value to a terrorist investigation; to search unaccompanied freight in ports; to cordon off areas in order to look for a bomb or to collect forensic evidence after a bomb has been found or has exploded; and to impose temporary parking restrictions in response to a general threat to vulnerable sites such as schools, major transport facilities and government buildings.
I believe that each of these new provisions will make a difference. They will better equip the police to protect the public and combat terrorism. Each measure will also be circumscribed by important safeguards.
Before giving notice of his intention to bring forward this Bill, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary discussed these proposals with Opposition spokesmen, and I am glad to remind this House that the Opposition co-operated with the passage of the Bill in another place. As my right honourable friend made clear, the Government very much welcome the recognition of the honourable gentleman, the Member for Blackburn, of the need to act quickly.
I turn now to the detailed content of the Bill. Section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was added to that Act by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It currently allows a constable to stop and search any vehicle, its driver and any passenger within it. It also allows a constable to stop any pedestrian and search anything he is carrying for articles of a kind which could be used in preparing, commissioning or instigating terrorist acts. But under the current law, a constable may not search the pedestrian himself for anything which he may have concealed about him; for example, in a jacket pocket. This clause fills that gap in the current powers.
The operation of the existing stop and search powers, have led the police to believe that an additional power to search pedestrians would be of real practical benefit and the Government have accepted that. Bombs and incendiary devices do not need to be very large to kill or destroy. A typical device may be no bigger than an audio cassette and can be carried in a coat pocket without being apparent to the observer.
Clause 1 inserts a new Section 13B into the Prevention of Terrorism Act, giving the police power to stop and search pedestrians within a designated area. Clear safeguards will apply, as in the existing Section 13A. Searches will only be allowed within an area authorised by an Assistant Chief Constable and only for
292
a specified period of up to 28 days. In addition, authorisation of the exercise of the new powers must be confirmed by the Secretary of State within 48 hours of the authorisation having been given. If that confirmation is not forthcoming, the authorisation will lapse. The Bill further provides that the Secretary of State will have the power to cancel the authorisation or, if he wishes, to substitute a shorter period during which the power will be exercised.
Once authorisation has been given, a police officer will be able to stop any pedestrian within that area. The search will be a "rub-down" search. The officer may ask the pedestrian to remove his outer coat, jacket, footwear, gloves or head gear in order to facilitate the search.
Such a power requires a means of enforcement. Therefore Clause 1 creates offences of failing to stop when asked to do so, and of wilfully obstructing a constable in the exercise of the new powers. These mirror the offences which exist in Section 13A and will carry the same penalty—on summary conviction, up to six months' imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the standard scale, or both. Prosecution for either of these offences will proceed only by or with the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The police are well aware that the new power will need to be exercised with circumspection and sensitivity. My right honourable friend will issue immediate provisional guidance and in the short term, the police have undertaken to apply the relevant PACE code voluntarily. In due course, the PACE code will be formally amended and will govern the exercise of the new stop and search powers just as it does the existing powers under Section 13A. Concern has been expressed that Parliament should receive regular reports on the operation of the new stop and search powers and yesterday my right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave that assurance in another place. Furthermore, as with the existing Section 13A powers, the exercise of this new power will be monitored under the relevant PACE code.
Clause 2 relates to searches of non-residential premises. As the House will be aware, the use of intelligence information is an important part of the response of the police to terrorist activity. The nature of such information—for example, that explosives are concealed in a garage in a particular area of London or that a lorry carrying home made explosives has been left in a lorry park near a particular motorway intersection—is quite often insufficient to identify precisely the garage or lorry park in question. It is currently impossible to obtain a search warrant to enter every relevant premises and examine them.
The search power contained in Clause 2 will enable a magistrate, or a sheriff in Scotland, to issue a warrant for the police to search a list of premises. The police will not be required to say in which of these listed premises they believe they will find the material. Such a warrant may only be issued on the application of an officer of at least superintendent rank and any search of premises named in the warrant must be made within 24 hours of the warrant being issued.

293
Clause 3 will provide examining officers at ports with the power to search unaccompanied freight. At present the police may stop and examine individuals coming through ports. In the course of examining them, they may search their baggage and their vehicles for anti-terrorist purposes. Customs officers can search goods which have come from outside the United Kingdom, but police officers cannot at present search unaccompanied cargo. Clause 3 will allow them to do so and should help to deter and disrupt terrorist plans and the re-stocking of their armoury.
Clause 4 will enable the police to cordon off an area and restrict access while they look for a bomb or collect forensic evidence following the discovery or the explosion of a bomb. The police already have limited powers under common law to impose cordons, but the extent of their existing powers is uncertain. Clause 4 will provide a firm statutory basis and remove that uncertainty. It will ensure that the police can exclude people from a cordon for their own safety and for that of others and it will, as I have said, assist the police in carrying out forensic work.
The new power will be exercised initially for a period of up to 14 days, capable of renewal for up to a further 14 days. I might add that most cordons will be kept in place for less than two weeks.
The new power will be subject to the authorisation of an officer of at least superintendent rank. However, in an emergency it may be invoked by any constable and then confirmed by a superintendent or officer of more senior rank.
The schedule sets out the powers which may be exercised by the police inside the cordon. These include power to search premises within the cordon for any device or other terrorist material and to collect any forensic evidence found.
This clause will also create offences of failing to leave the cordon when required to do so; and breaking the cordon and obstructing a constable in the exercise of any of his powers within the cordon. Prosecution for any of these offences will proceed only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As an additional safeguard, a defence is provided for those who can prove that they have lawful authority or a reasonable excuse for their actions.
Clause 5 will give the police the power to impose temporary parking restrictions on roads or parts of roads in response to a general threat to vulnerable targets such as government buildings, financial centres and major transport facilities. Powers are currently available to the police under common law but here also there is uncertainty as to their extent and the length of time for which they can be used. In the Government's view the powers of the police in this area require statutory underpinning.
The power in Clause 5 will be subject to the authorisation of an assistant chief constable or equivalent ranking officer. It will be exercisable only for a stipulated period of up to 28 days. Offences will be created of failure to remove a vehicle when asked to do so and of parking in breach of a prohibition or
294
restriction. Again, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required for any prosecution to proceed. A defence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse has been provided.
Clause 6 provides that the Director of Public Prosecutions must consent to any prosecution made for the offences created to enforce the powers given in Clauses 1, 4 and 5. Clause 7 deals with the territorial extent of the new provisions. Clause 3 extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. All the other provisions in the Bill apply only to Great Britain, since these powers are already available to the police and the security forces in Northern Ireland.
I made reference a moment ago to what I know will be your Lordships' concern for the liberty of the individual. The measures in this Bill are sensible and practical and I can confirm that they are subject to clear and careful safeguards.
I have also made reference to the assurance which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has given that Parliament will receive regular reports on the operation of the new power to stop and search pedestrians. I am pleased to have this opportunity to re-state that commitment in this House. I can also confirm that there will be monitoring of the exercise. PACE Code A will apply to new Section 13B of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, as it does to existing Section 13A. Guidance will ensure the considerate and sensitive exercise of the new powers. For this reason, the Government have taken the view that it is not necessary to put this safeguard on the face of the Bill.
The Government believe that the measures will be of real practical assistance to the police in their work. The police bear an enormous responsibility; it is to them that we look to protect the public against the evil of terrorism. The police deserve the support of this House in their fight against terrorism and I hope that your Lordships will give them that support. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
12.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I made it clear in my brief intervention on the Business Motion that Her Majesty's Opposition not only do not object to the manner of the introduction of the Bill but also we do not propose to oppose it. It will be no surprise to the Minister that we have thought it appropriate to put down a number of amendments to the Bill, mostly for the purpose of clarification and partly to secure assurances from the Minister about the introduction of the Bill.
When speaking on the Business Motion, I did not think it appropriate to talk about the content of the Bill or its origin. However, now that we are dealing with the substance, it is surprising that a Bill of this complexity should be produced in such a short time-scale and a short time after the debate in this House on the continuance order which was only two weeks ago. If the Government—as would have been entirely proper—had been giving consideration to the need for the police to have extra powers for the prevention of terrorism, they

295
must have had those considerations at all times after the resumption of hostilities by the IRA. At any time immediately after 9th February, it would have been entirely proper for the Government to give consideration to what further powers were needed, to talk to the police about what further powers were needed and to advise Parliament of the fact that further powers might be needed. Under those circumstances, it would have been proper for warning to have been given to Parliament that such matters were under consideration. Then some of the difficulties which have been experienced in the past 48 hours through the sudden nature of the Bill might have been at any rate ameliorated, if not removed.
I also remind the Minister that the Government have asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to inquire into the matter. I am glad to see him in his place this afternoon. I do not have with me the exact text of his terms of reference, but they are to inquire in general into the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and what should succeed it in the event of a more permanent ceasefire. I should have thought that it would be proper for the Minister and the Home Secretary to include reference to the noble and learned Lord's inquiry in talking about the justification for the Bill and its extent and continuance, as it is to be part of the temporary provisions Act 1989, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
The Minister introduced the Bill as being largely technical and not involving a great extension to police powers in threat of civil liberty. I think it would be fair to say that she did not claim that there were great intrusions on civil liberties which were justified. She said rather that the intrusions on civil liberty were not as great as might be feared. I am paraphrasing her words. If that is the case—and having read the Bill, I accept that it is the case; I do not believe that there are great intrusions here on civil liberty—surely the opportunity for mature consideration which has been available over the past eight weeks could have been taken and consultation could have taken place over a period longer then the six days since the matter first arose in discussions between the Government and the Opposition.
That said, when I examine the Bill in detail I do not find very great positive threats. I do find a number of inconsistencies with which it will be very difficult to deal; and it may be my inadequate reading, but I also find a number of points that are not clear.
Let me deal mainly with Clause 1, which is the most important clause. It gives a power to a constable in uniform to stop any pedestrian and search him, and goes on in subsection (4) to refer to the removal of outer clothing:
"headgear, footwear, outer coat, jacket or gloves".
In introducing Clause 1, the Minister spoke about this as being a "rub-down" search. I did not hear that said by the Home Secretary in another place yesterday. It raises the question of what powers are actually involved under the clause.
We accept of course that it is proper to extend the power to search from those outer objects that are carried to outer clothing. That is common between us. But what
296
does a "rub-down" search mean? Does it include, for example, a power to say, "Open your mouth", to see what is inside? Does it include the power to search pockets? Does it mean simply the kind of passing of the hands that applies in airport security or security at the entrance to party conferences? Does it include the power to take non-intimate samples, for example? None of those points is entirely clear to me. I fear that the Minister's remark in her introduction may be in conflict with the wording of the Bill as we have it.
Therefore we believe that amendments are necessary to Clause 1 of the Bill. We have tabled a number of amendments to ensure the possibility of greater clarity. We hope that can be achieved, not by amending the Bill itself, but by ensuring as in our Amendment No. 1 that the Secretary of State should give adequate guidance; and as in our Amendment No. 5 that there should be consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers about the operation of these powers and the sensitivity with which they are to be operated.
I said earlier that Clause 1 was the only clause considered in detail in another place. Perhaps that is appropriate since it is by far the most important. However, consideration was not completed when the Guillotine fell and it is important that we should be as clear as possible about the powers.
Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 refer respectively to non-residential premises, ports, temporary cordons and parking restrictions. It has been made clear that most of those powers are already exercised, normally under common law powers rather than legislative powers. It is entirely appropriate that, wherever possible, there should be statutory authority for the kind of controls that are necessary. Therefore, in general, we shall not oppose or even comment on Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5, except to say, as we do in Amendment No. 7, that there should be a test of reasonableness before Clause 4 and indeed Clause 1 are triggered.
In relation to Clause 7, concerned with interpretation and extent, we raise wider issues, some of which were raised in the debate on the business Motion. We welcome the Minister's remark that there have already been undertakings that there will be reports to Parliament—I do not know whether she said at "regular" intervals, but certainly at sufficient intervals. I am sure that we can rely on her word in that respect. We are also conscious that when she referred to monitoring, Code A under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is itself subject to a measure of parliamentary scrutiny. We welcome the assurance that new Section 13B, to be inserted in the 1989 Act and in Clause 1 of this Bill, is to be covered by Code A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
We are also conscious that the device that has been adopted of making this Act entirely in the form of amendments to the 1989 temporary provisions Act means that there will be parliamentary scrutiny of a sort under the affirmative procedures resolution at 12-month intervals. To that extent we welcome the opportunity that will exist in March next year to consider the implementation of this Bill as well as of the original 1989 Act as amended.

297
I have had no discussion with my honourable friends on this matter. However, I am bound to say that I am personally attracted by the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The example of a Labour Government introducing emergency legislation in November 1974 and, just over a year later, re-enacting that legislation without any of the constraints of unusual procedures or the Guillotine was a good example. The fact that it was enacted by a Labour Government and is now repeated by a Liberal Democrat Peer does not seem to me to cause any political difficulty. I certainly urge on my right honourable and honourable friends that they should seek suitable opportunities to see to it that some such procedure is adopted in regard to this Bill. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether she will be able, in her response to the Second Reading debate, to give assurances that at least this issue will be considered; and possibly even to go further and say that the example of 1974 and 1976 was a good example. That might help there to be cross-party agreement on these measures, and they might recommend themselves to the Home Secretary and her other colleagues in government.
It is of the utmost importance that there should be cross-party agreement on all legislation that relates to terrorism. It is important in the message that it sends not only to the IRA and all other terrorists, that we in this country are united in our condemnation of terrorism and our determination to take such proper steps as are available to us to counter terrorism, both to prevent and diminish its effect; but also to our people, who suffer when there is terrorism, not only directly but indirectly from the restrictions imposed by anti-terrorist legislation. I put it to the Minister that she would be well advised to seek the agreement of her right honourable friend to a measure which I believe would increase the effectiveness of this legislation by ensuring that we can all support it wholeheartedly without any hesitations or reservations about the way in which it was necessary to introduce it.
As Mr. Jack Straw said in another place yesterday, we agree that on this occasion the measures proposed are proportionate to the threat that we face. However, that is not the end of the matter. There could be, and should be, further opportunities for Parliament to see to it that we have the best possible anti-terrorist legislation.
12.59 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, in the course of our discussion on the business Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked the question: what is the point of staying? He did so in relation to the procedure and the fact that we are taking the Second Reading and all subsequent stages in one day. I certainly would not go so far as that. However, rightly or wrongly, the Bill having got this far, it being before the House and there being no prospect of amendment in Committee, I certainly have no reason to wish to see it delayed. For that reason I intend to speak very briefly at Second Reading.
298
In the debate on the Business Motion, I made what I thought were two positive and helpful suggestions. They are relevant to the Bill itself and not only to the procedure that we were then discussing. The first suggestion, which was entirely ignored by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his reply and his subsequent and additional reply, was whether the procedure should not be considered by the Procedure Committee. We might have got off to a better start today had we felt that the procedure being followed by the Government had been endorsed by the House itself. I hope that that point will not be overlooked, although I do not ask the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to do more than acknowledge that it has been made. I do not expect her to give a substantive reply.
My second proposal, for which I am delighted to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is to adopt the procedure of 1974–1976. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to regular reports in reference to Clause 1 of the Bill. No doubt this House and another place will wish to have them. But that does not take away from the need to look at the Bill when there is more time at our disposal and, I suggest, with the experience of the Bill before us. There is no doubt at all that, even if the subsequent clauses do not create difficulties, Clause 1 might create real difficulties for the police and the community.
I shall make one further important point about our earlier discussion. I do not believe that what the noble Earl said represented the view of any party in this House. He argued that because consultation took place with opposition parties in another place, there was no need for it here. That is a very dangerous principle. I was very surprised to hear it from a Conservative Minister in particular. It is a principle which puts party above Parliament and assumes that relationships and communications between parties are more important than communications within a House between parties in the spirit of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, about co-operation on issues of terrorism. I do not want to labour the point or ask for a lesson to be learnt. But I would not want it to stand on record—I do not believe that the noble Baroness would want it, either—that consultation between parties is at any time in any circumstances a substitute for consultation and communication between parties in this House or another place.
In the course of her opening remarks, the noble Baroness said:
"No liberty is more important than the liberty of the individual to life".
I understand what she said. I understand also the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, at an earlier stage about the extent to which we must accept some restriction on our liberty in the very defence of it. That is at the heart of the right approach to legislation of this kind. But it is fair to ask: what is life without freedom? Speaking for myself, I hold my freedom more dear than my life. For that reason, although I do not suggest that any essential freedoms are threatened by this legislation, we cannot simply dismiss the idea of our freedoms and civil liberties on the grounds that life is to be protected. The time would come when the

299
protection of life could so infringe the freedom of the individual that it would endanger the quality of life itself for innocent people as well as those who might be potentially guilty.
Again, I do not want to pursue that philosophical point but it is an important basis for the consideration of all legislation of this kind. How far can we reasonably go against terrorism in defence of our freedom in restricting the freedom that we take for granted?
On this occasion as on others when we have discussed, for example, the Renewal of Terrorism Order, I have returned, and do so again briefly today, to the original debate of 1974. In that debate two speeches struck me in particular. One was the speech of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich when he introduced the legislation. He said:
"I should certainly not want to suggest today that, rigorous and wide-ranging though our proposals are, they will lead to a swift end to the present terrorist campaign in our cities".
We have to take note of that and we must not raise expectations unreasonably high, even by a Bill which, in the view of this House, it may be necessary to introduce a second time. The noble Lord continued:
"But this Bill in my judgment will powerfully reinforce the security forces in the struggle against terrorists".
I do not think that the noble Baroness put it quite so strongly but that is the sentiment that she expressed. I do not quarrel with it at all.
The other point made by my noble friend, which comes back to my recent remarks, warned against:
"powers of [this] kind … involving as they must some encroachment on the liberties of individual citizens".
We must recognise that there is some encroachment on the liberties of individual citizens in this Bill, even if it is a price worth paying.
The other speech to which I need draw your Lordships' attention was that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. At that time he did not speak from the same Bench as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The noble Lord said:
"all of us who treasure our civil liberties—and that means every Member of your Lordships' House—is bound to want to consider with the greatest care emergency legislation which may have been hastily conceived, hurriedly drafted and passed into law without careful detailed examination in your Lordships' House".
He said that there were certain tests which should be applied:
"First, does it match up to the existing emergency? Does it neither exaggerate it nor under-estimate it?"
I am prepared to give an answer. Yes, it does match up to the existing emergency, subject to some further reassurances that I hope we shall be given today. The noble Lord continued:
"Second, is the encroachment upon our liberty that is inevitably involved the very minimum that is necessary for the purpose?"
I think that I need to suspend judgment there, particularly on the consequences that may follow from the implementation of Clause 1. It is right to give the Government the benefit of the doubt today. But this is a very good reason why we should look again at the substance of the Bill at an early date. The noble Lord went on:
300
"Third, has every possible step been taken to ensure that such encroachment upon our liberty is of a purely temporary nature and is in no danger of drifting into becoming the permanent law of the land?"
As the noble Baroness will remember, that is a point to which I and other noble Lords referred when we renewed the legislation only a fortnight ago.
We all greatly regret the resumption of terrorism. We all entirely support the need to fight it in every reasonable way. But we must make sure that when that terrorism is over, as we must all hope it will be, we do not leave for all time on the statute book legislation which would be inappropriate in very different circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, concluded by saying that the fight against terrorism—I should like to say the defence of our liberties in the face of it—is a cross-party matter. He spoke the truth and that is my view as well.
1.8 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I rise to express my support and that of the Ulster Unionist Party for this piece of legislation. It applies not only to Northern Ireland but mostly to Great Britain. It deals not only with terrorism which originates in our part of the world but also with international terrorism. Therefore it is to be welcomed. We are, as some noble Lords have said, reaching the stage when our legislation is becoming more and more piecemeal. Therefore, I look forward with anticipation to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, on permanent and comprehensive legislation covering the whole subject and the whole kingdom.
Clause 3 extends to Northern Ireland—it is the only one that specifically does—where there is power to search any goods that arrive in or are about to leave Great Britain or Northern Ireland on any ship, aircraft or vehicle. That is particularly welcome. It has been suggested—I do not know whether truthfully or not—that before the Canary Wharf explosion the bomb was mounted on a vehicle, driven through Northern Ireland, taken across the sea to Scotland and driven through England to London. It is essential, particularly when it is more easily done at a port, that there be the power to examine vehicles of that kind so that bombs can be discovered.
My views on this subject are well known—I have expressed them several times before—and therefore I do not intend to weary the House beyond saying that I welcome that in Great Britain many of the powers we already have in Northern Ireland will be available to the security forces in the future. There has been mention both here and in another place of civil liberties and personal freedom. I would join those who have said that the greatest civil liberty is the right to live and the right not to be maimed by a terrorist bomb. That freedom is much greater than being able to walk down the street without being searched.
I conclude by offering an apology to the noble Baroness the Minister and to the House if I leave before the conclusion of the Second Reading debate. The reason for that is transport to get me home, possibly

301
straight to bed, if noble Lords have listened to my throat and chest at the moment. But I express full approval for the Bill.
1.12 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said what needed to be said and said it all, but I, too, should like to say a little. Gerry Adams was perfectly open in the Sinn Fein Congress of 1995 when he said that Sinn Fein/IRA had entered,
"a new phase of struggle which needs new thinking and new tactics".
He added that their principles must not change and their strategic objectives and strategy must be rooted in—a familiar Marxist phrase—objective reality. The object of the political phase of the struggle which began with the ceasefire and ended with the resumption of IRA violence earlier this year had been achieved:
"The winning of international allies, the building of a broad consensus throughout nationalist Ireland".
In those 15 months the IRA became a quasi-respectable political force. Noraid was succeeded by the Friends of Ireland in the United States. Gerry Adams' visits raised more than £1.5 million in a year, half of which went to Dublin. Gerry Adams has claimed that the money has gone to the Northern Ireland economy. The question is: which economy is that—the IRA drug rings, the supply of new sophisticated arms or money to pay the devoted IRA members who recently drove metal spikes through the elbows and legs of an 18 year-old boy?
The issue before us today and the measure recognises that for the foreseeable future Sinn Fein/IRA believe they have extracted the maximum advantage from the political phase of the struggle and are back to what they know best—violence; and violence on the mainland to avoid any Loyalist reaction in Northern Ireland. Gerry Adams recently quoted the IRA's spokesman who met him and John Hume as saying that if the British wanted war the IRA would give them another 25 years of war. He also said that there would be no surrender of IRA weapons under any circumstances and to anyone. And it is perhaps relevant to our debate today that the Sinn Fein/IRA paper—the discussion document on policing—published recently calls for the disbandment of the RUC and the Special Branch, the immediate withdrawal of the force from nationalist areas and the immediate repeal of all emergency legislation.
It has been asked why we should pass these extensions of that legislation now, and why so fast. We should perhaps remember that the IRA spent the whole time of the ceasefire collecting money for more arms and tried several raids on cash shipments in the Republic in recent months. They collected information on more possible targets and did their dummy run for Canary Wharf in December, well before the Mitchell Report put them in a corner and also provided their excuse for ending the ceasefire. From their point of view they were simply switching back to another military phase of the struggle after extracting the maximum benefit from a political phase.
302
The anti-terrorist unit in this country found plenty of evidence when it searched the house and garden of the bomber in the bus of planned operations on the mainland, and that cannot be ignored. We are in for a long haul. But perhaps one of the strongest reasons for the need to be able, if necessary, to search an apparently innocent, ordinary man or woman in the street, apart from the fact that the IRA have long had access to very sophisticated weapons as well as the home made variety, is that the IRA Council has shifted from using experienced and therefore probably known operators to the use of sleepers to carry out operations. These are young people with no previous record, sometimes known too, it seems, as lily-whites, who come over to the mainland, some probably as unskilled labourers, with orders to establish themselves and be ready to do the work for which they were trained when the order comes. Edward O'Brien, the bomber who died in the bus, was evidently one. Even his family knew nothing of his sentiments. The anti-terrorist squad must clearly expect others, and it must be given the powers to act.
In Vietnam it was a practice of the Vietcong to smuggle bombs past a checkpoint by concealing them in a baby's clothes: The young sleeper is the IRA version of the same technique. Would a fresh-faced young man or woman about his or her normal concerns on the street be a natural suspect? Unfortunately, the IRA cynically counts on that and the undoubted idealism of these young people in many cases. I urge that we do not tie the hands of the police behind their backs. The victims of IRA bombs are innocent too. They have a right to protection. I share the hope of many noble Lords that there should be some review of this measure in due course—I welcome the promise of regular reports though I do not regard them as a substitute—and I believe very strongly that proper scrutiny is our right and our duty, but the IRA do not play by our rules. They know nothing about our procedures and care less. It would be irresponsible not to listen and to act in time when they make their own murderous intentions so clear.
1.18 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I decided to speak today not because I am necessarily opposed to the provisions of the Bill but because I am very concerned at the way in which it has been handled. Noble Lords should recall the experiences we have had with Bills which have been rushed through Parliament. We have learnt and lived to regret such Bills as time has gone on. Our experience of rushed Bills has not been a happy one.
The Minister will know that I cannot be accused of being a softie on crime or terrorism. I am, if anything, a hardliner. I am anti-criminal—very anti-criminal; I am victim friendly; I detest the terrorist murderers of the IRA and regret that, instead of being defeated and routed before the peace process, they were let off the hook and allowed to re-arm and regroup. So, basically, I am in favour of any measures to deal with the terrorists and to protect our own people from their activities. But, if we do bring in measures without proper democratic

303
scrutiny, then it is the terrorists who have won, particularly if these measures impinge on the freedom of our people to go about their business unhindered.
I believe that this point was raised by my noble friend earlier; namely, that there is a suspicion that the police asked for these powers some weeks ago in anticipation of problems arising around the 80th anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising. If that is true, and perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether it is, why on earth was no legislation brought forward earlier so that we could indeed have had a proper discussion? But, even if the police did not ask for powers, the Government themselves should have shown intelligent anticipation, after the ceasefire was so brutally ended, and asked Parliament to consider new measures, but again with adequate time for proper scrutiny of those measures. As it is, we have a raft of significant measures of which the House of Commons was given only one day's notice. The measures were railroaded through on a guillotine, allowing only six hours for all stages of the Bill. That is hardly time to put forward any amendments in Committee, let alone at Report stage, and no time for consultation with, or representations from, individuals and organisations. Democracy means that people have the right of representation in Parliament and that their views can be considered and taken into account.
It is simply not good enough to say that the Official Opposition Front Bench is content to allow the Bill to be forced through Parliament without proper discussion. It really is intolerable that the Front Benches should behave in this way, particularly the Labour Front Bench in the House of Commons. As I said earlier, I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord McIntosh, since he really has not had time to consider the matter properly. Nevertheless, I shall listen to his advice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, once referred to the House of Commons as an "elected dictatorship". I rather fear that things have moved on since then and that we now have a one-party state, certainly in respect of this Bill.
I now turn to the Bill itself. As has already been mentioned, Clause 1 is the most onerous. Stop and search powers may very well be necessary, but Parliament is entitled to consider the implications and to consider them properly. The powers are bound to cause resentment. The Irish community and other minority communities, may very well fear that they will be unduly targeted. There is a risk that people will remonstrate with the police. If one is stopped in the street and asked to take off one's clothes, one's coat, gloves and hat, people may very well get angry and remonstrate with the police. The people will be very severely punished. We should understand that the penalties for obstructing the police are very severe. They are six months in prison or a fine of £5,000 or both. We are considering heavy penalties. We also have to have regard to the shame that people will feel on being stopped and body-searched in the street.
I ask the noble Baroness this question: what is the position of women in particular? Women do engage in terrorism and they are just as suspect as anyone else. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that those searches will be conducted by female officers? What
304
about privacy? These are matters which should concern us. What is the position as regards juveniles? They can carry bombs, too, and they can have bombs planted on them by adults. The present position, as I understand it, is that juveniles must be searched at the police station in the presence of a parent, guardian or a social worker. Do the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill transcend the protection of juveniles that we have at the present time? These are relevant matters which we would have wanted to explore in a reasonable Committee stage debate. Now I have to ask the noble Baroness if she will answer those questions now, because they are important points. Other parts of the Bill which are less draconian than Clause 1 give rise to questions that need to be asked.
As regards Clause 2, are we all satisfied that warrants to search premises are to be issued by magistrates? Some of us might feel that such warrants should be signed more appropriately by a circuit judge. What is the position if some minor fine or misdeed is discovered as a result of a warrant issued under this Bill? Such questions need consideration and that is being denied. Again under this clause, penalties of three months' imprisonment and/or a fine of £2,500 are involved. In Clause 5, which deals with prohibitions and restrictions and the removal of vehicles, there is a stipulation that disabled persons are not exempt from its provisions. In a panic situation, disabled people may feel very flustered. They may do all kinds of things: they are in a particularly vulnerable position. At least the disabled and their representatives are entitled to be consulted and make representation to Parliament, but that is being denied to them.
Finally, although I have expressed my opposition to the handling of this Bill by the Government and Her Majesty's Opposition, I nevertheless understand and accept the urgency of the measure and will certainly not seek to divide the House on Second Reading, even if that were to do any good anyway. I shall not seek to do it. I understand the need and the Government's position. However, to meet the points which I have raised, I have tabled an amendment by which the Government can redeem themselves and give Parliament the opportunity to give proper consideration to a replacement Bill after the Easter Recess. It is an amendment to allow the legislation to run for three months.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, supported by my noble friend on the Front Bench, put forward an alternative solution which I found very attractive indeed. I believe it to be very relevant, and, if the Government accepted it, they will do a great deal to assuage the fears that many of us have about parliamentary democracy and the need to scrutinise this sort of legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness will give very serious consideration to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. If that measure were accepted, I should then feel able to withdraw my amendment. I cannot wish the Bill well, although I understand its provisions and support them. I wish that we had had proper time to discuss them.
1.27 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope that I may save the noble Baroness time when she comes to reply. I know

305
about the evil of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, my youngest son had two escapes from bombs, which were a good deal narrower than I would have wished. Even when I was abroad and working in the United States, I was not able to get away from it. I shall not forget in a hurry the experience of sitting up waiting for news, with the pregnant wife of one of my postgraduates, on the day the Harrods bomb went off, which was the day on which he was doing his Christmas shopping there. Fortunately, the call, when it came, was from New York airport.
I am well aware that there is a real and a continuing threat from terrorism. My wife's best friend was two cars behind the bus that blew up in the Aldwych. Her passenger, who was much less shaken than she was, was able to assist with pulling the victims out of the bus. I do not think there is any dispute about the reality or the evil of the threat from terrorism. There is only one thing for which I feel more contempt than I do for the IRA's principles—and that is its intelligence. The IRA's weakness is that it is unable to obtain the majority of the votes or indeed, I believe, even of the guns of Northern Ireland. Anything that it may do on the British mainland will not get it one inch nearer to overcoming that obstacle.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was pleased to describe my remarks as "infantile". The noble Earl, like Augustus in Ruthless Rhymes, enjoys his little bit of fun, but he might perhaps reflect that there is authority for the view that wisdom can come out of the mouths of babes and sucklings. I do not think that anything we say about terrorism absolves us of the need, first, to consider whether the Bill will actually do anything to help to prevent terrorism, which is a question that the House has not yet addressed, and, secondly, to consider whether it has got right the balance between civil liberties and fighting terrorism. In both cases I find that I am handicapped in reaching a balanced opinion because I do not have the time to do it. So when I ask whether the Bill achieves those objectives, I can only reply in the words of Marcel Proust who, when asked whether he believed in ghosts, replied:
"Madame, their appearances are against them".
I understand the view of the police. I understand that every Home Secretary, of whatever party, has to listen with great care to the police. However, the police are an expert witness. They are to be treated with the respect due to an expert witness and not with the respect due to an executive authority. When one listens to an expert witness, unless another is saying the opposite, one has to take what that expert witness says within the area of his expertise. However, when making a political judgment, one has to take it in a rather wider context.
I consider this matter as a resident of Kilburn, which is perhaps the most Irish area in the whole of London, more Irish even than the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. It is very rarely indeed that my Irish neighbours talk to me about their views of the IRA. Indeed, I am flattered that they have occasionally done so. What I hear from them when they do is a hatred of the IRA such as to make the Home Secretary appear moderate. They feel that the IRA is prostituting an ideal
306
in which they believe. On the other hand, they have a very limited faith in what they still describe as the "Conservative and Unionist Party" and not always all the confidence in the police that we would wish.
It is absolutely vital for the detection of terrorism that people should be prepared to come forward to give evidence. Since 1974 there has been a very great improvement in that respect. So much so that I believe that the area of which I speak, which used to be near the IRA's London headquarters, is now very far from safe for them. Members of the public tend to resent being stopped and searched, especially if they see it as being done for no particular reason. It is possible—I put it no higher—that that resentment may make them less eager to come forward with evidence which the security forces would be extremely glad to know. There is a balancing act to be struck here. I do not know the right way to strike it, but I should like to see the question considered at rather more leisure than has so far been the case.
With the leave of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I wish to correct something he said. He said that my right honourable friend Mr. Beith had been consulted about the Bill. My right honourable friend assures me that he was informed, but he was not consulted. There is quite a significant distinction. I should be grateful if that correction could go on the record.
We have to admit that the task of striking a balance is difficult. I have respect for anyone who strikes it either way so long as they understand that it is difficult. I have less respect for anyone who does not agree that it is difficult. One could go to almost absurd lengths in the course of collecting information to prevent crime. One could technologically now have a situation in which it was literally always true that Big Brother was watching one. It would mean that the security forces had a vast amount of information about all our physical infirmities and that crime was almost impossible. I do not think that anyone would be better off. Somewhere, somehow, a balance has to be struck. That question will have to be addressed in any new Bill.
Speaking to the Business Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned trust. I remember the 1974 Bill. I was then a private citizen, getting information from the newspapers. I weighed the arguments on both sides carefully and the scale appeared to be heavy. When I finally decided that it was a good thing that that measure was going forward, it was in large part because my noble friend, as he has since become, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was putting it forward. The present Home Secretary does not enjoy—I do not think he would want to enjoy—as strong a reputation as a champion of civil liberties as my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. That is a matter of political judgment, but it must affect the political judgment of those who reply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that the Government have no relish for taking these powers. To an extent that argument is devalued by repeated use. I note that these powers are extremely similar to those contained in Clause 7 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill which we shall be discussing shortly. I cannot help

307
feeling that the repeated use of those powers tends at least slightly to devalue each occasion on which they are claimed.
There are other problems about the use of such powers. We are told in Clause 1 that the police may search whether or not they have grounds to suspect a particular person. Terrorism is not confined to IRA terrorism. We should never forget that when considering the Bill. I have read reports of Sir Paul Condon's speech yesterday. It was a brave speech and I congratulate him on it. He admitted that there are racists within the police. I take his point: the police are a cross-section of the population, so one would expect cross-sections of opinion. However, that means, especially in any terrorism that comes from people with a black skin, that there is a possibility that the powers may be disproportionately used to stop black rather than white people. That could lead to resentment which might be very harmful.
Other parts of Clause 1 concern me. I am not clear—I have read the wording several times—whether the powers extend only to seizing matters which have a security implication; whether the police will be entitled to bring charges about matters with no security implication which they find during the course of searches; and whether they may give rise to what in the 17th century was called a springing offence arising from the search rather than any previous suspicion. I am also concerned about what may happen to information discovered in the course of searches. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who was here earlier today—I gave him notice that I would mention the point—putting down a Question about occasions when information which came into the possession of the police and was not used to prefer a charge nevertheless ended up in headlines in the tabloid press. The noble Baroness may remind me that last time I wrote to her about a case which appeared to be of that kind it turned out that the police were not responsible for passing on the evidence. I was very glad to discover it. But there is a risk. I have not put down an amendment because in the time available I have not had access to proper legal drafting. I would like the Bill to make it an offence to publish in the press any information obtained by searches which does not give rise to a charge. There could be security reasons, as well as ones of liberty and common decency, for such a restriction. It is perfectly possible that security may find information on which it does not want to base a charge but which it nevertheless wants to keep quiet and use for future reference.
I reserve a number of other points for the Committee stage. It remains my dominant feeling that, whether or not there is a good case for the Bill—at present I simply do not know—I deeply regret that something of this importance is passed through in an extremely hasty manner. It does not make us look good.
1.42 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I have four minutes. I could take the rest of the afternoon in dealing with some of these measures. First, I completely disagree with the introduction of the speech of my noble friend Lord Stoddart, although I agree with most of his remarks
308
in relation to the Bill. We have just emerged from a period of comparative peace in Northern Ireland. The situation is extremely fragile. Thousands of people here and all over Ireland pray and hope that the peace process can be speeded up and all-party talks can commence. That is the priority of thousands of people, unlike the priority of this Government at the moment. They want the mammoth task of seeking a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland to be given that kind of priority. This Bill does nothing to further a peaceful solution. On the contrary, it will create tension, confusion and opposition. In many cases, it will cause difficulties and hardship to a large section of the population who, God knows, do not deserve any of this. It will be counter-productive.
If we seek a reason to rush through legislation, I quote the words of my honourable friend in the other place, Mr. Dennis Canavan, MP:
"If we are looking to rush through emergency legislation in a few hours between now and the Easter Recess, I honestly believe that there is a stronger case—and that there would be widespread public support—for rushing through emergency legislation on gun control in view of the recent Dunblane massacre … The Home Secretary continues to allow gunmen to walk the streets while innocent people can be stopped and searched while going about their lawful business".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/96; cols. 171–2.]
That brief statement has a lot to commend it both in relation to emergency legislation and the probable defects of this legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned the ceasefire. In my view, the United Kingdom Government completely failed to make full use of the prevailing ceasefire; instead, they erected one obstacle after another to avoid setting up all-party talks. The genuine and constructive Mitchell Report was ignored and its recommendations rubbished by the government spokesman. The Government gave the impression, rightly or wrongly, that they were more concerned with retaining the Ulster Unionist vote on a range of measures and prevaricating on the need for all-party talks.
This Bill, which is being rushed through without due consideration, will not help the peace process. The peace process is nothing to do with the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Act did not influence the peace process. The peace process came about as a result of dialogue between the SDLP and Sinn Fein, together with the then Taoiseach in the south of Ireland. Under the 1974 Act some 27,000 people were detained, the vast majority of whom were innocent people who were put to a great deal of bother and suffering. Most of them were Irish people. I believe that the Act will threaten the peace process. I suggest that if we are talking about referenda, it may be a good idea to have a referendum involving the entire population to see whether or not plans should be drawn up for the eventual relinquishment of control of that part of Ireland and so save billions of pounds of taxpayers' money.
1.46 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in the limited amount of time that I have to speak in the gap, I wish to make a few brief points. First, I believe that we need to

309
question what the Bill is about. Having read it a number of times, I still cannot accept that the Government intend, by what is written in the Bill, effectively to say that Scottish, Welsh or English terrorism is OK but if it is Irish or foreign terrorism it is not.
Baroness Blatch: Oh!
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, unfortunately that is the way the Bill is written. The noble Baroness looks horrified. In that respect, I share her horror. If one looks at Clause 4 and the provisions of new Section 16C(3) one sees what is covered:

"(a) acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland; and

(b) acts of terrorism of any other description except acts connected solely with the affairs of the United Kingdom or any other part of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland".

One of the difficulties we face is that we have virtually no opportunity to amend the Bill before us. Effectively, it is government by decree and, almost by definition, governments get it wrong.
Mention has been made by the Minister of Home Office ministerial guidance being given to the police. I am grateful for that. If I put to the noble Baroness a number of questions I hope that she will be able to reassure me and the public and, in so doing, give some guidance to the courts as to the way this Bill may be used. First, I should like to ask about footwear and headgear. Curiously, under this Bill a police constable is given power to ask somebody to remove footwear. The same or another police constable may require that person to leave a cordoned area precipitately. I am sure that it is not the Minister's intention that the power should be used in that way. Any guidance and reassurance that she can give would help.
On headgear, we must recognise the sensibilities and religious affiliation of Sikhs and the importance they place on their headgear. Presumably it is not the Government's intention to require Sikhs to remove their turbans.
One of the intriguing things about the Bill is that it sets up a legal basis for cordons, but it does so for investigation only. There is nothing in the Bill that says a cordon may be set up around the area where a bomb may be liable to go off and that the police be given powers to evacuate the area for the protection of the public. That is not written into the Bill. One might think that it is common sense, but the police have powers for investigation purposes only. I am sure that the Minister does not accept that that should be the case.
The Bill refers to those people having lawful authority to be in a cordoned area and those who would have reasonable excuse. Perhaps the Minister will advise the House as to who will be in those categories.
1.51 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the first question anyone involved in the debate must ask themselves is: is the Bill a threat to human rights? The answer, as so many speakers have said, must be yes. That
310
question must be followed by a second: is there justification in the interests of protecting people for such legislation?
In political life there are many occasions when, as individual politicians, we lack the quantity, depth or type of knowledge that colleagues, because of their role, inevitably have. On this occasion I am dependent upon the judgment and advice of the shadow Secretary of State, my honourable friend Jack Straw, and of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, because of their knowledge, that such a judgment needs to be made, and this legislation needs to be supported. For that reason, I support it.
I share the concerns and questions relating to the length of time before the legislation comes up for review and consideration, and look forward to listening to the answers. That leads me to my next question: can the powers in this proposed legislation be abused? Do people genuinely fear that they may be? The answer to both those questions must be yes.
As a former member of a police authority who has worked with ACPO, I am concerned to protect the good name of what I choose on all occasions to call the police service rather than the police force. I speak as someone who wishes to protect that good name on the overwhelming majority of occasions when that good name should and must be protected.
All those involved with the police service are aware of the fragile nature of liaison with the community, with minority sections of the community and certain age groups within the community. For that reason I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any justification for considering the need for an additional—I stress additional and not in place of—report to Parliament and additional scrutiny of the occasions upon which the legislation is used by the police service. There should be some form of additional scrutiny. I do not seek to be prescriptive about the form. But people may be reassured if a genuinely independent body, committee or group had the opportunity to question closely those who had authorised the use of the legislation, prior to, and not instead of, reporting fully to Parliament in the appropriate way.
That might give the opportunity for fears to be allayed. Such a body could receive reports and questions, as appropriate, from those concerned with the use of the powers proposed in this legislation. I await with deep concern the Minister's answer to that question, because I believe that we are trapped in an extremely difficult situation. I fear that we could damage the good community relations that exist with the police.
1.55 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the debate. But from what I have heard it seems to me that great chunks have been taken so out of context that I feel honour-bound to say a few words. I have twice had occasion to take the advice of the security forces. The first time I had a fortnight's warning. The second time I had only three days in which to act.
From what we have heard today, it is clear to me that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was advised of the need for these high powers at a very late

311
stage. It would have been irresponsible of me not to have followed the advice of the security forces on my own behalf. How much more irresponsible of the Home Secretary would it have been for him not to follow the advice of the security forces in relation to the whole population?
I am happy to believe that my right honourable friend had little, if no, inkling of the need for this Bill on 19th March—the last time upon which we debated the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Even if he did, what effect, other than warning us, would there have been? I can find no provision in the parent Act to amend it by order. It may only be continued in force by that means, although the powers contained within it can be dropped and reintroduced by order.
I assume that when the Bill becomes an Act Clause 7(8) means that it will be continued in force by the same extension order as the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. That Act, together with this addition, is harsh. It does to a certain extent infringe civil liberties. That said, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, who asked what attention terrorists pay to civil liberties. I would go slightly further and say that one has to fight fire with fire. I believe that is what the Bill does.
The PTA, with this Bill added, will, as I say, do just that. It is right that Parliament should discuss renewing it at regular intervals. Today's argument has been, rightly, about this Bill, which is only one of several amendments to the parent Act, itself, as we have heard, originally emergency legislation in 1974.
That Act has been reintroduced and properly debated over time in both Houses. Back in 1974–75 there was only one piece of legislation, so it was appropriate to leave the existing legislation on the statute book and to discuss it in full as a Bill later.
As I said, in the intervening years the Act has been amended more than once. I therefore venture to suggest that there is another legislative way of considering such legislation; that is, by means of a Consolidation Bill, possibly with a committee specially chosen by the House for that specific purpose. I am reinforced in that view by the fact that we have heard almost no comparison between this Bill and the Prevention of Terrorism Act this afternoon. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, reinforces that point more deeply than it was already reinforced. For now, my advice to the House is to enact the Bill. There will be plenty of time to review it in the near future, even in the unlikely event that we are legislating in haste and will have to repent at leisure. I just do not believe that.
2 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this has been a valuable and constructive debate and I am well aware that it is under considerable constraints of time. The powers that I have described to your Lordships' House are sensible. They are practical measures which build on those already exercised by the police. They are supported by the police and I hope that Members on all sides of the House will support them today. A number of points have
312
been raised and I shall touch on some of them. Those I miss, which I hope will not he material to the passing of the Bill, I shall deal with in letters to noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked why not allow the Bill to be brought back for re-enactment. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who has tabled an amendment to that effect, put forward another variation for allowing the House to reconsider it. The 1974 Act, which was used as an analogy, was a wholly new proposition to Parliament. The present Bill provides new statutory powers but they build on the existing framework of anti-terrorist legislation and on the common law powers exercised by the police. The operation of the powers will be scrutinised annually by a wholly independent reviewer and will be subject to annual renewal. Therefore, it is not sensible to allow the powers to lapse in, say, three months and bring them back for re-enactment. The powers are needed now and we should provide them to the police. That was wholly accepted by the right honourable Member in another place, the Shadow Home Secretary.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was concerned about rub-down searches. The term has been used previously and I am sure that many noble Lords are familiar with them at our party conferences. A rub-down search is less intrusive than a strip search or an intimate search. A constable will be able to examine the contents of an individual's pockets. He will also be able to examine clothing, which he can ask the individual to remove. As I have said, that is the outer coat, jacket, headgear, gloves and foot wear. A constable may not take non-intimate or even intimate samples, nor may he make examinations of an individual's mouth, which was raised by the noble Lord. Rub-down searches are made by the police in a non-terrorist context under PACE.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, spoke about the future of the PTA and asked whether it would be repealed once there was a lasting peace. I believe that noble Lords know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who I am delighted to see has been present throughout the debate, is currently examining the need for specific counter-terrorism once there is a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. It would be wrong of us to pre-empt the conclusions of that inquiry, but I cannot do so in any event.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, rightly spoke about the balance of freedom versus the threat to life. I can say to him hand on heart that freedom of the individual is not lightly tossed aside by the Government. The way in which the Prevention of Terrorism Act works is constantly monitored and there are annual reports. As I said, a thorough review is being undertaken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. We believe that this is a necessary piece of legislation and we understand all the sensitivities about individual freedom. Therefore, constant scrutiny is important in that context.
Much has been said about the need for cross-party agreement. I agree with that. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made the point. That is precisely how my right honourable friend has approached this legislation. Noble Lords asked how he led up to where

313
we are today. It is true that after the bombing at South Quay the police raised their anxieties generally with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He is discussing operational matters with the police all the time. It was necessary for him to consider whether those concerns needed to be met with specific measures. It was also necessary for him to secure agreement from his colleagues in Cabinet as to whether they could be met and by this particular means. I can say that without any delay whatever when Ministers agreed on 28th March—last Thursday—that these additional powers should be made available, my right honourable friend even before he left Downing Street contacted oppositional spokesmen of all parties.
Only when agreement was reached on Monday of this week between the official Opposition spokesman and the Government—without that agreement we would not be using these emergency measures today—were the emergency procedures appropriate and the whole matter became available for wider discussion. We have assumed that the leaders of parties in another place have spoken with their colleagues in each of those parties. It seems inconceivable that Mr. Beith would not have spoken to his colleagues in the Liberal Democrat Party. Indeed, I know that Mr. Straw discussed these matters with colleagues in his party.
A Statement was offered to both Houses on Monday but it was refused by this House. Therefore, the House was denied an opportunity to discuss the measures which we have put before it today. It fell to my noble friend the Chief Whip to make it known to the House on Monday that this business would be taken by these emergency measures in this House today.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to children and asked what would happen if a juvenile crime were discovered. Normal police powers and judgments of appropriate action apply as they would to any other police powers of search which revealed evidence of other crimes. I understand that if as a result of a rub-down search the police become concerned and had reasonable grounds for believing that a more intimate search was necessary that would have to be enacted. The person would be arrested and taken to the police station and the search would be enacted in accordance with PACE and other powers under other legislation.
Noble Lords raised the matter of rub-down searches of women. For obvious operational reasons it would be impossible for the police to provide a woman police officer to undertake every search of a woman under these provisions. These are exceptional provisions and they would be exceptional circumstances. The police will exercise these powers very carefully and with sensitivity, which is the point of the guidance, and they will be free to use their discretion. The same applies when searching juveniles.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene and I thank the Minister for giving way. What she said about the searches of women is extremely worrying. Can she say whether in all circumstances such searches will be conducted by uniformed officers and not by plain clothes officers? What on earth will women
314
say if they are asked to remove an outer garment which may be revealing in a way that a man will not be revealed if he removes an outer garment? What the Minister has said is extremely worrying.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the context of the Bill must be considered. It is an anti-terrorist measure. The record shows that women are as capable of terrorist acts as are men and sometimes young people. It is in that context that the searches are carried out. I have been subject to rub-down searches by both men and women and I have always judged that the reason it is being done is to protect my freedom and that of other people. I am reassured to know that such searches take place.
As regards the measure in this Bill, only outer garments can be removed. It is a rub-down, frisk-type search of the body. If the police become suspicious that something is concealed in those garments and this Bill is not applicable, other powers apply. An arrest would be made and there would be reasonable grounds for a more thorough, intimate search. That would be enacted under different legislation and no doubt it would be carried out by a policewoman. However, under the circumstances of this Bill there may be no time to think about the matter and the searches must be done quickly. It would be wrong to allow a dangerous situation to become even more dangerous, perhaps even fatal for someone, because there was not a police woman on sight to carry out a rub-down search of a woman. But it must be said that clearly if it were possible to use a policewoman, that would no doubt be covered in the guidance. However, if that were not possible, the search would go ahead in any event.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to disabled persons and asked why they are not exempt from the parking restrictions. It would be impossible to allow an exemption from the provisions for those holding a current disabled person's badge. If we made such an exemption, the IRA could easily evade the provisions by stealing the badges which are fixed to a car. They could place a bomb in such a car and park it in a vulnerable site. That cannot he right, but I do not believe that, just because they are disabled, the disabled would wish to be allowed to park in a vulnerable area which the police have already declared to be a security risk.
Referring to Clause 2, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether a search warrant would be issued by a circuit judge. The present search warrant procedure in Schedule 7 to the Prevention of Terrorism Act applies on application to a JP. There is no reason to impose a stricter requirement for the type of searches provided for in Clause 2. There is certainly no evidence that the present procedures in Schedule 7 are inappropriate.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented that people resent being stopped and searched. We have no evidence yet to suggest that that is so in any great measure in relation to those who have been stopped under the existing Section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism Act; that is, the stop and search of vehicles, drivers, passengers and bags carried by a pedestrian. There is every sign that the public welcomes the reassurance which such searches provide.

315
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the stop and search powers could be used against minorities, and that is an important point. The noble Earl knows that much has been done to provide safeguards. The safeguards in place are that authorisation must be from a senior officer; there is a limited duration for the measures; geographical extent must be defined; the Home Secretary's endorsement must be sought; there is an annual review of the PTA; and the Home Secretary has agreed that the use of this power should be covered by PACE Code A which applies to existing stop and search powers. Therefore, a number of safeguards are in place and we shall make sure that the new guidance also covers those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked about the territorial coverage of the Bill and whether it covered Scotland, Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. The definition referred to in Clause 4 applies already in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That Act addresses the exceptional problems we face. Existing criminal law and public order legislation provide substantial powers to deal with, for example, arson in Wales or violent campaigns for Scottish independence. Of course, a prevention Act is in operation in Northern Ireland which goes further than the powers provided in England.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to information obtained in the course of a search. We have no evidence that information obtained by the police in the course of a search of premises or persons has been passed to the press. PACE Code B specifies the purposes for which information seized may be used. It covers the use of evidence at trial and forensic investigation. The police would be acting inconsistently with PACE if they disclosed information to the press. Of course, there may also be a defamation consideration, a subject which was discussed in this House yesterday.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, mentioned headgear and the particular sensitivity when dealing with Sikhs who wear a particular form of headgear. First, I agree with him that the police would have to act with discretion and great sensitivity. But it is just as easy to conceal a device under Sikh headgear as it is under any hat. Therefore, again, it would be quite wrong to exempt those people simply because they wear a different form of headgear. Terrorism is terrorism and wherever it is, it must be countered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, asked whether there was any justification for additional scrutiny of the Act's powers. There is considerable monitoring of the use of the stop and search powers and that will continue. The provisions of the Act are reviewed annually by a wholly independent reviewer who has access to officials, Ministers and to the files. He can talk to whomsoever he chooses. His visits and consultations are listed in his report each year and that will continue. We believe that that provides extremely extensive safeguards and the kind of scrutiny which the noble Baroness believes to be important.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that the priority must be to restore the peace in Northern Ireland. I agree absolutely with that. That must be a priority. No effort is spared in pursuing the restoration of that peace. We
316
should take note of what my noble friend Lady Park and the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said. While the restoration of that peace is being pursued, the protection of the peoples of the United Kingdom is absolutely paramount. Sadly, no powers can provide complete protection against the evil intent of those who seek to kill, maim and undermine our democratic way of life. The powers before your Lordships will be of practical operational benefit to the police. If, as a result, just one life is saved, those powers will be welcomed by every law-abiding citizen in this country.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may seek some clarification. I thank the noble Baroness for answering the questions I put to her. However, I asked about those who would have lawful authority to be in a cordoned area and what a reasonable excuse might be. Those are defences available for persons prosecuted under the Act. I believe that it would be useful for the House and for the public at large to know what "lawful authority" would mean in that context and what is a reasonable excuse.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have provided that defence but it would be a matter for the courts to determine whether the reason given was reasonable. It is for the courts to decide whether someone has good reason to be there. I noticed that the noble Lord said in his speech that it is for the Government to guide the courts; but that is not so. The courts must make their own judgments about those matters. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 2.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 2.19 to 2.40 p.m.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITIBES (Lord Elliott of Morpeth) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to stop and search pedestrians]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert ("Subject to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (11) or otherwise,").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 5. I apologise if there is any confusion in the wording of the amendment. It refers to "subsection (11)" which would follow subsection (10)

317
of Clause 1 which is the new Clause 13B to be inserted in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The purpose of the amendment is solely to pave the way for Amendment No. 5 which refers to the necessity, as we see it, for,
"consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and such other persons or bodies as he deems appropriate, [to] issue guidance on the sensitivity with which the powers contained in section 13A and this section should be exercised and the circumstances in which the powers should be used".
In the brief time available to us on Second Reading, a number of concerns arose about the wording of this clause in the Bill. Those concerns were about the nature of the search which would be allowed; about the place in which the search would be allowed; about the circumstances; about the period of the order which might be made; and, indeed, about who might make that order. All of them mean that, as is inevitable with legislation which is being produced at high speed and being legislated at an even higher speed, there will be possibilities for confusion. Where there are possibilities for such confusion, there are possibilities for misapplication of the law and either or both injustice and a failure of the law to achieve its effects in countering terrorism effectively.
After we tabled the amendments we were glad to hear from the Home Secretary that guidance should be issued by him and that the chief officers of police in England and Wales, in Scotland, and wherever the Act applies, should be consulted about the practical details of the clause. It may seem that the legislation is relatively straightforward. It may well be—indeed, I believe that it is the case—that the legislation follows the format of Section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Nevertheless, the opportunity for misunderstanding and for misuse is still great. It seems to us desirable that that sort of consultation should not only be in place but that it should also be on the face of the Bill if the Government find it possible to agree to it.
We are not suggesting that there should be any delay in the implementation of the Bill. Clearly, guidance could only take place when the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to consult. But we understood from the Home Secretary's response in another place yesterday that he was prepared to act very speedily to introduce the guidance which is necessary. We also understood—and perhaps this is the most important aspect in the short term—that the police were prepared to use the guidance which already exists under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act as their rule book, so to speak, for the implementation of this part of the Act.
I emphasise the need for guidance because there is confusion between the stop and search powers which exist under Section 13A introduced in the Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994 and such powers as still survive under common law and under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Those of my friends who have been involved more closely than I have with the old sus law and who are aware of the extent to which that law was abused will know that where there is confusion in the law or where there is reliance on
318
common law, there is the possibility, which should be avoided wherever possible, that the police will misuse the powers they have to stop people.
Over the years the police have used their powers to stop and search people in the street in a discriminatory way. It is an admitted fact. Indeed, the Metropolitan Police admitted that 60 per cent. of the people stopped and searched in the street are black. That is despite the fact that the proportion of black people in the population as a whole does not represent one-tenth of that figure. That is an unfortunate fact. It is also the case that the power to stop and search people is excessively applied to young people. Again, that is way out of proportion as regards their numbers in the population. It is possible—indeed, I do not doubt it—that young people, especially young men, are more likely to be involved in crime than other people. But anyone who knows about the way in which the existing law has been implemented knows that those powers are used in a discriminatory way.
Members of the Committee may ask, "Well, what's the harm in being stopped and searched?" People may say that, for example, anyone who goes on an aeroplane journey knows that he will be stopped and searched before he is allowed to board the plane. Of course, that is true: but, in that case, the person is undertaking a positive initiative by going onto a plane and is doing so in the knowledge that he will be stopped and searched. What young people object to—especially young black people—is the knowledge that by going about their ordinary business on the street they are likely to be stopped and searched. Indeed, they are likely to be stopped and searched over and over again.
The evidence from the City of London police cordon which, we were told, was set up almost entirely to deal with IRA and international terrorism shows that a high proportion of people who were stopped going into and out of the City were black people and black motorists. I am not aware that there is a significant number of black people in the IRA.
There is cause for concern as regards the previous legislation. There is concern about the way it is implemented. There will inevitably be cause for concern about this legislation and, inevitably, there will be a need for both guidance from the Secretary of State and scrutiny and sensitivity in the application of this legislation by the police if justice is to be done, and indeed if anti-terrorist legislation is to work. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I rise to speak briefly because I raised a number of matters during the Second Reading which I fear were not answered by the noble Baroness to my satisfaction. I believe that the police should act extremely sensitively, and the Home Secretary should be satisfied that they will act with extreme sensitivity, because there is a certain indignity in being stopped in the street by a constable—I accept now that it has to be a constable in uniform—and asked to remove certain articles of clothing. There is indignity involved there and the way this is done has to be in such a way as to put a person who is placed in such a position as much at ease as possible. I hope that that matter will be taken up.

319
I am particularly worried about the position of women. Even in this politically correct age when women are supposed to be equal, and indeed are equal in every respect except as regards biology, there is a sensitivity as regards the way in which women are treated. I sincerely hope that the police will be asked to ensure that wherever possible women subjected to this sort of search will have the search undertaken by a female officer. I should not have thought that was too difficult an assurance to give to me this afternoon. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to do so.
I am also concerned about the position of juveniles. As I understand the law, juveniles are not children but are people up to the age of 17. I am concerned about fair treatment. Again I ask that it should be put to the Metropolitan Police and any other police force, that they should use particular sensitivity in relation to those people. Will there be any record of a person who is searched, and will the name and address of the person who is searched be taken by the constable? Will that information be registered, where will it be registered and for how long will the record, if there is a to be a record, remain on police files?
Baroness O'Cathain: I ask for clarification on the point the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made about searching women. Women have a particular problem in this respect and it is right to show some sensitivity. However, as far as I recall, when one passes through security at airports, women are not always searched by women. Certainly in some overseas countries that is not the case. However, I believe that some machines can now he used to search women. The machines are big round things with handles and they are run up and down a person's body. One is not actually touched by either a man or a woman when one is being searched. I should have thought that such a machine would be useful in the case we are discussing because I do not think it is feasible to say that every woman should be searched by a woman. I do not know what is the proportion of women officers in the police force but I should have thought that it is still significantly lower than 50 per cent. of the total police force, whereas women comprise more than 50 per cent. of the population. I believe there is a problem here which I am sure could be overcome. The noble Lord has raised an important point.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Naturally, with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I hope that this can be conducted in a sensitive way. However, I remind the Committee that it was a charming woman who gave a young soldier at a checkpoint in Belfast a cake at Christmas which contained a bomb.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wish to mention an anxiety—in support of the amendment—about the need for sensitivity when asking women to remove their headwear when that is worn because of their religious faith. I think particularly of Moslem women.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Baroness replies I wish to refer to what the noble
320
Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has just mentioned. I appreciate that there are women terrorists and of course people are searched at airports. However, the situation I am discussing is where people will be searched in the street. When people go to an airport they expect to be searched; I hope, usually, by someone of the same sex, but nevertheless they expect to be subjected to a search procedure. In the case I am discussing a person who is just walking along the street may be approached by a constable who asks to search that person. I believe that particular sensitivity needs to be shown as regards searching people on the street who have no prior knowledge that they will be searched and who will be surprised by that.
Baroness Strange: This is a question of sensitivity. My mother was once stopped and asked to remove her hat because it was thought she might have a gun underneath it. She was delighted to remove it and the person who searched her very kindly helped her to put her hat back on again, with the hat pins!
Baroness Blatch: This is an important point and I certainly do not take it lightly. I repeat the assurance given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that there certainly will be guidance on the use of these powers in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others, as the noble Lord has asked. While that guidance is in preparation we think it important not to have a hiatus and therefore my right honourable friend will issue immediate provisional guidance. He will also advise that the relevant PACE Code A for stop and search should be applied to all the stop and search provisions. As has already been said by myself and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the police have already told us that they will apply the PACE code voluntarily until the new provisions are formally brought within its scope.
I wish to clear up a point which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made. There are no common law stop and search powers. They were swept away by PACE, and therefore they should no longer be a concern. My understanding of the registration point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is that names of persons are taken and recorded, and indeed so too is their ethnic origin. That is all part of the way in which the police must operate under PACE. The monitoring that will be carried out will include ethnic monitoring. The ring of steel to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred was established by means of powers to control the movement of traffic and not for security reasons, although it has to be said that it helps to maintain security. For those reasons I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for correcting me as regards common law powers. I was amused by what she said about the ring of steel. Of course it was introduced by the Corporation of the City of London under traffic regulations but it was never hesitant about saying that it was doing it for security purposes. I do not think we should be diverted from the aim of ensuring sensitivity in the operation of such controls by the ostensible purpose rather than the

321
real purpose of the measures. This may not be relevant to the Bill, but I happen to be a little cynical about the ring of steel altogether. I thought that it was simply an exercise in public relations and that it largely involved moving potential trouble away from one area into another area. I know that people in Hackney, Islington and Tower Hamlets thought the same. It is a great pity that it is now being extended to parts of the docklands. I believe that it is a misguided activity and I hope that guidance as regards this clause would help to stop people using such crude measures as the City corporation's ring of steel.
The debate has been useful—not in the sense that I intended to seek the opinion of the Committee, because I have the assurances that I sought. It is useful in that it has been an opportunity for noble Lords to give expression to their many concerns about the operation of these powers. None of those concerns in any way diminishes our support for anti-terrorist measures. But there can be no doubt that anti-terrorist measures introduced as such have an impact on civil liberties which goes beyond the need to combat terrorism. That has been the case in the past. It would be extraordinary if it were not the case in the future. Issues debated later in Committee about review will be most relevant to that.
In the meantime, in view of the assurances that I have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, after ("appears") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I speak also to Amendment No. 7, both of which insert the word "reasonable", first, in Clause 1, and, secondly, in Clause 4. On reflection, they are not perhaps the most elegant in syntactical terms. Amendment No. 1 provides,
"Where it appears reasonable to a police officer of the rank … that it is expedient to do so".
That is not very pretty. Perhaps we should have used the phrase, "Where it reasonably appears to a police officer", rather than face the problems that I now have. Again it is not my intention to press the amendments to a Division.
However, it is important that all noble Lords should recognise the extent to which those powers are exercised solely on the authorisation of, and by, the police themselves. There is no outside intervention in the exercise of these powers until subsections (8) and (9). Other powers in the Bill are subject to a warrant issued by a magistrate. Even then, after a certain period, there is intervention by a Secretary of State. But initially an area can be declared by the police; and the authorisation can be enforced by them, as the Bill stands, for a period of 48 hours without any other agency having a say in the matter. It seems to me, if only for their protection, that the police should be required explicitly in the legislation to act reasonably. Therefore there should be objective tests which can be tested in a court of whether their action was reasonable.
Clearly no one in a case of an emergency which could result in a bomb will worry about the niceties of what might be said in a court afterwards. I do not argue that. However, experience as regards stop and search provisions over the years has indicated that hundreds of thousands of people have been stopped and searched with a minimal result in arrests and an even smaller result in arrests for terrorist offences.
That is not to say that the provisions are wrong. It may well be necessary to carry out a huge screening in order to find a limited number of terrorists. It needs only a limited number of terrorists to cause a great deal of damage. I do not argue on that point. But where the police alone are involved for a period of up to 48 hours, as the Bill provides, then an objective test which can be challenged in the courts as to whether they behaved reasonably is a desirable practice.
I may be told that police have to behave reasonably anyway. That is often the response to such amendments. However, if we seek not only to ensure that legislation is effective but is seen to be effective by the general public, these amendments are desirable. I hope that the Government will accept them. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I support the amendments. They appear to me to be sensible and helpful. How far the powers under the Bill in practice will he restricted to the prevention of terrorism is rapidly emerging as one of the relevant points of debate. Prevention of terrorism is an objective which on occasion justifies restrictive powers which one would not wish to use in any other context. However, I cannot help wondering whether the use made in particular of the powers of search will in practice result in more charges on matters of terrorism than on anything else.
All of us nowadays are subject to performance indicators. All of us are aware of pressure to improve our performance according to those indicators. It is perfectly possible to imagine a police officer, either in a state of acute frustration about the operation of those indicators or convinced that he knows who is doing something when he has no actual evidence to prove it, using the powers under Clause 1 to stop and search in an area where he believes that he might find cannabis; and coming up with, let us say, 20 convictions, thus improving his performance no end without any real, reasonable grounds to suspect that he might be detecting potential terrorists.
If the powers under Clause 1 were to be used in anything like that way on even so much as one or two occasions, we can be certain that that would result in a good deal of publicity and ill feeling, and, I am afraid, in a diminishing respect for the law.
If the amendment were adopted, it could do something to protect us against those dangers. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will look on it with at least a grain of sympathy.
Lord Finsberg: The amendment shows a great divide—not between the parties in this Chamber but the politicians, the media and the citizen. I do not believe that the citizen will consider the measure in the light that the two noble Lords have put to us.

323
Perhaps I may refer to the stop and search powers. For 22 years I represented a London marginal constituency, receiving 80 letters a day. During those 22 years I received precisely one complaint that someone had been stopped and searched. It is, frankly, a matter that I hope my noble friend will take into account. I believe that the normal citizen will recognise that the Bill is not before us for pleasure or for any reason other than to save lives. I do not believe that the arguments that we have heard today, sincere though they are—I do not criticise them in that sense—hold water for the ordinary citizen. It is a different game for politicians and the media.
Earl Russell: I wonder whether the noble Lord will agree that normal citizens differ as much as normal politicians.
Lord Finsberg: I have already sat down.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I should like to make a special plea that ethnic minorities, too, comprise normal, ordinary citizens. We fall into grave danger if we consider that these powers could be aimed at them as though they are aliens in our midst. Many of them have served in the forces—their fathers and mothers too. They are certain to regard themselves as ordinary citizens who wish to see terrorism ended and are prepared to take some discomfort in order to achieve that.
Lord Monkswell: I support the amendment but wish to refer to my remarks and the lack of response from the Minister in the Second Reading debate. I asked about persons having lawful authority or other reasonable excuse for failing to comply, in contravention of the Act. In the break between the Second Reading and Committee stage, I had the opportunity to seek legal advice on what the provision might mean. The advice I was given was that a lawful authority would be an authority that was conferred by a policeman. That is revealing about the powers which we are conferring in the situation that is likely to occur. As I understand it—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the police can designate an area and, under the Bill, they would have the powers to stop and search any individual without cause within that area. They will have the powers to require people to move out of it or move about in it and the area will become totally police controlled.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh is right. We should ensure that the police are themselves protected. The insertion of the word "reasonable" will ensure that there is a mechanism for testing in the courts the judgment of the police in the designation of the area and how the police operated. As I understand it, the way in which the Bill is drafted means that it would be impossible for the operations of the police, in the 48-hour period before the Secretary of State becomes involved, to be totally unquestioned. I am sure that it is not the Government's intention that a group of citizens in our country, circumscribed by a boundary determined by the police, should come totally under police control, with virtually no alternative. I am sure that the Government do not
324
intend that. I hope that in her response to my noble friend's amendment, the Minister can give us reassurance. Failing that, it would be in order for us to insert the word "reasonable". I understand that that would enable the courts to make a judgment, if necessary, as to what was right and what was wrong.
Lord Blyth: I was asked within this building this morning whether the Bill meant that if one had an Irish accent one was liable to be stopped and searched. It is a difficult problem for people from Ireland of whom a small minority support any form of terrorism.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is entirely reasonable for my noble friend to propose the amendment because the Bill is sloppily drafted. The proposed Section 13B states:
"Where it appears to a police officer".
That means "if it seems to a police officer". It is not tough enough. If the wording stated:
"Where ‖ a police officer of the rank … believes",
there would be no problem. I wish that when Bills are drafted the draftsman would say exactly what he means; then people would know what is meant.
Lord Milverton: There is much talk about liberty and freedom but if we are to have them, surely we should be ready and prepared, in exceptional cases where there is a clear danger, to have intrusions into our liberty and freedom for the safety and security not only of ourselves but of everyone—not only whites but also the ethnic communities. To me all that is being done is reasonable. A lot of nonsense is talked about the danger of the citizen, whoever he or she is, losing his freedom. If we want freedom, then at times we must be prepared for governments to take extraordinary measures which they would not otherwise take. They do not wish to take them, but if there is terror about we must meet it and not be afraid.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: That is an appropriate moment for me to intervene on the amendment. I believe that what my noble friend Lord Milverton says is right. Where there is terrorism we must meet it. Those of us who are interested in freedom must accept that inconvenience will go with it.
Clauses 1 and 4 as drafted enable a senior police officer to authorise the exercise of the powers in each case if he forms the view that the use of those powers is appropriate in the circumstances in order to prevent acts of terrorism. That is what the Bill means by the word "expedient". In the case of Clause 1, the authorisation must come from an assistant chief constable. In the case of Clause 4, it must come from an officer of the rank of superintendent or above. The formulation in Clauses 1 and 4 is the same as appears in the existing Section 13A of the Act and elsewhere in the Act. For example, Section 4 provides that the Secretary of State may exercise the power of exclusion if he thinks it expedient to do so to prevent acts of terrorism.

325
I do not believe that senior police officers would act unreasonably in coming to a decision on the use of the powers. They are well aware of the sensitivities and of the need to carry the public with them. The Secretary of State will issue guidance, as I said, in relation to all the new powers to ensure that they are applied carefully, sensitively and consistently.
In relation to the stop and search of pedestrians, the additional safeguard is provided that authorisation will require confirmation from the Secretary of State within 48 hours. Any unreasonable exercise of the powers could be challenged by way of judicial review. That partly answers the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The court would decide whether the officer's conclusion that it was expedient to use the power was reasonable.
Reference was made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to possible abuse of power under the proposed Section 13B to improve statistics. I have to say that that is a terribly cynical view of the way in which the police act in this country against the evil of terrorism. It is our belief that the powers will not be used in that way. The authorisation would be unlawful. The safeguard of confirmation of authorisation by the Secretary of State is intended to prevent that happening. However, I do not believe that a police officer would try to use the powers in that way. If he did, it would be revealed in the careful monitoring that goes on throughout the year.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred to my lack of response to his question about having a defence inside the cordon. I hope he will accept that I answered it when reminded of it at the end of Second Reading. I repeat that if a policeman decides that because of the particular circumstances at a particular time and in a particular place he needs to cordon off an area and take the powers under what will then be the Act, it would be his judgment at the time. The decision is judicially reviewable, so it can be challenged.
If someone is caught in those circumstances it may be that the reason given by a person at that moment is fully accepted by a policeman and that is an end to it. However, if the policeman believes that there is a case for prosecution, it will still have to be subject to the Director of Public Prosecutions to confirm that the case should go before the courts. If it goes before the courts and the person is given a full opportunity to press his case, his defence of why he was there and that he had good reason to be there, it would be for the courts, quite independently, to make a judgment about the strength of the case put by the individual. I do not think we can be more careful than that in balancing the right of the individual against a very difficult judgment having to be made on the spot by a policeman.
My noble friend Lady Park made a telling point about ethnic minorities. While we are concerned about monitoring and concerned to make sure that any police powers are not exercised in a discriminatory way, I believe quite strongly that they are as deserving of protection and the full effect of these measures before the Committee as any other citizen. That is how I prefer to think of them.
326
My noble friend Lord Finsberg confirmed a point I made earlier at Second Reading; namely, we do not believe there is a body of evidence that tells us there is overwhelming concern about the inconvenience suffered by those of us who from time to time are caught in an area cordoned off by the police or in a particular security check. At the end of the day, most reasonable people in this country know it is for the good of everybody. Certainly we know that it is about saving lives.
There is a comment that I have longed to make, and it is timely to make it now since this has been such a repetitive issue at the Dispatch Box. I really do wish that noble Lords would spend as much energy and parliamentary time concerning themselves about the victims and the innocent people in this country as they do about the perpetrators of evil.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know whether that remark was addressed to me. I certainly do not devote any of my time at this Dispatch Box or anywhere else to protecting the perpetrators of evil. The Minister chose to respond by praising the police and saying that she did not believe the police would behave unreasonably. I do not dissent from what she says. In introducing these amendments I did not dissent from that. I did not claim that the police would deliberately behave unreasonably. I made a point that was not addressed in the Minister's reply. I said it was a matter of protection for the police that there should he an objective test of whether or not their behaviour was reasonable, and for that objective test to be capable of being tested in the courts.
I remind the Committee of the rest of the wording of Clause (1)(1). It states:
"Where it appears to a police officer ‖ that it is expedient to do so in order to prevent acts of terrorism".
Chambers Dictionary defines "expedient" as "profitable or convenient" rather than "fair or just". It is important, not that we lose sight of the need to take convenient action in an emergency, but that we should balance that judgment with the need to be reasonable as well. Reasonable police officers would not object to the possibility of this objective test being included in the legislation. That is as much a defence of the police on my part as the defence the Minister gave.
The noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, talked as though we were separated from the general public. He did not make a party point of that. Despite his 80 letters a day, the general public do not think of turning to politicians to protect them from day-to-day inconveniences or injustices. Had I been a constituent of the noble Lord, I do not think that I should necessarily have written to him had I been stopped and searched, as I thought, unreasonably. I think I should take the matter up through police procedures. The work of the Police Complaints Authority and police internal discipline procedures has increased enormously over the years as there have been increases in police powers.
Force majeure, we recognise that these powers are necessary for the prevention of terrorism. We hope that they will go away, and we hope the reason for them will go away. But while we have these problems, surely it is right that they should be approached in as objective and

327
controlled a way as possible for the protection of the large majority of innocent citizens who will inevitably be affected by this legislation.
Only in accordance with my self-denying ordinance that in order to get this Bill enacted it will not be possible to insert amendments here and force them to be reconsidered by another place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether the Committee will allow me to make the point that I did not make in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Blyth. I believe it important that I respond to that particular point on record. Were a policeman to stop somebody simply because he knew that that person had an Irish accent, he would certainly be acting unprofessionally. He would be in breach of the rules if that were the only reason that the person was stopped. The police must not act in a discriminatory way in that sense.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 22, leave out ("48") and insert ("36").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to a part of Clause 1 to which I have already referred, if in a negative sense, in discussing other amendments.
New subsections (8) and (9) provide that,
"A person [the senior police officer] giving an authorisation under this section",
must tell the Secretary of State as soon as possible, and the Secretary of State may cancel the authorisation. Subsection (9) states, most importantly, that it,
"ceases to have effect if it is not confirmed … before the end of the period of 48 hours".
That is a fail-safe provision. In other words, the authorisation falls unless there is positive action by the Secretary of State. I welcome that. It is the right way round. It should not need positive action on the part of the Secretary of State to continue the authorisation; it should be the other way round.
However, I seriously question whether it is necessary to have a period of 48 hours before the Secretary of State responds. The Secretary of State is not flesh and blood. The Secretary of State is a concept. If the Secretary of State is in the Bahamas or wherever, then there is somebody authorised to act on behalf of the Secretary of State. I should have thought that the least we could provide is that the Home Office, or whatever department it is where the Secretary of State is located, should respond in rather less than 48 hours to what is being claimed as, and indeed is, an emergency. I should like to have specified 24 hours, but I thought about the matter and compromised. A fast response to terrorist action is the crux of this Bill and the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Surely we can have a fast response from the Secretary of State as well.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I support this amendment. By definition, if these powers are to be utilised by an officer in a police force of a seniority
328
described in the Bill, it will be an occasion of grave public emergency. At the very least, confirmation of these powers—which may be necessarily draconian—should be forthcoming from the Secretary of State after 36 hours.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that he had internally compromised at 36. Some would say that 24 hours might be more appropriate. In circumstances of serious public emergency, 48 hours is far too long without the Secretary of State's personal and responsible intervention.
Earl Russell: This amendment goes to the point I made on the previous amendment. The more tight the limits are governing the use of these powers, the more likely it is that they will be confined, as they should be, to matters dealing with terrorism.
Perhaps I might take this chance to respond to the noble Baroness's remarks on the previous amendment. I was really rather pleased that she chose to describe me as cynical. It protects me against the accusation of "foolish idealism" which came from the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. I would rather be accused of idealism by the noble Lord and of cynicism by the noble Baroness than vice versa.
Perhaps I may supply some of the evidence that led me to say what I did. It was an incident that happened to my wife when she was out shopping. Somebody attempted to steal her purse—fortunately, unsuccessfully. She observed the gang and was able to give a physical description and describe the m.o. She telephoned the police to report the crime and the police said that they did not have the time to take the report of that crime until 12.30 a.m. Naturally, she did not feel like hanging around until 12.30 in the morning in order to report the crime. The result was that the crime was not reported and did not go into the statistics of crimes which were not cleared up.
If that was not done in the light of performance indicators, I can think of no conceivable reason why it was done. So I speak with at least a little knowledge of the matter.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It might be my fault but I do not see the relevance of the story that we have just heard to the particular circumstances in which the noble Lord described rub-down searches with a view to notching up convictions to make the policeman's record look better.
With regard to this amendment, the powers of stop and search will be authorised by a senior police officer.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. She said that she did not see any relevance. I believe that the relevance is that the desire to improve the performance according to indicators is capable of changing police performance. If that is not true of the police, they are unique among human beings.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Earl and I will simply have to agree to differ. There are so many checks and balances in the system that the police, like those in almost every other walk of life, are not infallible. From

329
time to time they will make mistakes. I do not agree with what appears to be the blanket criticism that they operate in such a cynical way. I am not prepared to accept the point other than to appreciate that the noble Earl has clearly had an unfortunate experience.
The powers of stop and search will be authorised by a senior police officer. They will lapse unless confirmed by the Secretary of State within 48 hours of authorisation. We believe that that is a valuable safeguard, as was recognised by both noble Lords who spoke to the amendment. A decision should not be taken lightly. Any increased pressure on the Secretary of State by virtue of the reduced timetable proposed, just might curtail detailed deliberation over whether his confirmation should be given. At the end of the day it is a balance. Because we are writing this provision on the face of the Bill, it would be awful if he took slightly more than 36 hours to confirm the order for lack of clarification or another piece of information that was needed. Equally, we have taken the view that to leave the matter for more than 48 hours is unacceptable.
It may be that there is just a difference of opinion. We believe that 48 hours is just about right to give full consideration of what is a very exceptional power to be taken.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not find that argument very convincing. After all, in subsection (9)(c) the confirmation which enables the authorisation to continue can be not only:
"(i) for such period, not exceeding 28 days",
but also:
"(ii) for such shorter period as the Secretary of State may direct".
Therefore, it may be perfectly possible for the Secretary of State at the end of 36 hours to say, "I am not yet satisfied because some information hasn't come in. I shall confirm it for another 36 hours"—or 48 hours or whatever.
The difficulty that the Minister raised does not seem to me to be a real one, whereas the difficulty that I raise of the police being left on their own potentially for 48 hours does seem to me a real difficulty. I do not find the response at all convincing.
However, in line with my self-denying ordinance—this will not be the last time—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
("() If, following the exercise of the powers contained in section 13A above or this section a person is arrested and charged with an offence other than an offence under this Act or otherwise connected with terrorism, the fact and nature of the initial exercise of stop and search powers shall be made known to the court.").
The noble Lord said: It has been pointed out to me by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn that this amendment is defective. In the fourth line the word "shall" forces the nature of the initial exercise of stop
330
and search powers to be reported to the court, whereas it may well be—I think my noble friend is right—that the person before the court, the accused, does not want the nature of the exercise of powers to be reported.
My noble friend kindly said that if he were representing me, he would wish to report it, but there might be circumstances in which somebody has something to hide, as I patently do not—or rather I do not necessarily accept that additional piece of exemplification. Nevertheless, he has a point. Therefore, on this occasion I shall in the end seek to withdraw the amendment, not only because of my self-denying ordinance but because the amendment does not represent what I want to say.
However, the fundamental point behind the amendment remains. The fundamental point is that it makes a difference whether an offence arises—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, used the word "sprang"—out of a random search or a search which, so far as the accused is concerned, is a random search because in those circumstances he is not involved in terrorism. It does matter if I am going about my business and for some reason which is entirely irrelevant the police use powers which they would not otherwise have in order to discover something which might be to my disadvantage and might bring me before the courts. This very modest amendment does not say that those who are stopped and searched should not be accused of minor offences not connected with terrorism but that the fact that the person has been apprehended in this way should be recorded.
A Conservative Back-Bencher in another place, Mr. Peter Bottomley, yesterday went so far as to say that if a person was found to have committed other irrelevant minor offences, he should not be charged. That is going a bit far. Perhaps the Conservative Party has its own divisions on this matter. I do not think my modest amendment raises that problem. Properly worded, it would have served to preserve a proper balance between the apprehension of crime and what we all wish to avoid, which is a general use of stop and search powers under wider circumstances than is necessary. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: One very useful purpose that the amendment, or a redrafted version of it, would serve would be to make it possible to compile statistics on how many of the charges arising out of searches under this clause related to terrorist offences and how many to other offences. That would enable what is becoming a running argument between me and the noble Baroness ultimately to be resolved. When, in whatever form, this legislation comes to be reviewed, that would be material evidence by which I should abide. I should be very interested to see it.
Baroness Blatch: If the question is how many searches subsequently turned out to be in relation to terrorism and how many to other offences, the whole rationale for these measures in this Bill is that they should be used as a prevention against terrorism. Therefore, any searches carried out under these powers are done because the policeman concerned believes that it is part of counter-terrorism activity.

331
On the other hand, if the question were rather differently phrased—how many crimes are discovered subsequently as a result of searches which were carried out under these powers—that is a very different matter. But the noble Earl did not put the question that way round when he first spoke
Earl Russell: The second was the way I put it. What I want to know is how many charges result from these searches relating to terrorism and how many to other things. I should like that to be discoverable.
Baroness Blatch: I do not know whether that can be discovered or whether it is part of the monitoring process. As long as the powers under the Bill are used properly—that is, there is proper justification for carrying out the searches—it is almost irrelevant that other crimes are uncovered. If the powers are being properly used, and other crimes are uncovered, that has to be a consequence of searching people, but under these circumstances.
We feel it is very hard to see how a person could be dealt with in court without the nature of the original stop and search being made clear in the prosecution evidence. It would be for the court to decide whether such evidence was admissible in any particular case. As the effect of the amendment is therefore already met by existing arrangements, I do not feel it is necessary. But the noble Lord has already said that he is not entirely happy with the words.
It has to be said that, in the circumstances in which a person was suspected of having committed a crime as a result of a search which led to a case being brought in court, it would be very important for the circumstances in which that crime was discovered to be part of the case brought in court. Therefore, I believe it would be a matter for information to the court and for the court to determine how to use that information.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that is helpful. I draw from the answer that the desirability of monitoring and the desirability of giving extra help to the court will mean that in as many cases as possible the nature of the arrest will be brought before the court. For that reason, and for the reason I have already given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Police cordons]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Short title, interpretation and extent etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 35, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State may, having regard to any evidence leading him to judge that there is no longer any serious and continuing threat of terrorism emanating from within the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, make an order suspending the operation of sections 13A and 13B of the 1989 Act.").
The noble Lord said: It occurs to me, although I was not able to influence the matter, that this amendment is on the same subject as Amendment No. 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. All of us are concerned that the Bill should not survive for longer than is absolutely necessary and that its powers should be limited not only geographically and in terms of the powers given by the Bill but also in terms of time. One solution is along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lord Stoddart; another is along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in the debate on the Business Motion. A third, and a rather different, one is the approach in Amendment No. 8. We are saying that, whether or not the Bill continues until the necessity for a continuation order, Sections 13A and 13B—both of the stop and search additions to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act—should be capable of being suspended if, in the judgment of the Secretary of State, having examined the evidence, there is no longer any serious and continuing threat of terrorism emanating from within the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland.
I am conscious that I am trespassing on the terms of reference of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and I am conscious that his charge will almost certainly make it impossible for him to comment on my amendment. If he did he would in a sense be pre-judging the report he will make this summer. But it is worth airing the matter at the very least for debate. Surely one of the options that he must be considering, and the Government must be considering, is the option that if the ceasefire is re-established and we receive satisfactory assurances from the IRA and other terrorist organisations that they do not intend to resume terrorism and that therefore, presumably, they fulfil the conditions for taking part in the talks which are due to start on 10th June, there really is not much point in retaining the onerous provisions of Sections 13A and 13B of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.
Of course, it is a matter of trust, and trust is a very difficult thing to establish or rely on when one is dealing with people who have already declared a ceasefire and have reneged on it. Nevertheless, surely it might be—I put it no higher than that—a weapon in the armoury of the Secretary of State if he were able to say, "Yes, you have abandoned terrorism; yes, you have told us in the terms that we required that your abandonment is an act of permanent policy and you are prepared to take part in good faith in the talks which are due to take place. In return for that we will suspend for the time being the operation of Sections 13A and 13B of the Act." That might be a rather useful bargaining counter in the negotiations which would lead up to full participation in the all-party talks.
I also think that it would be a considerable benefit for those who have to operate these sections—the police and the security services—because they would have the assurance that they were only operating the sections at a time when it was shown to be necessary that the sections should be operating. In other words, there would be no temptation and no pressure on them to operate the sections under conditions of ceasefire.
The amendment is by no means prescriptive. It says "The Secretary of State may". It refers to evidence before the Secretary of State. It allows him to make his judgment and it allows him to suspend the operation rather than to cancel it. Every protection is given for the continued effective prevention of terrorism. But there are real advantages which the Government should seriously consider. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: In this amendment the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has given me the opportunity to reinforce the point I made at Second Reading earlier today; namely, that the Bill when enacted will be part and parcel of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. It is clear in Section 27(6)(b) that the Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument, provide that all or any of those provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force. In other words, the powers that the noble Lord is seeking in his amendment already exist under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. I hope I am right, and I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps I may point out gently that she did not give me an answer at Second Reading.
Baroness Blatch: I am doubly ashamed, first, for not giving an answer at Second Reading and, secondly, for not answering when attending to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. So I may ask my noble friend to come back on that.
We all look forward to the day when we will have seen the last of Irish terrorism. That is why the Government have asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to review the continuing need for counter-terrorist legislation once the peace process has achieved its object. We are contributing to some of the information that the noble and learned Lord will be taking into account—not just through this debate today but also through the debate we had recently.
I can assure the House that in those circumstances the police will rarely want to invoke these powers unless, of course, there was justification; for example, in relation to cases involving international terrorism. However, there may be other Prevention of Terrorism Act powers that we shall want to withdraw at such a time. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would include not just the measures in the Bill that we are passing today but those in the Prevention of Terrorism Act itself. That is why the existing Section 27 of the Act gives the Secretary of State the right to revoke any or all of the powers in the Act at any time. That means that this amendment is otiose.
Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend is very percipient. Even without listening she has answered my point at last. I am grateful to her.
Baroness Blatch: Thank you.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is not an amendment that I wish to press for all the reasons that I have given. My noble friend the Chief Whip is inciting me to divide the Committee.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It will wake us up!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that he can be serious, even if he is determined to wake up those Members of the Committee who have not even had time for lunch.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Speak for yourself.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is always difficult to say under precisely what circumstances these powers should not be used. The Minister said that if there were a ceasefire the measures would rarely be used and I accept that. I still believe that my first argument stands about protection for the police and the public. I do not retract the arguments that I used in favour of these amendments, but for the reasons I have already given, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 9, line 15, at end insert—
("() This Act shall cease to have effect three months after the day on which it receives Royal Assent.").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to give Parliament an opportunity to discuss this measure at greater length. During the intervening period after the Recess the Government will bring forward a replacement Bill to take the place of the present one. It will then go through the normal parliamentary procedures. I wish that my honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary had in fact made his support for this measure conditional on the same or a similar procedure, as suggested in my amendment. That would have had the beauty of accepting that there was an emergency situation that had to be dealt with immediately, but also that Parliament would at greater leisure be able to consider through a similar Bill the very serious issues involved. That would have recognised the emergency situation and also the fears that people properly have and ensured that the proper parliamentary procedure came afterwards. I believe that then we would have the best of both worlds and we probably would not be having this debate this afternoon.
That course of action would in any event ensure proper parliamentary debate. It would also ensure that individuals and organisations could make representations to the Government and to their Members of Parliament. In a parliamentary democracy they must have that right and it is essential that we should ensure that they continue to have that right. My amendment would do exactly that while realising and recognising the emergency situation which undoubtedly exists.
It would ensure that problems would be confronted, opinions aired and difficulties, I hope, overcome. It would then be a properly considered measure in which Parliament, not the Government or the Opposition, would take full responsibility for the consequences, good or bad. In the light of the reply given by the noble Baroness to the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Rodgers, to their similar suggestion of perhaps a more leisurely approach—but nevertheless an excellent suggestion—that does not give me any hope that the Government will accept my amendment. But I believe that the Government would be wrong not to accept it. In fact, if they accepted it it would do their reputation a devil of a lot of good at the present time—and it needs helping! They would realise that there is good will from this side of the House over what they are trying to do. But it would nevertheless tell us that they recognise that there are serious problems of democratic accountability, consultation and consideration to be addressed. This amendment is one way in which they can do that. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: I support my noble friend Lord Stoddart in this amendment. I also recognise that in reality, even if it were pressed to a Division, it would not get through. On that basis I hope that the Government will say that they will listen sympathetically and in due course come back to the House with their considered view as to how they might take this matter forward, not committing themselves at this stage to doing what the amendment asks to be done. I hope that they will think about the matter, come back after the Recess and give the House some advice as to their thinking on these issues.
One of the things I have learnt this afternoon is that this kind of procedure, or one similar to that being suggested by my noble friend Lord Stoddart, was undergone with the original Prevention of Terrorism Act. Prior to this afternoon, my understanding was that that Act was installed within 48 hours in 1974 and thereafter it was renewed annually, initially for the first 10 to 15 years, without amendment. The information that we have been given this afternoon that that Act went through a much longer period of parliamentary scrutiny some time after it came into being was new to me. I hope that, in the interests of parliamentary democracy and the need for the citizens of this country to know that Parliament is there looking after their interests and considering things sensibly, the Government will take on board my noble friend's suggestion.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I express some sympathy for the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. As he made clear, it represents an alternative approach to that put forward at Second Reading for getting a proper scrutiny of the Bill. I rise only to deal with the point made by the noble Baroness in reply to the Second Reading debate, when she gave a very much more convincing reason for rejecting the formula put forward by my noble friend Lord Jenkins and myself, but the reason was not quite convincing enough. I wish her to say why that is so.
336
The noble Baroness said in an ingenious reply—these are not her exact words—that it was only an amending Bill and that it did not carry the same weight and did not have the same status as the legislation of 1974. Indeed, if this were not an important Bill, amending or not, we would not be taking it today. I suggest that the real reason for considering bringing back the Bill in one form or another is not related to whether it is or is not an amending Bill; it is that the substance of it is sufficient to deserve further scrutiny in your Lordships' House. That has been plain even from the restrained way in which noble Lords have dealt with this Committee stage, anxious as we all are that the Bill should make progress.
If I felt that there was no prospect whatever for the proposal made earlier and if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, were to press his amendment to a Division with any prospect of winning, I would find myself supporting him. However, as there is no prospect of so winning and as I have more faith in the Minister than is perhaps entirely justified, I hope that the noble Baroness will revert to the proposal made earlier and, if she does not favour the amendment, that she will be able to offer something so much better.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: I should like to express some sympathy with the amendment, although three months is perhaps too short a period for any essential changes to be brought about. I should like to raise with the noble Baroness a point which may or may not have been raised up to now; I have not been present throughout these debates. I am entirely in sympathy in general terms with the police in their attempts to prosecute criminals, although not with our sentencing policy. In my discussions with the police, their essential point has always been that there should be an increase in the number of police. Last year at the Conservative Party Conference it was promised that 5,000 more police would be introduced. Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that the situation would look very different today if steps had been taken to fulfil that pledge. What is being done about the pledge to increase the police force by 5,000?
Lord Monson: I should like to give qualified support to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Experience teaches us that rushed legislation is nearly always defective legislation in ways large or small. However, having said that, I somewhat agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that three months is rather a tight time-scale. I think that four months, which would take us up to 3rd August, would be preferable. In essence, however, I support the amendment.
Lord Annan: I, too, support the principle enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I am entirely behind the Government in bringing forward this Bill. Presumably on advice from intelligence, they realised that it was necessary to pass it quickly. Nevertheless, there is always the problem that emergency regulations tend to stand for ever. Let us not forget what happened

337
with the Defence of the Realm Act 1914, as a result of which no one could have a drink at a pub in the afternoon for about 65 years.
I do not believe that it would be wise to have an amendment of this kind, but when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, considers these matters I hope that he will address himself to the question of when one should recognise that emergency legislation is no longer necessary. I say that because, although this emergency has arisen as a result of the activities of the IRA, I fear that there will never be a time in our lifetime when terrorists from some quarter or some country or another will not operate in this country.
Earl Russell: This House is a revising Chamber. We live by the creed that, right or wrong, a Bill might as well be as well drafted as possible. Nobody's initial drafting is perfect, and even in the very brief Committee stage that we have had, we have detected one or two ways in which, if we discussed the Bill quietly around a table in private, we could succeed in improving it.
However, we have not succeeded in ventilating a number of other questions. In particular and for the benefit of those of us who are not quite up to pace, if I may put it like that, it would be nice to know exactly what the Bill adds—it does not add—toexisting powers of the police. For all those reasons, it would be an extremely good thing in matters where liberty may be at stake if we could consider the Bill together to make it as good as possible. We have not had the opportunity to do that today, but I hope that we shall have such an opportunity fairly soon.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said that he might be inclined to give the Minister more credit than she was entitled to. I have sometimes been accused of giving the Minister less credit than she is entitled to, but during the Second Reading debate I was very disappointed by her response to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The noble Baroness said that the difference between the 1974 legislation and this legislation was that that was new legislation whereas this was—I quote because I wrote it down—"new powers to build on the existing framework of anti-terrorist legislation". I did not think that our intention was to establish an "existing framework of anti-terrorist legislation". I thought that the whole intention was to have only that anti-terrorist legislation which was necessary to fulfil the task of combating terrorism, and that when that task was reduced or eliminated there would be no anti-terrorist legislation. The whole of our debate as between civil safety and civil liberty has been on that basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, is right that temporary legislation tends to become permanent. Anyone who has been involved in local government knows that there is nothing so permanent as temporary planning permission. It is virtually impossible to get rid of it. I suspect that the same is true of anti-terrorist legislation. However, we should try, and the particular virtue of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stoddart is that it raises that issue in Committee.
338
I happen to think that my noble friend's amendment is mistaken. I think that he is wrong to choose three months. That is too short a period. My noble friend is also wrong to suggest the stick of the Act ceasing to have effect. We have never suggested that the Act should cease to have effect before any further consideration takes place. However, the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that there should be an opportunity for full parliamentary consideration of the provisions of this Act within the next year before the order comes up next March as a continuance order seems sensible. I speak personally, not having had the time to consult my honourable friends in another place. Indeed, it seems a more sensible suggestion than that put forward by my noble friend. On that basis and in the light of developments since my noble friend tabled his amendment, I hope that he may see fit to withdraw it.
Nevertheless, some further scrutiny will be required. It will have to be parliamentary scrutiny because I am sure that those who say that legislation brought forward in this way is almost bound to have defects are right. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has been in his seat twice during the past week to give proof of that when referring to the defects of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which was rushed through in a similar way. We would do well to take account of the reconsideration of that Act which has been called for on many occasions and the amount of parliamentary time that has been devoted to such a reconsideration when we consider the possibility that we may have got something wrong in this legislation. I think that that is highly likely. The Government should recognise that fact and stretch out an olive branch to parliamentary reconsideration, which is what my noble friend Lord Stoddart is suggesting.
Viscount Slim: I apologise for not being present throughout the debate, but I have had other duties. I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, with whom I agree on so many things. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and I would agree on very much.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that the problem of terrorism will be with us for the rest of our lives. I believe that. I believe that we are starting to see the commencement of other forms of terrorism which could well be worse than what we have suffered from the IRA.
It has been my experience over 25 years in your Lordships' House—where I have learnt so much—that it has an ability to take matters through the usual channels quite fast when necessary. Your Lordships' House also has the ability to come back to something if a Bill or amendment has gone too far. I should like to think that most noble Lords will see the grave dangers upon us, which may well increase, and agree that immediate steps should be taken to get this right. We cannot have true liberty until we destroy terrorism. Therefore, the actions that we take must be for the moment or for the long term. I have faith in your Lordships that it will be viewed in that way. We are better able to handle this particular question than another place where there is a lot of noise, whingeing or

339
whatever it may be called. I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, but I suggest that this measure should continue until we are satisfied that it has run its course and we can revert to true liberty. I strongly disagree with the tone that one or two of your Lordships have used in the best interests and in a most noble way. We have to defeat terrorism to gain true liberty, and I believe that we should think that way.
Baroness Blatch: I am deeply grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, for what he has said. I believe that it makes it so much easier for me to reply to the question in the context set for me by the noble Viscount.
I have to deal with the amendment that is on the table before me, not all the other suggestions that may well be preferable options. I believe that I have dealt with them in passing. This amendment provides that the Bill should lapse in three months' time. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has suggested that perhaps three months is a bit too short and it should be four months. That will take us into August. It would mean either special sittings of the House in August to cope with what would be almost immediately a vacuum—these measures would not be on the statute book and the police would not have these powers to counter terrorism—or the powers would remain on the statute book until the House sat again in the autumn and they would be at the mercy of the parliamentary timetable.
Lord Monson: I believe that the noble Baroness has misinterpreted the point. We were not suggesting that the powers should lapse but that time should be given to devise perhaps a better Bill and one more thought through in the three or four months between the Easter Recess and the time that the House rises in July.
Baroness Blatch: I understand what the noble Lord has said. However, this amendment says that the Bill should lapse in three months' time. It will then be for Parliament to consider what to do in the absence of the Bill, given that "three months" is literally a matter of a few weeks away. One solution raised after the Statement in another place on Monday—it is no more convincing today—was that if the powers were needed, as I believe they are, they would certainly be needed for as long as the Prevention of Terrorism Act was required. That Act is already subject to annual renewal. Debates on the renewal are informed by the report of the independent reviewer who scrutinises its operation. I cannot see how it would help us to debate again the content of this Bill after three months when there would be very little material on which to base any conclusions about its use. It would certainly help the terrorist if the powers were allowed to lapse, even for a very short time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is no suggestion by my noble friend or anybody else that the Bill should cease to have effect before Parliament takes any action. I am sure that what was intended by my noble friend, and indeed all other noble Lords who spoke, was that Parliament should take action before the three months elapsed, not that there should be any interregnum.
Baroness Blatch: That is even more extraordinary. According to this amendment, the time when the Bill
340
will lapse is 12 weeks away. We would have to start considering the matter almost this minute, with a very full parliamentary timetable.
Earl Russell: I am a little puzzled by the argument of the noble Baroness. Is she telling us that the Government had time to put together a Bill between last Thursday and today but would not have enough time to put one together in the next three months?
Baroness Blatch: We have responded very quickly, and I believe effectively, to a particular situation. We have brought this Bill before the House for consideration today. It has been given consideration in another place. This Committee is being invited to accept it today. It is suggested that we may find another, perhaps hurried, period between now and three months' hence when we may have another Bill on the statute book, which perhaps will simply confirm these powers, when we will not even have the experience of policemen as to how these powers have worked in operation. I do not accept that it would be right to do that.
I say that against the background that the Prevention of Terrorism Act—of which this Bill will be part—more than any other Act of Parliament in history is constantly monitored. It has an independent reviewer who makes a full report to Parliament on an annual basis. He looks at files, interviews people and inspects all of the practical operations and the way in which the Act of Parliament is used. He makes a recommendation to Parliament on an annual basis. Alongside that, we think it right that Parliament should give thought to what would happen if there was a cessation of hostilities in Ireland but nevertheless we had to face the real possibility raised by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and my noble friend Baroness Cox (in previous amendments this afternoon), that terrorism in one form or another would be with us. It is right that the work now being undertaken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, should consider this new scenario. What happens when the present hostilities cease? Will there be a place for a permanent Prevention of Terrorism Act on the statute book?
As I said in respect of the last amendment, Section 27 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, of which this measure will be a part, gives the Secretary of State power to revoke any part or all of the Act if he believes that there is a case for so doing. I believe that he has taken the best possible advice that he can. In response to the police saying that they need these powers, he has asked Parliament for them. He has asked for those powers speedily, because he believes it is right that the police should have these powers as soon as possible. Full all-party discussions have taken place. The shadow Home Secretary, Mr. Jack Straw, has agreed not only that the powers should be accepted but the speed at which the Bill is being taken through Parliament.
I make no excuses for saying that I do not believe this amendment, or any alternative suggestion, should be accepted. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that temporary legislation tended to last for ever. This is rather different, in that there is a formal

341
reviewing process. Parliament returns to it on an annual basis. We also have a major review going on. This is not a piece of legislation that is without constant review.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me what the Bill added. Perhaps slightly disingenuously, he does not accept that I gave a fairly full description of each of the clauses of the Bill. I explained where they added to existing powers. They are extensions of existing powers. I also explained that some clauses of the Bill cleared up uncertainties in the present law, and it was important that this matter should be statutorily underpinned.
The point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, had nothing whatsoever to do with this particular amendment or indeed the Bill.
Earl Longford: It has everything to do with it. Security depends entirely on the number of police, according to the police.
Baroness Blatch: This matter is about whether or not the Bill should lapse in three months' time. That is the point that I address at the moment. Nevertheless, I shall answer the noble Earl's question. We have agreed that there should be 5,000 extra policemen. The first tranche has been dealt with in this year's expenditure round. This pledge was made over a three-year period. It is our intention that over a three-year period there will be funding for 5,000 extra policemen.
As the proposers of the amendment appear to believe, the Bill is not a radically new approach to the problems of terrorism. It builds on the existing powers and provides further practical and sensible measures. We do not believe that it warrants such excessive caution that it should lapse in three months' time and another Bill should be hurriedly prepared in its stead. I believe that we should allow the normal processes to apply, pass the Bill today, await the proper monitoring exercise and report to Parliament in a year's time.
Earl Russell: I must apologise to the Minister if she thought I was being disingenuous. I shall, naturally, read extremely carefully what she said on Second Reading. It is not possible, in a technical matter of this sort, to take in every word the first time one hears it. No doubt, in a perfect world, one might be able to. If I failed, I apologise.
However, I am not satisfied by the Minister's reply to me on the other point about the drafting of the Bill. She said that she did not see what could be different in three months. What could be different is that we could have a parliamentary input into the drafting of the legislation. That seems to me to be important.
The Minister said "we", and by "we" she appeared to mean the Home Office—I hope that she will correct me if I am wrong—would not have had time to do the monitoring and would not have been able to think of a better version. But is it not possible that in any clause or subsection of the Bill all the accumulated wisdom of this place might not think of a better wording than that of the Government? I find that a strange suggestion. My right honourable friend Mr. Beith said yesterday in
342
another place that this appeared to him to be legislation by decree and that Parliament might as well go home. I had not repeated that remark, but now I do.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may come back on that point. I do not believe that I said, although I, too, will have to read what I did say in Hansard tomorrow, that we would not have time. When I say "we" I mean the Government. I speak for the Government on this matter. I merely said that if the Bill, according to the amendment, is to lapse in three months' time, then work to determine what should follow it, if anything, would have to start immediately. These provisions will only go on the statute book today. Therefore there will be no experience of the operation of the measures to give us any feel of how they should be modified, removed, or added to. That is the point I was making.
The noble Earl talked of government by decree. When my right honourable friend took the view, and gained the agreement of the whole Cabinet, that these provisions should be asked for of Parliament he made it his business, as I said, without any delay, to involve all of the parties in that process. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said earlier, it is better that there should be an all-party approach to legislation of this kind. We could not have resorted to the procedure without the acquiesence of the Official Opposition. That was necessary. Without it, we could not have proceeded in this way. We could not have used this process to bring the Bill before Parliament.
It was my right honourable friend's intention to bring before Parliament a Bill containing these powers. But we may have had to resort to other measures to do so. The honourable Member, the shadow Home Secretary in another place, did not just accept the case for the measures; he accepted the need for speed. It was because he agreed with that that we are today dealing with the Bill in this way. Therefore it is not government by decree. I find that a disparaging remark about a Home Secretary responding to what I believe was a request by the police who are at the front line of fighting terrorism on behalf of us all.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This has been an interesting debate, and, I believe, probably a useful one. I thank all noble Lords who spoke to the amendment and who have given me support, sympathy, qualified sympathy, qualified support, or what have you. I shall not attempt to reply to all the points made; they were all extremely useful. However, I should like to comment on the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who paid me the compliment of saying that he usually agrees with me. Perhaps I can return it and say that I usually agree with him. That means that there are two great minds operating in this place at present. However, I do not believe that he was here for the Second Reading debate. I want to make clear what I said then, because it is important that he and the Committee know that I support the measures contained in the Bill but not the way the Bill is being put through Parliament.
I said on Second Reading that I cannot be accused of being a softie on crime or terrorism. I am, if anything, a hard-liner, anti-criminal, and victim friendly. I detest

343
the terrorist murderers of the IRA and regret that instead of being defeated and routed before the peace process got under way they were let off the hook and allowed to rearm and regroup. I hope that the noble Viscount will not disagree with that.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh reminded us of previous Bills which have gone through this place in haste and which have been repented at leisure. He mentioned the Dangerous Dogs Bill. The one that comes to my mind introduced unit fines. We found ourselves fining burglars £40 and fining people who parked on double yellow lines £500. That is why the strictures of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, should be taken into account.
I fully expected the Minister to reject the amendment. I did not think she would reject it so unsympathetically. I was proposing not merely that the Bill should lapse. I began my remarks by saying that we would expect another Bill to come to this place immediately after the Whitsun Recess. That would have given this place three months to consider properly and fully the important measures that are being proposed. That would be much more preferable than pushing through both Houses in a couple of days measures which cannot be properly considered.
I greatly regret that the Government will not take on board some of the suggestions made, particularly those of the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Rodgers, giving a much longer time than my three months which I appreciate may be a little short. The Government have not accepted in any way that there can be room for further consideration and discussion. That I greatly regret.
As I said, I understand the need for the legislation. I am only sorry that the Government will not give on parliamentary discussion and the rights of Parliament to ensure that legislation of this sort is considered properly. Having said that, I am not intending to press the amendment. I thank the Committee for discussing it seriously and in depth. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Bill read a third time, and passed.

Crime and Sentencing
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on crime and sentencing which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about crime and sentencing. I am today publishing a White Paper, Protecting the Public, which sets out the Government's comprehensive strategy to
344
tackle crime. That strategy is designed to ensure that everything possible is done to prevent crime; the police have the powers and resources they need to catch criminals; the innocent are acquitted but the guilty convicted; and criminals are properly punished.
"There is clear evidence that this strategy is working. Last week I announced that recorded crime has fallen for the past three years in succession. That has happened only twice before this century. In 1995 there were 468,000 fewer crimes committed than in 1992—the largest ever continuous fall in the number of annually recorded crimes.
"I pay tribute to the police, and all those local communities with which they work in partnership, for this achievement. But crime is still far too high. There is more to be done. That is why I announced a series of radical new sentencing proposals last October in Blackpool. They have one simple aim: to protect the public from dangerous and persistent criminals.
"First, honesty in sentencing. At present, offenders sentenced to less than four years in prison can expect to be released after serving just half their sentence. Those sentenced to four years or more can expect to be released after serving between half and two-thirds of their sentence. Automatic early release from prison enrages victims and undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system. I therefore propose to abolish it.
"Under our proposals there would be no more automatic early release. Prisoners who co-operated and behaved well would be able to earn up to 20 per cent. off their sentence. This will ensure that sentences actually served are much more closely matched to those handed out by the courts. In addition, it will give prisoners a strong incentive to behave properly in prison. On release, all prisoners serving 12 months or more would be supervised by the Probation Service for a period equivalent to 15 per cent. of their original prison sentence. The courts would be expected to take full account of these changes in the sentences they pass.
"Secondly, persistent serious sexual and violent offenders. The maximum penalty for crimes like rape and attempted murder is life imprisonment. The advantage of the life sentence is that the offender will be released if, and only if, the Parole Board is satisfied that it is safe to do so. But serious sexual or violent offenders rarely get life, even if they offend again. In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a second or subsequent serious violent or sexual offence. All could have received a life sentence, but only 10 did.
"Offenders who do not receive a life sentence have to be released from prison after serving two-thirds of their sentence, even if everyone working with them knows that they are likely to commit another serious crime on some innocent member of the public. And the sad reality is that many of them do. In 1994, around 40 serious violent or sexual crimes were committed by offenders who had already been convicted of a second such offence. I believe that this is indefensible. I therefore propose that anyone aged

345
18 or over who is convicted of a serious sexual or violent offence for a second time should be sentenced to life imprisonment.
"In these indeterminate life sentence cases, the trial judge, not Ministers, would set the tariff—the minimum period to be served for retribution and deterrence. Once that tariff had been served the Parole Board would decide whether it was safe to release the offender or not. If the Parole Board decided that offenders still posed a danger to the public, then they would remain in prison. Those considered safe would be released on life licence and subject to recall to prison at any time during the rest of their lives.
"Thirdly, drug dealers. Drug dealers are a scourge on society. They prey on the young and the innocent. They wreck people's lives. And because addicts often resort to crime to finance their habits they wreck the livelihoods of others. Dealers in hard drugs like heroin, ecstasy and cocaine usually receive prison sentences. But in many cases these prison sentences are not long enough for those who persistently commit this very serious crime.
"A recent sample showed that the average sentence for a third conviction of dealing in hard drugs was just over four years. And these offenders are automatically released after serving only two and a half years. We need to send a strong and clear signal that persistent dealing in hard drugs is not something we are prepared to tolerate. I therefore propose that anyone aged 18 or over who is convicted on three separate occasions of dealing in Class A drugs should receive a minimum sentence of seven years in prison.
"Next, burglary. All burglary is disruptive and costly. But domestic burglary is particularly distressing for victims who lose their treasured personal possessions and feel that the sanctity of their home has been violated. I believe persistent domestic burglars deserve long prison sentences. Yet they rarely get them.
"A sample of domestic burglars convicted in the Crown Courts in 1993 and 1994 showed that the average prison sentence for a first time offender was 16.2 months. Even after three or more convictions it was only 18.9 months. And after seven or more convictions it was barely higher at 19.4 months—and they actually serve just half of that. Indeed, 28 per cent. of offenders with seven or more convictions for domestic burglary in the Crown Court were not sent to prison at all. And in the magistrates' courts that figure was even higher at 61 per cent. I simply do not believe that this gives the public the protection they deserve. And these sentences do not deter career burglars for whom the occasional short stretch in prison has become an acceptable occupational hazard.
"That is why I propose a minimum sentence of three years for anyone aged 18 or over convicted of domestic burglary for a third time. In addition, I hope the courts will use to the full their new powers to seize burglars' assets. The prospect of long prison
346
sentences, coupled with loss of their possessions, will, I have no doubt, deter many burglars altogether. Others will not be deterred. But at least communities will get a lengthy break from their criminal activities.
"There will be 5,000 more policemen to help catch burglars; new vigorous police tactics designed to take the offensive to the burglar; long sentences for persistent burglars; and the prospect of their own property being seized. These are my proposals to take on the burglar as never taken on before. I have no doubt that they will be warmly supported by the public.
"I accept that there may very occasionally be cases where it would not be reasonable for the court to impose the minimum sentence. I therefore propose that the courts should have the discretion not to impose it in genuinely exceptional circumstances.
"I summarise my proposals. Automatic early release from prison will be ended. Anyone convicted of a second serious sexual or violent crime will receive a life sentence. Persistent domestic burglars will receive mandatory minimum prison sentences of three years and those dealing in hard drugs, seven years.
"These are deliberately tough sentences designed to deal with serious persistent and wholly unacceptable offending by individual criminals. I accept that they are likely to lead to an increase in the prison population. The necessary prison places will need to be built and this will require extra resources. But I believe that we simply cannot afford not to take this action.
"I intend to phase in the proposals. The provisions to deal with second-time serious sexual and violent offenders and drug dealers will be implemented as soon as possible after Royal Assent. I intend to implement the provisions to deal with persistent burglars and honesty in sentencing two years later as new prison places become available.
"I intend to consult fully on the proposals set out in this White Paper. I shall carefully consider the points made. Having done that, I propose to introduce a Bill giving effect to my proposals in the next Session of Parliament.
"Madam Speaker, the first duty of government is to maintain law and order; to protect people's freedom to walk safely on their streets and sleep safely in their homes. We have taken action to ensure that the balance in our criminal justice system favours the law abiding public, not the criminal. The police have revolutionised the way they fight crime—targeting known and persistent criminals with impressive results. And the public are increasingly playing their part—through Neighbourhood Watch, Street Watch and the Special Constabulary.
"The proposals I have set out today are aimed at protecting the public from those who persistently commit offences which cause particular public concern—serious violent or sexual offences, drug dealing and domestic burglary. They will ensure that once caught and convicted, persistent and dangerous criminals are properly punished. The proposals are

347
tough. And they should be. They are needed to protect the public and to build a safer Britain. I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
4.42 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I should introduce my remarks with a caveat. The Minister knows that, apart from 20 minutes, I have been in my place since 11.30 this morning. Therefore, I have had no opportunity to consult my honourable and right honourable friends in another place. Therefore, I preface my remarks with what I may call—in variation of a cigarette packet—an Opposition health warning. Any differences that are detected between my response and that of Mr. Jack Straw will be the subject of full and frank discussion in the future.
By any standards, this is an extraordinary Statement, and it is an extraordinary Statement to make on the day on which the House rises even for a brief Easter Recess. It starts with a series of statements which depart widely from the experience of ordinary people in relation to crime, and it fails to reflect at all the experience and incidence of crime over the period of 17 years of this Conservative Government.
The Secretary of State says that everything possible is being done to prevent crime. But he neglects to remind Parliament that it is the Labour Party which has emphasised throughout the importance of crime prevention and the relationship between the police and local authorities and local communities in crime prevention. The Government have resisted those changes.
The Secretary of State talks quite rightly about the powers and resources needed by the police, the need to ensure that the innocent are acquitted but the guilty convicted and that criminals are properly punished. Nobody disagrees with any of that but all that must be seen within the context of a free civil society. After all, that is the basis of our criminal justice system.
The Home Secretary talks about evidence that the strategy is working. He did indeed announce a fall in recorded crime; but it is noticeable that violent crime, including burglary—in other words, the kind of crime with which his proposed minimum sentences are concerned—has actually increased, as has all crime in the past six months.
I turn to the issue of honesty in sentencing. We must remind the House that the provisions for automatic remission were not invented by a Labour Government. They came out of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which was put forward by this Government. This Government introduced the idea of automatic remission. They persisted in saying that that automatic remission is important from the point of view of discipline.
Throughout, the Labour Party has been in favour of honesty and truth in sentencing. We do not believe that there should be automatic remission at the half-way stage of a sentence. We believe that sentences should be adjusted to reflect the reality and that the parole system,
348
rather than the remission system, should be used both to reward good behaviour, to keep discipline in prisons, and above all to ensure that there is the potential for release for those, and only those, who can safely be released into the community.
Therefore, we agree with the Home Secretary that automatic early release from prison is undesirable and we support legislation to that effect. But we must remind him that it is the Government's problem and not a problem which has been introduced by anybody else.
At the same time, we remind him that unless there is a change in sentencing guidelines to make sure that that does not result simply in a doubling of effective sentences, then the effect on the prison population will be dramatic.
The Home Secretary then turned to the issue of minimum sentences. First, he talked about persistent sexual and violent offenders. We share with him his concern about the increase in sexual offences in particular. But again I remind the House that the incidence of rape has increased four-fold since this Government first came into office in 1980; that the possibility of conviction for rape has been improved, in particular as a result of the possibility of DNA testing; and yet in absolute terms, there are fewer convictions for rape than there were 16 years ago. There is something seriously wrong with our law in relation to rape but it is the problem of failing to secure convictions for rape rather than the sentences which are important.
Instead of proposing minimum sentences or automatic life sentences for repeated rapists, we have a much more wide-ranging proposal which has been publicised in recent weeks by the shadow Home Secretary—that is, all sentences for sexual offences of this kind should be subject to review before release is made possible, even at the end of the sentence.
We recognise the genuine and proper concern about those who serve their full sentence for rape without receiving parole and who are released into the community not having been cured of their impulse for rape. I know that it is a difficult thing to do when there are normally determinate sentences but a way must be found to ensure that the protection which is possible when prisoners are released on parole is available also at the end of their sentences for those who have disorders of the kind which lead to rape and who would be a danger to the community if released. We are just as concerned as the Government about protection for the community from both sexual and violent criminals but we believe there are ways other than the imposition of minimum sentences to deal with that problem.
The Statement then goes on to deal with the issues of drug dealers and burglary. Of course, the Secretary of State is right to say that drug dealing is a dreadful scourge. He is right to say that dealing in Class A drugs is one of the worst ways of breaking up civil society in this country. He is also right, although perhaps to a lesser extent, about burglary. The shock and offence caused by burglary, even when the amounts are small, are very profound as anyone who has been burgled knows from personal experience.

349
I seriously wonder whether minimum sentences of the kind proposed by the Home Secretary are the right way to deal with the problems. After all, both drug dealing and burglary are conspicuous among offences which vary enormously in their seventy. Even drug dealing in Class A drugs could be on a very small scale while burglary might consist simply of putting one's hand through an open window to steal a milk bottle. Is it seriously proposed that there should be minimum sentences of the sort proposed for three separate offences of putting a hand through an open window to steal a milk bottle? I cannot believe that that would be the case. I am surprised that the Minister picked on offences where, very often, cautions are used rather than arrest to introduce the new concept of minimum sentencing.
Of course we must protect the public, but I do not believe that minimum sentencing of the sort proposed is the right way to do it. All the omens are against it. After the proposal was first mooted by the Home Secretary in his speech at the Conservative Party conference, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, wrote a very effective letter to The Times in October of last year in which described the situation in California. There is huge encouragement there for people to plead not guilty because a guilty plea automatically leads to imprisonment for life, 99 years or whatever it is, even for stealing a pizza. Indeed, that has actually happened in California. The courts and remand places in prison have become clogged up, the prison population has increased enormously and the prison budget is now greater than the higher education budget. That cannot be the right approach to the problem. I am sorry that it has not been possible for the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to be in his place today. I am sure that he would have delivered a withering attack on the proposals, as he did in October last year.
Similarly, Ministers now appear to be deriding the work of the Parole Board. I find that extraordinary when we consider that it was the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, who carried out a review of the board. It has been suggested that prison sentences are not being served enough in custody and that that, apart from remission, is the responsibility of the Parole Board. Yet a review of parole procedures revealed that parole was not being used excessively and that it was essential not only for deterrence but also for securing a civilised regime and discipline in our prisons.
To make our sentences more literal than they are now will cause enormous difficulties for the Prison Service. I have in mind the effect of the proposals in terms of the prison budget. Estimates of the increase in the prison population vary greatly but none comes to less than about 10,000. That means that over the period to which the Home Secretary referred we are talking about at least £1 billion in capital expenditure, and a huge increase in revenue cost and budgets for the Prison Service. Can the Minister say from where—what other budget—that money will come?
The Statement represents a complete U-turn on everything the Government have said, especially on the Criminal Justice Act 1991. We are discussing a problem which has occurred and grown within the lifetime of the
350
Conservative Government and which has been exacerbated by the lack of consistency and progression in sentencing which the Conservative Government have either encouraged, as they did in legislation, or allowed to happen. The Statement must be taken in the light of the complete failure of the Government seriously to tackle the problem of violent crime and to deal with the problem of the failure of conviction for violent crime. It is a deplorable Statement. I realise that the proposals will come before the House for scrutiny during the next parliamentary Session. Let us hope that the next Session is sufficiently curtailed to make it impossible for the proposals to become law.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, we on these Benches are also grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. In his concluding remarks, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, implied that your Lordships would be satisfied—if that is the proper word—if a debate took place on the proposals on the Second Reading of the Bill which has been promised. Speaking from these Benches, I have to say that we would not be satisfied if we had to wait until the next parliamentary Session to debate the White Paper. It is a document of over 30,000 words and far more substantial, for inevitable and understandable reasons, than the Statement made by the Minister. I believe that the issues raised by the White Paper are of such importance and destined clearly to be the subject of so much public debate that we should have an opportunity to discuss them at a very early stage.
The White Paper refers to consultation. I shall return later to what that means. If there is to be consultation, the process should begin with Parliament. For that reason, if she is not able to give a positive reply today, I hope that the Minister will make known to her noble friends that a debate before the Summer Recess is highly desirable. I am sure that time could be found.
If not in the Statement made in another place, there are certainly many cadences in the White Paper of speeches made by the Home Secretary at Conservative Party conferences. Indeed, there is much about the White Paper that is more a manifesto than the sort of document that governments are expected to set before Parliament. Even the language is pejorative from time to time; for example, the heading "Honesty in sentencing" implies that in some way there is dishonesty in present policies as they are exercised and applied by the courts. I am sure that that was not the intention. But much of the language in the document is not language I would regard as parliamentary. It is meant principally to appeal to an audience outside.
In the Statement—as, indeed, in the White Paper—there is very plain reference to retribution and deterrence. I am not saying that retribution, although I find it a dangerous and ugly motive at all times, and deterrence have no place in our penal policies. But redemption and rehabilitation also have a part to play. There is nothing in what the Minister said, and very little that I have been able to find in the White Paper, which suggests that the policy towards those committing crime is other than, "Lock up the largest possible

351
number and keep them there for the longest possible time." That is an inadequate policy. In her heart, I am sure that the Minister must know that.
The White Paper, though not the Statement, contains some of the information which I am sure the House requires about the additional number of prisoners we may expect and the quantum of "x" resources; in other words, how much all this will cost. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the questions put initially by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh: how many more men and women do we expect to be in prison as a result of the proposals? Is it a figure of 10,800, which I think is mentioned in paragraph 13.8 of the White Paper? What will be the cost? I understand from the White Paper that 12 new prisons will be required, but the figures in paragraph 13 are not at all clear to me. I am not sure whether they refer to capital cost per annum or capital cost over a period of time and whether there is any item included there for the current costs of this much larger prison population. If we do not have the facts straight today, this is a further reason for an early debate on the matter.
There is a reference in the Statement to the number of life sentences for persistent sexual or violent offenders. I believe that the figure for such offenders for the previous year for which figures were available was 217, of whom only 10 were given in effect a life sentence in the circumstances described by this White Paper. That suggests that another 207 new life sentences a year will be required for persistent sexual or violent offenders. If I have misunderstood the figures, perhaps the Minister would explain them. I mention that simply to illustrate the prospect of a much larger population than hitherto.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, rightly referred to the nature of burglary. Of course it is offensive. It is an intrusion into privacy and it causes a great deal of pain, in addition to the harm that it does. I see the arguments within the White Paper repeated in the Statement today. However, to say that there will be a three-year minimum sentence for anyone over 18 convicted of domestic burglary for a third time is surely going too far. How many of the 38,000 people convicted of domestic burglary in 1994 would have gone to prison for a three-year sentence had the policy of the White Paper then prevailed? Under this heading also there is a reference to exceptional circumstances. It would be helpful to know what those exceptional circumstances are.
I referred earlier to consultation and the need to consult this House as part of that consultation, but it would be helpful to know where the Minister believes there is room for consultation. I said that the White Paper read a little like a manifesto. Certainly it reads like a White Paper and not a Green Paper, or even a White Paper with green edges. If there is to be consultation, where is that meaningful consultation to occur? The Minister may know about that and, if so, I should be grateful if she would inform the House.
The document is entitled Protecting the Public, but the greatest protection for the public would be afforded if those who go to prison come out less likely to commit a crime again. That surely must be the test of any policy
352
of this kind. We want men and women who are released into the community to be those least likely to offend again. I do not believe that anything in the Statement—I have not yet found it in the White Paper—leads us to expect that the public will be faced with anything other than a larger and larger prison population costing the earth and quite unable to settle back into normal life on release. To use the jargon which is so common today, I do not see any value for money in that. This may be a robust, populist policy but I do not believe on the evidence that it is a balanced or responsible one. It will mislead the public that they will be better protected. It is an inadequate short-term response to a serious long-term problem.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall respond to the two Front Bench speakers. As regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I should say at the outset that I accept the constraints on the noble Lord in terms of the time he has had to peruse this Statement, and also the fact that both he and I have been fairly preoccupied for most of today. Therefore I accept entirely what he has said. That leads me to the next point which has been made not only by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but also by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, concerning how long we must wait for a debate. I hope that both noble Lords will realise that I personally cannot answer that question at the Dispatch Box. However, I have every sympathy with those who asked that question and I shall make sure that all the usual channels are aware that a debate on this White Paper is called for. Much of what the noble Lord had to say was by way of comments on the White Paper after a cursory scan through it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they were not comments on the White Paper as I had not even had a chance to open it; they were comments on the Statement.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accept that they were comments on the Statement. We debated possible alternatives—in other words, we entered the debate about means to ends. I do not intend to pick up all the points that were raised by the noble Lord because the Statement introduced the White Paper but the intention is that it should be read more carefully and that we should all return to this matter with more considered views on it. We shall certainly welcome that.
The noble Lord made a number of points that lead me to say that the whole purpose of the measure is consultative. We look forward to what will be said and written in response to the White Paper. It is our intention to continue that exchange of views. It is certainly our intention to listen and to consider most carefully all that is said and written in response to the White Paper. My intention is to help Members of this House to understand our proposals.
I wish to put it on record that in the course of reading the Statement I did not deride the Parole Board. I believe the Parole Board has worked diligently over the years. The Statement referred to the fact that the Parole Board has a real place as regards the proposals, which is different from the place it has at the moment

353
but nevertheless it will constitute an important part of the risk assessment process. The noble Lord got closest to asking a question—if he had questions at all—when he asked about the increase in the prison population and how the costs of that would be met. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, also referred to that. Paragraph 13.8 sets out quite clearly our view of how we believe the number of prison places will increase. I hope that on reading that whole section about prison places, the noble Lord will accept that that is our guesstimate. As regards costs, we know that it will be costly and that there will be a considerable expansion of prison places. We seek in particular not to return to the days of three prisoners to a cell. We are still dedicated to a programme of reducing overcrowding. That leads to the need for new institutions. The Private Finance Initiative will meet some of this need. No doubt we shall debate the costs of the programme in far greater detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, in a slightly disparaging way said that the White Paper resembled party manifestos or party conference speeches. It is a genuine response to public concern. If the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has not picked that up, I must tell him that I certainly have, and so too has my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. We have responded genuinely to public concern not just about crime but also as regards the confidence on the part of the public in the criminal justice system. Those two issues are being properly addressed in this White Paper.
I agreed with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, when he said that we should seek to protect the public. I certainly agree with that. He also said that we should concentrate on those who are less likely to commit crime again. Certainly there are initiatives to try to prevent crime which have arisen through work in our schools and in the community and through engaging in partnership with all sorts of people, including the community itself, in fighting crime. I believe that should be pursued with great energy. The noble Lord also said that we should release into the community those people who are least likely to commit crime again. That is precisely what is intended by the proposals: that people should be released into the community only after proper risk assessment. That risk assessment should take into account the likelihood of reoffending.
The law is not comprehensive in this respect. I have had personal examples given to me as I have visited prisons in my role as a Home Office Minister. All the people concerned with a specific prisoner—it may be prison officers, outside agencies or voluntary agencies working with him—say, "I know this person is a risk but they have come to the end of their sentence"; and the Prison Service, and even the probation service sometimes, have no locus in continuing supervision of that person. That needs to be addressed. We may argue about means to an end. But I believe from what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said—he nods from a sedentary position—that the issue needs to be addressed.
354
I conclude on this point. In the White Paper we are talking about violent and/or sexual offenders, persistent burglars and drug traffickers. I believe that those are the sort of people who should be in prison and should have more effective prison sentences.
5.11 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank about the meaning of paragraph 13.9. The sentence that concerns us is as follows:
"The cost of these prisons, together with the recurring current costs of new houseblocks and rebuilt prisons, would reach an estimated peak of £375m-£435m by 2011–2012".
Will the Minister tell us whether that is a cumulative figure for the total cost over all those years? Is it an annual cost which will reach that peak level in that year? Are these capital costs? Are these recurrent costs? Above all, are those the total costs of the measures announced in the Statement? I appreciate that the noble Baroness has been extremely busy today. However, she is in a position to obtain advice. If it does not arrive in time, perhaps she will write to my noble friend and myself and place a copy in the Library. The point is of considerable public importance.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am able to give the answer straightaway. They are the estimates of the running costs in that year. It is not the total cost.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I welcome the new policy of honesty in sentencing. On earlier occasions in your Lordships' House I have deplored the enormous disparity between what one might describe as gross and net sentences respectively. It confuses the public and makes them cynical about the criminal justice system. It is good that the gap has been closed.
Having said that, I believe that it would be dangerous and undesirable if there were to be no remission for good behaviour. I am pleased to hear that the Government propose that remission of up to 20 per cent. can be earned.
I am uneasy about the proposal for imposing an automatic life sentence for a second serious violent or sexual offence. Exactly how does one define a serious sexual offence? Does it include, for example, rape within marriage, or what is colloquially known as date rape when a young man misunderstands the signals sent out to him by a young woman of his own age, or where the young woman having invited the young man into her bed suddenly changes her mind at the last moment? I believe that the general public would be quite horrified if young men were to be sentenced to life imprisonment for a second such offence. I shall he grateful if the noble Baroness will clarify that point.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the comments of the noble Lord in welcoming the honesty in sentencing proposals. It is certainly true that there is great confusion among the public about this. I also welcome his comments about remission. One of the beneficial moves on remission—it is already under

355
way—is that it should be earned. We have moved from the days when remission was given in a relaxed way. It should be earned. I hope that that will have an impact on behaviour in prisons and make them more manageable places; and that those who are released are released on the basis of good behaviour.
I note the concerns of the noble Lord about the life sentencing policy. I also note that he has raised an important point. When the measure comes before the House for the purposes of legislation, it will be essential to have a proper definition of what we mean by serious and violent sexual offenders. In the meantime it will be a matter for consultation.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as I have said before, no one blames the noble Baroness for any policy of this kind that she announces. She is just the angel of light speaking on behalf of the prince of darkness. She does her best.
I agree with my noble friend Lord McIntosh, the acting Leader on our Front Benches, who called it a deplorable document. I would call it an evil document—he chooses his words possibly more carefully and perhaps more gently—and it will be so regarded throughout the Prison Service. The noble Baroness is highly intelligent. She must be aware that the policies of Mr. Howard, in contrast with the policies of the six preceding Conservative Home Secretaries, are viewed with detestation and contempt in the prisons. That is important in enabling the Prison Service to play a constructive part. The relationship between the Prison Service and the prisoners can be fatally undermined by such policies.
I had the honour of being chairman of a committee set up by the late Lord Wilson in 1964 which introduced parole. The Government are virtually destroying the parole system. It denies hope to prisoners in denying them the possibility of proving themselves to be much better people than they seemed at the time of their trial. There is no getting round that. One either holds out hope or one does not. The Government are virtually destroying that hope.
I have a positive question for the noble Baroness. The Government have said that they are cutting the amount of money going to the Prison Service. Will they still make those cuts to the Prison Service when introducing policies which will lead to a vast increase in the prison population?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am tempted to say, "Please may I leave now", with the description of "angel of light" ringing in my ears. It is only a matter of days since the noble Earl referred to me as a maiden of darkness working for the prince of darkness; perhaps I have come a long way since last week.
The noble Earl makes an important point. It relates to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I refer to working constructively with prisoners in prison with educational programmes and rehabilitation programmes to address their offending.
We are committed to working with offenders to address their offending behaviour both inside prison and after their release. The intention is that they should be
356
supervised after release. The noble Earl has had experience of those programmes in operation. The sex offender treatment programme is an excellent example of the work done with prisoners while they are serving their sentence. The White Paper makes it clear that all offenders serving 12 months or more will be supervised for a period after their release.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to cuts. We have had debates about that previously. The intention is that there will be an increase in management efficiency. There will be an increase in the effectiveness, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of running our prisons. It is a rather tense time at present. But the intention is that it should not affect the front-line services in our prisons; and it is our intention that it should not affect the programmes that we wish to be carried out in prisons which we believe will have a material effect on the quality of life of prisoners after they have served their sentences.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may follow that up. I do not understand the answer. There will be a huge increase in the prison population. It may be 10,000; some people think that it will he more than 20,000. Does that mean that the cuts will still apply?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I referred to the extra places being made available to prisons now. That money is additional.
As the noble Earl knows, the efficiency cuts are 9 per cent. over three years and they are on the base budget of the prisons. But there will be extra money for extra places. There will be those sums of money to provide the new places and for the running of the prisons when they come on stream.

BSE (Agriculture)
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement which has been made in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement about the emergency Council which has just concluded in Luxembourg and related matters.
"The high level of public concern over BSE continues to cause very grave problems for farmers and for all parts of the food chain. The whole Government have been following the situation closely, day by day, in an effort to identify any problems as they arise and to find solutions.
"It is clear that many of the problems faced by the beef industry are the result of the precipitate decision taken by the European Union, in particular the decision to ban exports from this country and what I can only describe as panic reactions by other countries around the world. Many of the steps that have been taken against our exports have borne no relation at all to the science. I hope that soon

357
normality will return. I will come back in a moment to the Community front and the outcome of the Council which ended this morning in Luxembourg.
"At home my ministerial colleagues have kept in close touch with industry organisations to obtain a full picture of what is going on in a fast-moving situation. We are meeting any organisations wishing to talk to us about how their members are affected. There are encouraging signs that confidence is returning.
"In particular, I am encouraged at reports from retailers that their customers are looking for beef in the shops again. Retailers have met with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and have reported that they need to begin buying beef again. So those with cattle to send to market should know that there are willing buyers for British beef.
"From our discussions with supermarkets it is clear that they would favour a quality assurance scheme. We agree. My officials are working up some detailed proposals as a matter of urgency. The wholesale trade is beginning to return as a result of the revival of retail sales.
"The Government recognise that one consequence of these developments which needs to be addressed immediately is a blockage in the slaughterhouse sector as a result of cash flow problems which may be inhibiting the flow of meat through the system. The Government are determined to restore movement in the processing system in order to enable market confidence to recover.
"As an immediate but necessary interim measure, I can announce that all slaughterhouses that continue to handle beef will with immediate effect be relieved from Meat Hygiene Service red meat inspection charges in respect of 1995–96 and for an interim period. My department will seek additional resources to cover the loss of revenue to the Meat Hygiene Service through a Supplementary Estimate.
"In order to quantify the difficulties facing the industry, qualified expert accountants are being appointed forthwith to provide urgent advice on the immediate problems of the industry and how they could be solved. Those solutions will be the subject of close consultation with the slaughtering industry itself. Simultaneously the Government are approaching the banking industry to establish whether it would be prepared to extend trade indemnity credit insurance to underwrite the costs to the slaughterhouse sector of taking on new business. By these means, I hope I have demonstrated the Government's commitment to maintaining the vital contribution of the slaughterhouse sector to the meat processing chain and the essential immediate task of facilitating the flow of fresh meat through the system to retailers' and consumers' demand.
"We have continued to discuss with farmers the orders that we laid last week. As a result of these discussions I have today laid an order amending the Beef (Emergency Control)(Amendment) Order 1996 to provide for the age of cattle to be determined either by "dentition"—the stage of development of teeth—
358
or by reliable independently verifiable documents. I believe this will remove the main cause of uncertainty among farmers and help restore the flow of cattle through auction markets and to abattoirs.
"The public and the retailers are rightly looking for reassurance that the process of slaughtering cattle and dressing carcase meat is carried out with the greatest possible attention not only to legal requirements but also to general standards of hygiene. The Meat Hygiene Service has a crucial role. This agency, which was set up just a year ago, has performed a key part in our action against BSE since then. The agency's budget will need to be increased to cover the cost of additional staff who are now being recruited.
"In view of the heightened public interest I propose to introduce a quarterly published bulletin which will report the latest results of audits by the Meat Hygiene Service and State Veterinary Service on compliance with meat hygiene regulations and enforcement action taken. This will, I hope, demonstrate the continuing efforts which the UK meat industry is making progressively to raise standards of hygiene in our slaughterhouses.
"I shall shortly be placing before the House performance targets for the Meat Hygiene Service for the coming year. These will need to reflect the additional duties resulting for the Meat Hygiene Service from the new measures I am announcing today and those announced on 20th and 24th March.
"I turn now to the outcome of the Council of Agriculture Ministers which started in Luxembourg on 1st April and which ended at 6 a.m. this morning. Considerable efforts were made over two days and two nights by Minister Lucchetti for the Presidency and Mr. Fischler for the Commission, but I fear that the propositions on the table at the end of the meeting did not meet our central requirement that the export ban should be lifted. As our partners were not prepared to accept that, it was not possible for the UK to endorse the Council's conclusions.
"The BSE crisis has presented the Community as a whole with a challenge of major proportions. The Community's response must be prompt and effective but also soundly based and fair. The United Kingdom is making a major effort to contribute to that Community response. Arrangements will be introduced to ensure that all bovine animals over the age of 30 months at the time of slaughter will not enter the human food or animal feed chains. This scheme will take the place of the compulsory deboning for which SEAC recently called.
"It is right that we should contribute in this way to solving the Community problems caused by the BSE crisis. But the United Kingdom also has the right to expect a fair and balanced response from our Community partners to the particular difficulties faced by UK producers.
"The Community's first response to the BSE crisis was the imposition of a total export ban against UK animals and products. That ban is not justified. It is not based on sound scientific analysis. It is disproportionate. It should be removed.

359
"I made clear that any Council conclusions, to be acceptable to us, must include either agreement to lift the ban forthwith or a procedure and timetable to that end. It was not possible to reach such an agreement. I was therefore unable to endorse the drafts that were before the Council, despite the very real progress that has been made. It remains my intention to work in co-operation with other member states and the Commission to find a satisfactory and rapid solution to the problems which confront us all. Nevertheless some progress was made over the past few days, and there are specific steps which we can now take, with financial support from the European Union.
"First, we shall make preparations to bring into effect as soon as possible the arrangements for cattle over the age of 30 months as they come to market to be slaughtered under special supervision and destroyed and disposed of in a safe manner. As a matter of urgency I am considering with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the options for the disposal of the additional waste that would arise from these measures. Our objective is to identify the best practicable option and to ensure that the waste is dealt with in a manner which protects the environment and human health.
"I emphasis that this is not a compulsory slaughter scheme in the sense that such a phrase is ordinarily used. The objective is to take older cattle, cows and bulls coming on to the market for slaughter in the normal way at the end of their working life and to take steps to prevent them from entering the human or animal food chain.
"Some attention was focused at the Council on the possibilities for selective culling of animals most at risk of BSE. I believe some of our Community partners have exaggerated ideas of what is possible in this area, based on misunderstanding of the nature of BSE. We shall, however, be giving further thought to the idea in consultation with our own farming organisations and others, to whom I know the idea is of interest.
"The Community has taken important steps to stabilise market prices. Intervention support has been extended. The Council authorised purchases of up to 50,000 tonnes in the EU as a whole in April. The Beef Management Committee met while the Council was in session to put that into effect. In Great Britain, the new categories eligible for intervention bring coverage up to 22 per cent. of total UK beef production. Meat will have to be from animals under 30 months of age. These changes will help stabilise prices in the UK and in other member states. They will help restore confidence to the UK beef sector and help restart activity in the slaughtering sector.
"Lastly, with all the new developments of recent days and those that I am now announcing, it is important that all concerned in the industry know where they stand, or can find out immediately if they are not clear. To meet that need I have made arrangements to supplement the helpline service which my department has been providing to deal with
360
inquiries about BSE and the beef export ban. Staff will be on duty throughout the coming Easter holiday to deal with business inquiries. My and other Ministers' private offices will be on duty throughout the Easter Recess to deal with any queries and questions raised by colleagues.
"To conclude, I believe that the steps taken by the Government up till now rest on sound science. It remains our objective to take science as our best guide. Our senior adviser on the science, Professor Pattison, has told us that, with the latest steps we are taking, beef is for all practical purposes safe to eat—safer than it has ever been.
"I see signs that public confidence is returning—but the position taken by our European partners is unhelpful. The sweeping ban on our exports is unjustified and the Government will continue to work by every means possible to get that ban lifted.
"Meanwhile, with all that is being done by Government and industry, British beef is a product that we can be proud of. We shall do all we can to promote and protect it."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place by his right honourable friend. As always, I declare an interest as the director and shareholder of a farming company with dairy cattle which will be affected by the slaughter policy.
This is the third Statement in 10 days. Each has ended with the same words; namely, that the Government have done enough to satisfy the consumer, our European partners etc. And each time they have had to come back with further proposals. This can hardly be called a triumph of European negotiation. If I wished to be uncharitable, I should say that we have ended up with the worst of all worlds.
The scientific advice was quite clear. Professor Pattison, the chairman of the SEAC, Mr. Ray Bradley, from the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge, and others, have all made it clear that there is no scientific reason for a slaughter policy. But we are to have a slaughter policy. This is a purely political decision with which we have agreed, but it has no basis in science. The reason for introducing a slaughter policy was to satisfy and convince our European partners. Now we still have a slaughter policy, but the export ban remains. We do not even have a provisional timetable for lifting the export ban.
I have been around long enough to appreciate that there may have been some commercial factors in the minds of our European partners when they considered this problem, as well as the human health aspect. The fact remains that we shall have to slaughter our cattle, but the export ban is still there.
Not only do we still have the export ban. We have to go back to Brussels in four weeks' time with proposals for the further slaughter of whole herds. As I understand

361
it, these will be animals in full milk production. Therefore what is to be the basis of the new proposals for the selective, or targeted, slaughter?
Before leaving the question of slaughter, it is interesting to note that one group of consumers was asked to rank in importance the various aspects that would restore their confidence. The first was better labelling: "We should like to know what we are eating". The second was clean slaughterhouses and hygiene in abattoirs. Allaying public anxiety through a slaughter policy was 17th on the list.
We asked for an 80 per cent. rebate from our European partners. They started at 70 per cent., and they ended at 70 per cent. The Prime Minister, fresh from his triumphs at Turin, confirmed earlier this week that the contribution from Europe would be deducted from our rebate. Will the Minister tell the House what the final net cost of the policy to the UK taxpayer is likely to be? An article in the Evening Standard today gives a figure for the net value of the European contribution of only £85 million for a policy that is likely to cost in excess of £400 million or even more. I refer to the annual cost.
We must return in four weeks time with a proposal for targeted slaughter. As I understand it, that will affect complete dairy herds, which are deemed to be at greatest danger from BSE. I suggest that the Minister takes into account the situation of dairy farmers, who are the victims, as it were, of the targeted slaughter. They have to get rid of their animals. They may be faced with a large bill for super-levy. Will they be able to roll over their excess quota from last year, which ended on 31st March, into the current year? These are the sort of practical points that the Government will have to take into account.
I turn to the slaughter of the cull cows, the 15,000 per week of dairy and beef animals that have completed their useful life. Will the Government now at last agree to the random sampling of the brains of those slaughtered cull animals? That might help to show the true incidence of the disease. It might even produce an argument for ending the slaughter if the incidence is found to be lower than expected as a result of that examination.
Will the Minister also inform the House as to the latest information on a reliable, live test on cattle? If such a test is found, can we have an absolute assurance that the Government will make it compulsory?
I now turn to the Statement itself and some factual questions. It states that the supermarkets would favour a quality assurance scheme, and the Government agree. We also welcome that. In fact, it was recommended by the Labour Party, I believe last week. As I read the Statement, the relief from inspection charges from the Meat Hygiene Service will be retrospective, since it refers to the year 1995–96. So presumably there will be a repayment of last year's charges. It also says that the department will seek "additional resources". How much is intended to cover the loss of revenue?
There is an interesting suggestion as to extension of the trade indemnity and credit insurance. I ask the Government also to look (this is entirely from memory)
362
at the Agricultural Credit Act 1929. I believe that Act allows the Government to extend credit guarantee to farmers. If it is hard to help through the insurance market, perhaps that is another way that the Government might consider.
The Government are extremely sensible to have an alternative means of determining the age of cattle, either by dentition (to examine the state of the teeth) or by independent verifiable documents. As one wholesaler put it, the meat we import from Argentina has no teeth.
There is also the question of additional staff for the Meat Hygiene Service. Will the Minister say how many it is intended will be employed? If he has the figure, will he tell the House the actual total increase in staff for the MHS after the extra staff has been employed. I believe there has been a reduction in staff over the past few months.
The Statement also says that the Government will make preparations to bring into effect as soon as possible the arrangements for the cull cow slaughter. It would be extremely helpful to know what "as soon possible" means. When will that start? As I am sure the Minister knows, cull cows are now piling up on the farms. They are being held back. It is cold, spring is late and forage stocks are low. It is extremely important for practical reasons that we know as quickly as possible when it will start.
Will the Minister explain an ambiguity? I believe I understand the Government's intention, but will he explain his statement that this is not a compulsory slaughter scheme? It is compulsory in the sense that, as a dairy farmer, I shall not be able to send my cull cow to any other route except that proposed by the Government. Will he explain that apparent ambiguity? The farmer will not in fact be able to choose whether or not he sends the animal to slaughter and then to the incinerator if it is over 30 months.
Do the Government recognise that the industry is now confronted with huge uncertainty? It has no idea what number of cattle the Government will condemn. It has no idea whether the proposal on targeted slaughter will be acceptable to our European partners. It has no idea when it will again be allowed to export beef and beef products. Does the Minister agree that the industry and consumers cannot be left in limbo until the Government returns to the Commission at the end of April? Will he try to secure an earlier meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers and of the Standing Veterinary Committee with a view to reaching an earlier agreement with the European Union? It really is unacceptable that we have to carry on for yet another month in such a state of continued uncertainty. Can the Minister give the House some indication of the number of cattle that he envisages will be targeted under the proposed selective slaughter policy? Has he any idea of the criteria for the slaughter? I appreciate that there are practical difficulties, but some broad guidance in this area would be helpful.
Will the funds from the European Union be available for compensation only to farmers or will they also help towards the cost of incineration and the other expenses arising from these measures? All those involved in the

363
industry understand that the production of meat-and-bonemeal is a major exercise in waste disposal. That is no longer available. I understand that meat-and-bonemeal is still being made, presumably for incineration. Perhaps it will have to be taken into intervention and then burned. That may be the only way to deal with it; otherwise there will be a major waste disposal programme with the untreated offal.
Can the Minister put a rough figure on the cost of all the new measures announced in the last fortnight? Can he also set out the net cost to the UK after deduction of our rebate from the EU budget? My first calculation is that the net value of the funds from Europe will be only £85 million. Last Thursday the Minister in the other place advised that the Lord President of the Council was to convene a committee to address the problems faced by abattoirs and the broader rural economy. Can the Minister say whether there has been any progress with that committee and tell us when we can expect an announcement on assistance?
I am sure that none of us can remember anything in our agricultural lifetimes that remotely resembles this crisis. I can assure the Government that we shall do everything from these Benches to help to restore consumer confidence and repair the damage to the beef industry. We shall certainly wish to call the Government to account. I am delighted, and I know my colleagues agree with me, that the Labour debate which will take place on 17th April will be on that subject. But we can wait until then. All our efforts now have to be spent on limiting the scale of this disaster.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I also wish to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. I have an interest to declare in that I am a farmer. I have a pedigree beef suckler herd which I have bred over 30 years and which has never had a case of BSE. That is in common with many other rearers in this country who have herds of cattle entirely free from BSE.
I entirely agree with what the noble Lord just said. I cannot remember a crisis of anything like these proportions. I was in the other place, representing a totally agricultural constituency when the foot-and-mouth epidemic occurred on our borders at Oswestry. But it was nothing compared with the present disaster.
Having said that, and heard the Statement today, perhaps I may first say that I regret to a great extent the tone of the Statement. It is very important that we and our European partners co-operate to the utmost in dealing with this matter. One would have expected a clear exchange of information. The third paragraph of the Statement in fact states:
"It is clear that many of the problems faced by the beef industry are the result of the precipitate decision taken by the European Union, in particular the decision to ban exports from this country, and what I can only describe as panic reactions by other countries around the world".
I sincerely ask the Minister: who caused the panic? On 20th March a joint Statement was made by two Ministers—which was unusual in itself—in the other place about the possible link between BSE and the human disease. Reference was made to 10 cases which
364
had provided some disturbing evidence. I understand that the Agriculture Commissioner said that he was only informed of that Statement and the grounds for it half an hour before it was delivered in the other place. None of the Agriculture Ministers of the other countries was aware of it. The following day, there was a statement in the Independent newspaper about the possibility of 11 million cattle having to be slaughtered. That was confirmed by the Secretary of State for Health the following day in the other place.
That caused great panic in this country. Are we surprised that it hit the headlines in every European country and every other country? To blame the European Community for a panic reaction is overdoing it, to put it at its slightest. Since that time, we have had great co-operation from the European Community. It is a pity that there are no figures to suggest what the cost of the whole exercise will be and how much will be contributed by the other members of the European Community.
I live in the heart of an agricultural community. I am totally aware of the problems that it faces. For example, our area is a great store cattle rearing area. No store cattle have been sold since this happened. They are all in the pipeline. Farmers do not have the fodder to feed them or the straw. The fatteners who normally every week would be moving them have had to hang on to them. That creates an enormous problem. The slaughterhouses are empty. They have had to discharge staff and so on. Everything is an enormous problem at the moment.
I listened to the Statement and I had read it beforehand. If I were one of those people who advise as a result of inquiries, what could I advise a farmer about his position? How could I advise the slaughtermen or the owners of the slaughterhouses of their position? There is nothing tangible. I am convinced that within two months confidence would have returned. It is interesting that the very distinguished scientist Sir Christopher Cockerell, a Fellow of the Royal Society, wrote a letter to The Times last Saturday from which I quote the third paragraph:
"This means that on present data the odds against dying by eating beef are at least half a million to one against. Crossing a road is many times more dangerous".
So, when the Statement says:
"Many of the steps that have been taken against our exports have borne no relation at all to the science",
that is apparently absolutely true. Nevertheless, panic has been created. The question of how to deal with it has now assumed different proportions.
What is required is a subsidy of some kind immediately that has effect all along the line. There are so-called passports for all beef animals. Cannot an additional payment be made there to enable those who are hanging on to the stores to feed them and buy straw and so on? What about the finisher who has held back his stock? No doubt some of those cattle will be getting into over-condition. The finishers will need some kind of payment to carry them over the next two months. In a similar way, the slaughterhouses have an enormous

365
problem of dealing with offal that has not been disposed of. They need immediate help to deal with the problem. That help is financial help.
I should have thought that the Community experts would have been provided with a scheme from this country to show how we could achieve that kind of result, so that gradually confidence is re-built for the consumer. It is very necessary to build up that confidence. But I do not see signs of it. I am very sorry to say that.
I turn to the suggestion made by some members at the Community meeting who said that the Community's response must be prompt and effective but also soundly based in fact. Surely there should have been a very much greater exchange of information. I think I am right in saying that in this country 158,000 cases of BSE have been reported and all the animals involved have been slaughtered. The incidence of BSE is decreasing. The country which comes nearest to us in terms of the number of cases of BSE is Switzerland, with 200 cases. Otherwise, every case of BSE, including Switzerland, is said to be traceable to this country. So it has been a particularly difficult British problem.
How do we deal with the problem at the present time? We should give ourselves a two-month period for reflection. It is not unreasonable, although it is undesirable perhaps from our point of view, that the Community does not want to lift the world ban until it is certain what steps we are going to take. The Statement says:
"Some attention was focused … on the possibilities for selective culling of animals most at risk of BSE".
There is an interest in that in this country; and clearly there should be. But why on earth should we go to the enormous expense of killing animals that have no chance of communicating BSE or affecting human beings in any way? I refer to the beef herds, many of which have no incidence of BSE. Mature reflection over the next two months would surely not lead to slaughtering every animal over 30 months in this country. Animals under 30 months that have come from herds which have had cases of BSE may, from the point of view of any independent observer, be at greater risk than ones that have been in herds that have never contracted BSE, but when this matter is discussed at greater length in the European Community one is likely to reach a different conclusion.
Perhaps I may ask a practical question on the 22 per cent. of the total UK beef production that will be eligible for intervention during the next month. Does that cover all categories of beef animals—steers, young bulls and heifers?
Surely this situation has demonstrated the enormous effects worldwide of an incident which happens to have affected our country but has also affected our European partners. I had a telephone call the other day from New York to say that what has occurred has affected the sale of beef in New York. It may affect the sale of beef all over the world unless the matter is sensitively dealt with. What is required at the moment to deal with the matter
366
is reassurance to the consumer, practical and immediate help for the farmer, the slaughtermen and so on, and then an agreed European policy within two months.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for various elements of today's package. I agree with him about the absolute need to restore and sustain consumer confidence in what is a great product produced by a great industry. The irony is that we have not only perhaps the best beef in the world but the safest beef as well. So there is every good reason to be sensitive to consumer confidence and to seek to sustain it wherever possible.
I wish to say a few words about the phrase "slaughter policy". Both when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to it and, substantially, when the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to it, I believe that on the whole they were referring to our policy that beasts going to slaughter in the normal way at the end of their working lives will be excluded from the food and animal chain if they are over 30 months old. What we will not be doing in this part of our response is compulsorily slaughtering animals which would not otherwise have been going to slaughter because of the natural cycle of their lives. It is an exclusion policy in a sense rather than a slaughter policy.
We are considering details of a targeted cull. The details of any such programme will be carefully worked out. The consultation with the industry itself would be comprehensive and the discussion in this country would simply be a prelude to a discussion with the Commission and with the veterinary committee. We would make absolutely certain that any targeted cull, if instituted, would have to deliver benefits for the costs that are involved. I am not talking just about the financial cost but the cost to cattle numbers and herd numbers. We tread into this area with great care and with all the advice that the national and international veterinary community can bring to us. The other benefit we would expect from such a movement is a lifting of the export ban. It is a substantial move and the very least we would expect is a removal of the ban.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, spent some time on the total cost of the slaughter and the total value of the rebate. At this stage it is too early in the game to have worked up accurate figures. Rather than mislead the House by guessing, I would ask the House to be patient on this matter. We shall be debating this subject fairly shortly and I imagine that the subject will be returning to your Lordships' agenda at regular intervals. When hard figures are available they will be delivered.
On the targeted cull, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, painted a picture of a dairy farmer who was being faced with a super-levy charge, with perhaps quota problems if he were to lose his herd, and wondered to what extent we might be able to alleviate the obvious problems arising from that scenario. We want to think through such situations carefully before even initiating a selective cull, even if we want to do that anyway. We will be very careful about such problems.

367
The ability to institute random testing effectively in such a way that the scientists feel that it will deliver useful information is continuously reviewed by SEAC among other authorities. If it recommends that it should be done and it can convince itself that it will deliver something it can work with, we will do it. At the moment SEAC is not recommending it because it is very complex. The noble Lord asked about reliable live tests. If one were available we would want to consider just how widely it could be applied and how usefully it could provide information to prevent other types of cull or exclusion. Good progress is being made on the research towards a live test to detect BSE in cattle but it is not yet complete. There is no way we can practically implement what is known to date.
On disposal, the funding package agreed with our European partners, which is a 70/30 split, covers the value of the livestock themselves but not the cost of the disposal. The UK Government will be covering the cost of the disposal.
The noble Lord asked about the Meat and Hygiene Service. The relief from rates will be retrospective. The 1995–96 charges will effectively become a holiday so those paying MHS charges will receive money in the form of a cheque and, as has been agreed, the holiday will continue for an interim period. As regards resources and the staffing needed, we do not know at the moment exactly what the cost is and how many staff are needed. We shall simply spend what needs to be spent and employ the number that needs to be employed in order to deliver what we know needs to be delivered.
The exclusion policy for beasts over 30 months of age from the human and animal food chain will be instituted as soon as possible. I gather that that involves the following approximate timetable. The Beef Management Committee meets on 12th April when we hope that it will adopt the proposal. Three or four weeks thereafter we hope to have the system up and running. The noble Lord himself will know better than most noble Lords that the kinds of considerations and issues which must be clarified and defined before the system starts are complex and therefore we do not wish to rush into a scheme and find that we have misconstructed it through too much haste.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, delivered a great deal of his own experience to the House. Like many farmers, he has a BSE-free suckler herd. I believe that the anxieties felt by our farming community spreads from both those who have had experience of BSE to those who know that they have never ever had any BSE at all in their livestock. I acknowledge the anxieties that the noble Lord feels. He is completely inaccurate when he seeks to accuse the Government of generating the panic. I remind the House and the noble Lord himself that SEAC delivered a report to the Government followed by recommendations. It would have been quite incorrect if we had sought to keep that from the public and Parliament.
When we responded to that information by tabling Statements, we were very closely guided by, and proceeded extensively from, the reports of the scientists and from the Chief Medical Officer himself. We
368
stressed the fact that beef remains a part of a healthy and varied diet. We stressed the fact that there was still no proven link between BSE and cattle and ill-health such as CJD in man. We stressed the fact that the exposure that they believe they may have identified as being part of the causal link comes from exposure before 1989. What is more, that exposure is not to beef flesh, but to bovine offal. In releasing this information, we did so with considerable emphasis on the scientists and the medical officers involved in gathering it.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I hesitated to give examples. I saw Professor Pattison on television agree with a question put to him that the epidemic could be on the same lines as AIDS. I actually heard him say that.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, Professor Pattison and Dr. Calman, and all the other experts involved, answered all questions accurately to the best of their scientific knowledge. How the media then handled the information causes one to wonder whether they have contributed to the panic themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, painted a somewhat inaccurate picture about our disappointment with Europe over their response. We have co-operated with them very closely. I was with my right honourable friend the Minister at the Luxembourg Council. The Commissioner himself, Commissioner Fischler, is being extremely helpful and very constructive. He was contacted by my right honourable friend shortly before he made the statement. Necessarily, it was Parliament who deserved to receive this information first and not other member states.
The export ban that was then instituted was an over-reaction in every way. There was no scientific justification for it and it was totally disproportionate. We cannot sit back here and say that they have been co-operating and very helpful when they have instituted a ban which has no justice in it whatsoever and one which has further disturbed the confidence of the markets both in Europe and beyond.
We shall be providing as much advice as possible to farmers and everyone else in the industry, as I have stressed. We have already produced a great deal of assistance to all parts of the industry, both farmers through various schemes, to slaughterers through the schemes announced today, to renderers and, with devices such as intervention, to the market as a whole. So in the range of measures that we have announced over the past 14 days we have delivered quite a lot of assistance.
The incidence of BSE is declining and the noble Lord is right. It is in fact one-quarter of what it used to be two to three years ago. It is reducing very quickly. I suggest that other countries which have recorded BSE should look at the facts. In most circumstances only a small portion of their BSE can be linked to UK imports. There are still large fractions of their BSE cases which cannot be linked to the UK itself.
I believe that the bulk of the points which were raised by the two noble Lords have been covered. I stress to them and to the House that we are committed to solving this problem and that we are determined to do so.

369
Human safety and food safety are paramount. At the same time we are committed to helping the farmers who are being affected and the rest of the chain that follows through the entire beef industry that is being affected. Our concern has been reflected in the various measures that we have already brought forward and indeed in the measures that we may well be bringing forward in the near future.
6 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am not in the business of spreading alarm and despondency over this question. Indeed, it would not be appropriate if we went into detail concerning the matters raised in the Statement made by the noble Earl. Quite clearly, over the next few weeks there will have to be continuing discussion across the Floor of the House both in another place and here, concerning this very grave matter. However, I am disturbed about the general attitude adopted by Her Majesty's Government to her European partners in connection with this issue. I can understand, from the purely financial standpoint, the very legitimate desire of the Government to effect as much saving as they can in the expenditure they will have to incur in compensating the farmers and many other subsidiary interests, as a result of the policies that are going to be adopted. I would not have thought that the prospect of receiving £85 million per annum, if that is indeed the case, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, ought to be a matter to which we should pay overwhelming regard since in any event the great bulk of the money will have to be paid by British taxpayers.
As I see it, the Government genuinely believe that British beef is safe. They have made that clear on a number of occasions. Whatever view one takes about this, there are a number of uninstructed views, as well as expert views, upon the subject. Many of them are in conflict, but there can be no doubt about the fact that the Government have reiterated that they are confident that British beef is safe. Okay, let them have the courage of their convictions. Why should they accept supinely a restriction imposed by the European Commission on the export of British beef to countries other than those within the Community?
Noble Lords will recall that I raised that question yesterday. I was answered by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who said that the Government would make inquiries as a matter of expedition to find out whether or not there was any legal justification for that step. He said that there are many differing views—noble Lords can check his exact words—but that the Government have been expertly advised that there possibly was a liability.
My answer to that is "rubbish!". The Government should have the courage of their own convictions. They should ignore any Commission endeavours to restrict the export of British beef to countries other than those in the European Community. There is no point in being supine about this. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, may boil with rage when I say this, but many other member states of the European Community disobey Community regulations, directives and everything else at will if they
370
do not suit them. Generally, we keep to the law—or seek to do so. However, I do not see any reason why we should do anything other than completely ignore any endeavour by the Commission to impose on the United Kingdom a restriction on its right to send its product, in which it believes—so I am told—anywhere in the world outside the European Community. I should be glad if we could have a little courage about this instead of using weasel words into the small hours of the morning and making pleas to our various colleagues in the European Community. They do not all obey the law (even tenuously) all the time, so I hope that we shall take a more robust attitude.
As to the other steps and the general attitude towards us among our colleagues around the table, what comment do the Government have to offer to the observation of Herr Kinkel of the Federal Republic of Germany to the effect that if Britain is going to ask for our help in connection with its beef crisis, he expects Britain to be more co-operative over our general policies in regard to Europe. What answer does the Minister have to that? Does he agree that the European Commission should be able to take such a selective attitude?
In the meantime, I hope that some endeavour will be made out of the funds at the Government's disposal, if only by further selling of the family silver, to make some compensation to the farmers and their subsidiary interests. I sincerely hope that that will be done. Noble Lords will be aware that at this time of the year, when bank overdrafts are beginning to rise in the farming community, the prospects of converting flesh into cash will be welcome to farmers. Many will not be all that averse to that; nor for that matter will their bank managers.
Earl Lindsay: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that we do not lack the courage, the faith or the determination to fight for a product which we know is safe, of quality, and which potentially outsells or out- competes beef from anywhere else in the world. If we intended to roll over and accept everything that our partners in Europe wanted to place on us, we would not have left the Council, as we did this morning, refusing to endorse its conclusions. Our partners know that we are seeking a lifting of the ban. They have their ideas about the terms and conditions that they would like to see met before the ban is lifted. Ostensibly, they have mentioned human health and consumer confidence as the basis for those terms and conditions. However, the extent to which they were driving those terms and conditions was such that we felt that we should not comply. We want the ban lifted as soon as possible. It is urgent that that happens, but we shall not comply if that means undermining the UK's interests. Therefore, I refute what the noble Lord implied when he said that, with weasel words, we complied with any suggestions put to us.
There is no cost compliance in the sense that Ministers from other countries are expecting various other concessions on our part in return for any lifting of the ban. I spent a considerable amount of time at the Luxembourg Council where everyone's attention was

371
focused on just one problem: the beef market. Furthermore, we were not focusing only on the UK beef industry, but on the European beef market. Everyone acknowledges that it is now a European problem and that it requires a European solution. We want that solution to be effective, prompt and fair. Any such solution must involve a lifting of the ban because it is disproportionate, unjustified and totally irrational.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I declare an interest as a partner in a farm which has a small fold of highland cattle. I ask the Minister what advice he has to give owners of cattle which mature rather more slowly and are not normally exposed to market until they are about 36 months old?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, asks a very good question. One of the issues that has been discussed with vigour at Luxembourg—and will continue to be discussed energetically—is the kind of exemptions from the exclusion of all carcasses arising from beasts over the 30-month age limit that can sensibly be incorporated. We are very well aware that there are breeds in the United Kingdom that mature more slowly. We want to recognise that fact, if at all possible. It is also important that the response perceived by the consumer and others is seen to be convincing. If we hedge our response with too many complicated exemptions we shall be in danger of confusing the very people we want to convince. We have to balance sensible exemptions with an overriding message of simplicity and determination.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that this situation becomes more bizarre every time a Statement is made? I listened carefully to what he said about the statement by Professor Pattison. Apparently, he said that British beef was safer than it had ever been. Why on earth are we sacrificing and slaughtering thousands of cattle at huge cost on the altar of panic, hysteria and ignorance? Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I agree with the Government that some criticism can be made of the European Union's attitude to this particular crisis. Although it has itself said that British beef was safe, it exacerbated the crisis by banning British beef, not only in Europe but the rest of the world.
Are the Government yet cognisant of the awesome power that the European Union has over our trade, not only in beef but beef products and virtually every other agricultural product,—and perhaps more—to ban British beef within the European Union and to the rest of the world, whether or not the rest of the world wants to take it? Do the Government realise what an enormous loss of sovereignty that is and the risk to which it puts great British industries in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors? What will the Government do to return to the elected British Government and Parliament power over these great industries only by which this country can survive? I do not believe that my final question has yet been answered, although it has been asked by two noble Lords. Is it true that the European Union plans to give only £85 million towards the slaughter and other
372
measures for a panic which it helped to create? Is that not a drop in the ocean compared with the £4 billion net that we shall pay to the Union this year?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am invigorated by the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has put on this matter. I acknowledge that the European response on the whole issue has been critical. I have said to the House on a number of occasions today—and I reiterate it—that the decision of the Union's standing veterinary committee is disproportionate and not based on the science available. Therefore, it is unjust and irrational. Ostensibly, the standing veterinary committee is a scientific body. It has produced a scientific decision which is at odds with the scientific decision produced by our SEAC advisers. Therefore, the action taken subsequently, on the face of it, has been based on scientific advice. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Stoddart, that we are taking legal advice on how to tackle this ban through means other than mere negotiation for its removal.
We are prepared to take more dramatic action if that is justified. The basis for our policies to date has been the scientific advice provided by our expert advisers. We probably have the greatest concentration of expertise on the subject of BSE and CJD anywhere in the world. I believe that that is widely recognised within the scientific community. Therefore, when the EU standing veterinary committee decided that it disagreed with that world-renowned body, it somewhat undermined the confidence that the wider community had had until then in our expert committee. We deplore the action that it took.
Lord Monson: My Lords, following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, perhaps I may put one question to the Minister. In the improbable event of the EU having the genuine legal right to impose a ban upon the export of British beef and beef products to countries outside the Community, will the Minister say what is the worst that could happen to us were we, in the event of continued stonewalling and obstructionism by the rest of the Community, to defy the ban?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the advice we are taking at the moment involves seeking answers to the type of questions the noble Lord asks. I remind the noble Lord and other noble Lords who have explored this avenue that whether or not the ban is lifted and whether or not it is ignored by traders in this country, a considerable number of countries around the world have themselves taken unilateral action against British beef. Furthermore, a number of countries are now taking unilateral action against European beef. That is of great concern to some of our partners within the Community.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to join me for a moment in the pleasurable activity of imagining that we were not in the European Community? If we had, for instance, the status of Norway, which is a member of the EEA but which wisely voted against joining the Treaty of Rome, or if we were to enjoy the status of Switzerland, which was

373
clever enough to avoid even that position, might not our difficulties be very much eased? Would we, for instance, be facing this absurd ban from a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels? What is the position in Switzerland, which I understand has a liberal sprinkling of BSE but, so far as I know, has not had its products banned from world markets? My final question: is this whole story not just one more nail in the coffin of our membership of the European Community?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I must be honest and say that had we not been a member of the European Union the situation would not be very much different. As I stressed, many countries have themselves taken action against British beef-related exports. That was not prompted by the ban imposed upon us by Europe. I stress also that Switzerland does have BSE. I believe that it has the highest incidence of BSE outside the UK but it is a fraction of the BSE we have been having in this country. The controls and various measures we have been imposing since 1989 have begun to take effect. The incidence of BSE in all parts of the UK has fallen dramatically and is continuing to fall. We are convinced that a product that we know is safe and great will soon be recognised by everyone as being healthy and of quality.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as there is a moment or two left, will the Minister help the House and the industry by explaining the arrangements more clearly? As I understood it, the Minister said that the arrangements for the slaughter of animals over 30 months of age will take another three, four or five weeks or even longer to bring into action. What is the position now for the farmer who has the cull animal, which may have gone lame or whatever, which needs to be culled? Are such animals to be kept on the farms? Is there no way in which they can be moved? Do they have to wait there? Does the farmer have to feed them, and the rest of it? Does he have to wait to see what is going to happen? This is intended to be a helpful question. Farmers are genuinely concerned to know what they should do now.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we are working urgently on all fronts to produce answers to the many questions which the whole issue has raised for farmers and everyone else involved in the beef industry concerning reassurance, help, short-term assistance and so on. The help lines which are available in all parts of the UK through agricultural offices or MAFF are designed to give specific answers to farmers in their individual circumstances. I would encourage any farmer who is uncertain as to how best to handle the situation to seek the advice of officers. The measures now in place are fairly numerous. We have sought to respond to needs. Advice to each farmer in his individual circumstances is to be recommended.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Chemical Weapons Act,
Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act.

Planning Policy and the Economy
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury rose to call attention to the role of current planning policy as a mechanism for invigorating the economy at both local and national level; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I must declare an interest. I have a planning application before the East Staffordshire District Council.
I am grateful to the House for permitting this debate to be chosen in the ballot. I am also grateful to noble Lords for taking part in a debate on this last evening of term, so to speak. It has been a long day. I believe that the subject to be debated is a most important subject and one which affects everyone in the country at some stage or other. Following various comments made by your Lordships during a recent debate on inward investment instigated by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird, I felt that planning was a subject worthy of a debate in its own right, especially as planning matters are very often one of the key issues to be considered when a business is contemplating re-location.
My interest in planning encompasses both urban and rural areas. I work in the industrial and commercial world but I am also a farmer. From the countryside's point of view, there are a number of issues which deserve further reflection, and I understand that my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth will be addressing some of these matters when he speaks. From my own point of view, I find it quite destructive to the beauty of the countryside to see large portal frame buildings being constructed almost overnight in bare fields, to be followed shortly by a portakabin or mobile home, then followed by a permanent dwellinghouse—usually the design is as plain as a pikestaff and stands out like a sore thumb—often on an area of land which cannot possibly be termed as an economic unit.
However, my concerns lie in the main with the areas of urban decay, brought about by the modernisation of businesses and the changing requirements for industrial and commercial land use. It is vital that we attract new businesses to this country, and vital that we redevelop areas of our industrial heartlands, and therefore vital that commerce and industry work closely with the planning authorities in the pursuit of a common goal of an improving and lasting economy. In the opinion of many, an awful amount of damage was done in the 1960s by both planners and developers. Perhaps I may take the town of Shrewsbury as an example, where in the centre of a very special ancient market town the planners

375
allowed the most ghastly 1960s plain blocks to be constructed. This has to be planning gone mad, and once the damage is done it takes a great deal of expensive undoing. Planning has, thank God, improved in leaps and hounds since those days, but there is always room for further improvement.
There are three problems which I would suggest to my noble friend the Minister, and I would be grateful for his comments when he winds up. The first is the extremely lengthy delay experienced often by developers when putting forward plans to redevelop derelict sites in urban areas and when developing existing historical buildings; for instance, the case of disused hospitals being converted into modern office space in a listed building. In most cases, such delays add dramatically to the cost of the development, often making the end product unviable, and in many cases discouraging potential tenants or investors, to the detriment of the local economy, the national economy and not least the developer. Such delays are unacceptable, stifle business and are detrimental to the process of attracting inward investment, which is most important. Would my noble friend be kind enough to look carefully at such problems to see what could be done to lessen the time-scales being experienced at present?
Secondly, the time taken for planning inquiries to report their findings and adjudicate takes far too long. I have examples in the West Midlands where such matters have taken in excess of four years to be completed. I am advised also that the average time taken to prepare and adopt development plans is in the region of 65 months. Of course, in that time economic circumstances often change and the costs to the developer keep piling up relentlessly. Developers are the very people who put their money where their mouth is, backing their own judgment and taking the risks, which often are very substantial. I do not believe that developers should be treated in that way by the authorities.
In addition, the process of the preparation of development plans by local authorities has become notoriously slow. In short, the whole process of planning, including reports coming back from the planning inspectorate, is far too slow and full of bureaucracy. However, I congratulate the Government on the recent initiative of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to expedite such matters in his proposed changes to the Development Plan Regulations and the Code of Practice on Development Plans. That is a good start but there is still a long way to go.
Finally, I believe that the situation with regard to residential planning needs to be looked at carefully, where planning authorities are insisting on affordable housing being an integral part of a new development; where sometimes up to 25 per cent. of the development land available has to be provided free for that purpose as a condition of achieving consents. I know that developers regard that as grossly unreasonable, not only from a cost basis but also as houses of considerable value may well be sited in close proximity to houses of an affordable nature, making the former properties more difficult to sell and at a lower price. Suitable
376
development is difficult to find; planning consents are slow in coming, expensive and restrictive; and when the construction industry is at an all time low, it needs every possible assistance and a more helpful planning regime.
In the words of Sean O'Grady, director of planning at Stratford upon Avon District Council, quoted recently in the magazine Planning News:
"Local Authorities are deliberately set against the developer. Why can't they work with developers to produce plans as it will be quicker and more realistic".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for securing this debate on an extremely important subject. Planning probably affects most of us more than anything else. It is subtle but insidious. Crisis and calamities make the headlines but most of our lives are lived in a planned environment. In particular, planning affects the buildings we walk past and work in, the countryside we enjoy and the modes of transport which move us around.
But essential though it is, planning is not, on the whole, the most popular subject. We take what we like rather for granted and grumble regularly about what we do not like. As the Roman writer Horace said two millennia ago:
"How is it, Maecenas, that no one lives contented with his lot, whether he has planned it for himself or fate has flung him into it?"
My point is that most of us have not been able to plan it but have been flung by fate into our environment. However, that does not mean we cannot do a great deal to influence its future development. Indeed, we all have a great responsibility to contribute to planning. In view of the late hour and the great delay we have had to the start of our debate, that is enough of general remarks. I turn to the specifics; namely, the economic stimulus locally and nationally that planning can give.
Since planning is an enormously broad subject, I have organised what I wish to say into three areas: development, redevelopment and no development. First, I turn to development. I believe that the single most serious economic waste which the Government must face up to at the moment is urban dereliction. While I have absolutely no financial interest to declare, I can declare a substantial local interest in that a two-acre site literally over my garden wall in the very centre of the republic of Islington is at the moment the subject of imminent selection by my local authority as one of four short-listed comprehensive redevelopment schemes.
I speak of that because, in a way, it is a replica of situations all over the country. The two acres are essentially a bomb site used as a car park surrounded by largely council-owned rundown properties let on short leases. But the site is immediately adjacent to a large supermarket and major shops, to buses which go all over London, and the recently rebuilt Angel tube station. Therefore, the site has great potential. At present, the only economic contribution to the local authority is minimal rents and council tax from the small number of fringe houses and shops. To the national economy, there

377
are again the somewhat minimal income tax and VAT contributions of the car park operator and the fringe shops.
The proposed scheme will embody a mix of housing, shops, restaurants and a multiplex cinema together with an underground car park. If, after some 20 years in the pipeline, that development actually happens it should be a substantial economic stimulus which will contribute heavily to local council tax and business rates and nationally to VAT and income tax. Of course the net increase is by no means the total product of the contributions I have just mentioned but much of it will be an increment to the economy and GDP for we cannot assume that all the new activities will be operated by previously unemployed or under-employed and therefore untaxed people.
Nationally, many of our big cities still suffer major blight from lack of planning and development of derelict or semi-derelict sites. Those sites spring mainly from this country's change from a heavily manufacturing-based economy to one that is more leisure and service based. That has left empty factories and warehouses along with inexcusable undeveloped dereliction from Second World War bombing, most of which took place in the early 1940s, some 60 years ago.
We must make our towns and cities as attractive as possible to overseas visitors, both those who come for business and those who come for leisure purposes. Overseas visitors generate a wholly net economic stimulus equal to the sum of their spending. As well as planning what we might call the built environment, the best possible planning and development of traffic and transport are crucial factors. In a competitive market with continental cities, overseas visitors will be attracted by ease of travel. I am a devotee of greater emphasis on the planning and development of public transport. I am particularly interested in the return of the tram in an increasing number of places such as Sheffield, where I have a house, and Croydon, to name but two.
Development where there is urban blight, dereliction, dilapidation and empty housing presents us surely with opportunities to stimulate the local and national economies. Many possibilities arise, such as the creation of conference and exhibition centres, museums and galleries, restaurants, hotels and parks and gardens which make a town or city an attractive place for the visitor and enable them to compete more successfully. Some groan and say that this country is already saturated with visitors. But concentrating on good quality development should make visitors happy, and the happy visitor spends more. I add here a welcome for the Government's plans to improve road signing, as people who are lost do not spend much.
Redevelopment is my second heading. By this I mean making better use of the built environment we already have. While, as a conservationist, I am against wanton destruction of buildings and areas of excellent quality for architectural or historical reasons, much of our built environment is inherited from a Victorian imperial age when, for example, rooms, foyers and halls were of great height, presumably to appear grand. If sensitive planning and redevelopment allow three floors instead
378
of two that existed before, the net extra activity stemming from the extra floor will stimulate both local and national economies.
A surprisingly large proportion of our people are disabled. Attention to their needs in planning redevelopment can only help encourage economic activity. While it is surely important that great attention should be paid to the quality of each new building, I think that far more planning attention should be paid to the development of the area in which it will be placed—by which I mean streets, whole terraces, squares, and so forth. Otherwise the individual buildings will be hard to let or sell and so generate no cash. An attractive area environment is a positive attraction to occupation and, therefore, an economic stimulus. Perhaps I may illustrate that with two examples close to this place. I well remember from my childhood the old Victoria Street. My father had an office at No. 66—stucco buildings five storeys high with colonnaded porticos. It was a user-friendly and attractive street but war damaged and, in post-war London, an uneconomical use of a major street frontage and so pulled down. But what have we instead? We have a concrete and glass wind tunnel. I never go there unless I have to, thus depriving the local economy of my expendable cash. In contrast I almost look for excuses to go to the Covent Garden redevelopment and usually find it difficult not to buy something. What more need I say about the effects of planning?
My final planning segment is that of no development. By that I mean our countryside, so richly varied like our weather. I realise that forests, woodlands, paths, nature trails and all the rest need careful planning. By no development, I mean basically open and natural spaces. I believe that the flight from the cities in post-war years needs reversing. Properly planned, cities can be great fun to live in. Country that is not real country is less attractive, particularly to economy-stimulating overseas visitors, let alone our own people. Our high streets need encouragement. Out of town supermarkets, DIY stores and warehouses should be allowed only selectively. Country is a fragile thing. A store may argue that it takes up only so many thousand square feet of ground but its mere presence can destroy the precious openness of square miles of countryside. It is not as though what we call "the country" is economically barren. Quite apart from farming, woodlands and forests contribute to the economy, as do farmhouse bed and breakfasts, inns, and so forth, right up to the more expensive pursuits of game shooting and salmon and trout fishing.
Paradoxically, while our countryside, especially the wilder parts, should never look consciously planned, an overall rural plan is essential if these parts of our island are to be attractive and therefore economically stimulating, once again particularly to overseas visitors. The last thing that will develop holidays in Britain is countryside that is neither one thing nor the other. After all, our so accessible next-door-neighbour, France, is twice our size with huge rural areas but no larger population. In conclusion, our island is a crowded one, and crowds need planning and control if we are to maximise economic stimulus.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for introducing this debate because I believe we all agree that without the right conditions for investment and economic growth all the things that we demand in other spheres do not arise. I am aware of the debate last week when we discussed the impact of financial structures on the needs of society. Attention was drawn then to what is important in society: jobs, employment, investment at all levels and the social benefits which are so needed in society.
We had another debate on the importance of inward investment. There is no doubt that, when we discuss a whole range of economic and social issues in this House, everyone draws attention to these important factors affecting society which can only arise if there is sufficient investment and encouragement of wealth creation to maintain the resources of our country. On a number of occasions noble Lords opposite have mentioned the problems which affect the housing industry and the construction industry and they have talked about the need to do something about that.
On a number of occasions noble Lords opposite have drawn attention to the difficulties faced by the lower paid members of our society and the lack of opportunities that they encounter. Noble Lords have referred to difficulties in certain urban areas which need to attract much more wealth and support to tackle those difficulties. I support the points that they have made. However, when we seek to deal with the one issue that can solve so many of these problems, namely to encourage investment and development, the planning system prevents many initiatives from being realised. My noble friend was quite right to refer to the difficulty of obtaining a decision on a long-term investment. That difficulty is mind-boggling for the people who in many cases are prepared to finance vast investments from their own pockets.
I believe that the average time for the development of a structure plan is some 65 months. During that period of time there is probably a complete ban on development and investment in any particular area of a county, a city or a region. It seems to me that there is no proper relationship between those matters which are so important for the nation as a whole, which everyone agrees need to be tackled and which should be driven by the needs of the country as a whole, and the power of small groups of people with their emotional and often selfish approach to what takes place around them. What is needed by the nation is often overruled by the prejudices of a few. The planning system was never intended to do that. The planning system was established, as I am sure noble Lords will remember, to encourage investment. It was a way to make sure that investment, job creation and industry developed. It was a way to make development easier: decisions could be made, and there was some general control over the quality of and need for that investment.
The position has now been completely reversed. The system is now used by a few people to solve their own specific problems. Why is that? I appreciate that the problem is not easy to solve. Local authorities are
380
the planning authority. They are often enormously influenced by local residents who do not want this or that, and definitely do not want it on their bit but may be happy to have it on someone else's bit.
But there is a role that Government can play. They have a tendency to overrule those who wish to see development. There is no doubt that some areas wish to attract investment, create opportunities and encourage job creation. They wish to deal with the problems in their area. They are prepared to make planning decisions which nationally may not be in keeping with the pressures on government. In those instances, the Government will call those decisions in and make progress difficult. They cause delays and problems. In other areas where local authorities are taking a more negative view on development, government will have no control over them.
Government have laid down environmental conditions for growth, development and planning. However, they have not laid down the importance of economic needs. In many instances in the development of structure plans there is a responsibility on the local government to consider its environmental needs. But there is not the same importance as regards the economic needs. I hope that my noble friend will allude to that issue; and perhaps the Government will consider it further.
We raised the matter during the course of the debates on the new environmental body which has recently been set up. During the passage of the measure, we brought in a clause which stated that economic needs had to be recognised. We had support from all sides of the House for that proposal. But that is not sufficient. The Government need also to consider emphasising the economic needs of other areas.
The green belt is an emotional issue. Much of the green belt established around cities and other areas 20 or 30 years ago was seen as a temporary need. Those areas have now become locked in. It is an enormous problem to ease the situation or make some changes in the green belt. It does not make sense to me to create a hard edge between city or urban development and rural areas. There are many unnecessary problems regarding that hard edge which is caused by a strong green belt policy perhaps on the other side of a road, a line, or in many cases a fence. We should review the use of the green belt policy and create a softer edge between the urban and rural environment which allows for forestry; leisure use and other low level use of the land. That creates a softer edge for the people who want space between the urban area and the rural environment.
I agree with much that the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, said. I support his views on development in the early days. I do not altogether agree with him when he refers to the rural area as being an area merely of pleasant land. It is also an area where many people live, run businesses, have investments and wish to see the opportunities grow. We should take a positive view on how we can encourage more investment in rural areas. I wish to see our urban areas more open, with more green space, using derelict land, opening up cleaner areas for

381
people to expand and have a breathing space. But at the same time I wish us to encourage more economic activity in our rural areas.
This is an important subject for discussion. I hope that my noble friend will reply positively to some of the ideas that will come from the discussion.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Shuttleworth: My Lords, I also wish to thank my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for initiating the debate on what I agree with him is a most important subject. I am only sorry that the timing of it means that it is taking place when thoughts are turning to the Easter break, albeit some seven or eight hours later than we originally expected.
Planning policy and the decisions flowing from it play an important part in all our lives. The Department of the Environment currently produces no less than 24 planning policy guidance notes for local planning authorities on subjects as diverse as green belts, telecommunications, transport and renewable energy. Planning plays a particularly critical role in the economy. It cannot, of course, itself create businesses or jobs. But at its best planning creates the conditions in which enterprise can flourish. At its worst, planning will stifle and prevent the development of businesses and jobs, often in the misguided belief that enterprise can flourish wherever a planning authority directs.
While planning policy is important in our towns and cities—my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury emphasised that—it is even more so in the countryside where there is a particular need to accommodate the changing requirements of rural business amid the constancy of our superb landscape. As chairman of the Rural Development Commission, which as noble Lords know is the government agency responsible for trying to improve the quality of life for all the people of England's country areas, I have seen at first hand both the best and the worst of planning in the countryside. In many areas such as Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire and up in my part of the world, North Yorkshire, planning has helped to foster a dynamic rural economy. That has out-performed the urban economy in recent years in terms of employment generation, net small firm formation and the expansion of high technology-based businesses. But it would be a mistake to think that past successes mean that all will now be well with the economy in rural England. There are two main issues: first, success has passed many places by; secondly, more diversification is needed.
On the first point, there are whole areas of the country which are suffering from either structural changes resulting from decline in traditional industries or inherent difficulties such as remoteness and inadequate communications. Here one can think immediately of places like West Cumbria, Cornwall and East Durham. Even in some of the relatively more accessible rural areas such as East Anglia—which is well known to my noble friend Lord Ferrers—there is still a need to strengthen the economic base and improve the quality
382
and variety of local jobs. These areas have simply not shown the growth and success of the most accessible parts of the countryside to which I referred earlier.
On the second point, the need to diversify, we are reminded all too often—and in the case of the BSE scare, all too tragically—of the fragility of the rural economy and its historic over-reliance on a few large industries. I should perhaps declare an interest in that I have some beef animals. Even today, with employment in agriculture only 1.7 per cent. of total national employment, the percentage employed in agriculture in some rural development areas is far higher: for example, 19 per cent. in Staffordshire, 14 per cent. in Wiltshire. In other industries we have seen the disastrous impact in the rural coalfields of 50,000 job losses in the past 10 years and also of jobs lost in the fishing ports. I do not wish to go into the purposes behind that tonight, but if the rural economy cannot continue to diversify because of planning constraints, we may be condemning some places over-reliant on single industries to the bleak future now facing beef producers and processors and the many other people in those rural communities which rely on their earnings.
Nowadays, the nature of work in the countryside is not static; it is constantly evolving and changing. The way planning policy is implemented locally will help to determine whether the economy stagnates or responds to the needs of local people. How glad I was to hear my noble friend Lord Wade remind us of the original purpose of planning policy in his remarks.
There are some who argue that we need no more development in the countryside. The very success of part of the rural economy is being used as a reason to do nothing more. There are some who argue that allowing nothing else to happen is proper and sufficient protection for the environment. That is to disregard people, those who live and work in the countryside and might reasonably expect to continue to be part of the rural environment. That is to assume that future housing and employment needs can be accommodated by allowing development only on urban "brownfield" sites, important though their contribution must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, suggested.
The arguments that nothing should change—here I must disagree with the noble Lord—are dangerous misconceptions. Those of us who care about the countryside know that we cannot sit back and pretend the job is done. The devastating impact of BSE, which is quite the most serious crisis for rural England and perhaps the severest shock to rural communities that I have ever experienced, has reminded us of that. If we are to continue to have a strong rural economy from which the country as a whole can benefit, we must build on the success of those rural areas which have been able to attract new businesses and jobs; other areas must be allowed to develop new business opportunities if they are to survive. As I have said, flexible planning policies and, I might add, flexible planning committees are essential to this economic vitality.
But we also want rural areas to be places where people from all walks of life can live and work. It is conveniently forgotten that a significant proportion of

383
the projected growth in rural households will come from people, or the children of people, already living there. What are we to say to them—move into the towns, the countryside is full? What kind of countryside do we want? Surely not somewhere where only those who are rich enough to buy into it can do so, while the less well-off have no choice but to live and work in the towns.
As the Government's recent rural White Paper says:
"sustainable development in the countryside must involve thriving and competitive economic activity".
The planning system must not preside over a stultified, dying countryside. The Government are shortly to consult on revisions to Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (PPG7) dealing with the countryside and the rural economy. They will no doubt receive many calls for it to be tightened. I hope they will have the courage not to heed them; and I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to give strong reassurance on that point when he responds to the debate.
The current guidance note, PPG7, has certainly contributed to rural economic diversification. It makes clear that a wide range of modern light-manufacturing and commercial businesses cause little disturbance and can be accommodated easily in a rural setting. It also encourages planning authorities to take account of the vital role of small firms in the rural economy. The re-use of existing rural buildings forms a central plank of PPG7, and I was pleased at the Government's announcement in the rural White Paper that they propose to allow greater discrimination in favour of the re-use of rural buildings for business rather than for residential purposes.
The Government's view of rural England as set out in the White Paper and reiterated on numerous occasions since by the Secretary of State for the Environment is of a living, working countryside. That means people—with access to jobs, homes and services. That requires a planning policy which recognises the case for continuing appropriate development in the countryside, not only in the poorer rural areas but also in more prosperous parts. The alternative—obstacles to all change in the countryside—carries with it too high an economic and environmental penalty.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for introducing this particular debate and indeed must congratulate him on winning the ballot. As he pointed out, this is a very important matter. I myself am sorry that it has had to come up at what many noble Lords will feel is a late hour, on a late day, late in our business before we go into the Easter Recess. It is a matter which deserves the considered opinion of your Lordships' House.
First, I should declare an interest as president of the Federation of Economic Development Authorities. I hasten to add that it is an honorary post. It is a federation of local authorities—district councils which have economic development departments that have combined together in order to help each other in
384
invigorating the economy at local level, if I may so put it. Secondly, perhaps I may explain to the House what I propose to do in the light of the noble Earl's Motion. I shall make a general statement about what we believe planning policy is about and then I shall go on to review whether current planning policy—in the words of the Motion—fulfils what we believe to be its aims. Finally, and I hope very briefly, I should like to explain what we believe should be changed in order to do what the noble Earl wishes policy to do; namely, to invigorate the economy at both local and national level.
My general statement is very general but very simple. Planning should be about the quality of people's lives. That is a very simple basic statement. Planning should ensure the jobs, transport and recreation that a high quality of life and a vigorous economy demand. Planning is about more than the use of land. It must encompass and integrate economic, social and environmental considerations. That is a very general statement, but I believe, and I hope your Lordships will agree, that it is the basis on which planning policy should rest.
On that test, how does current planning policy—again I use the words of the noble Earl's Motion—measure up? It seems to me that current planning policy has brought us into a difficult situation. It has been described by noble Lords who have contributed to the debate as one of specific interests, dominated in some cases by vested interests and dominated in other cases by ill advised government public planning policy guidance notes. Planning policy is in a state of some confusion.
Certainly so far as concerns invigorating the economy, I am far from convinced that current planning policy has made much contribution at all. For instance, it has contributed to what I regard as the decimation rather than the encouragement of our industry. Let me give your Lordships one example. In 1987, as part of their deregulation of planning, the Government issued the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, which put light industrial and office use in the same use class. That is very simple and not too difficult to understand. But that led to light industry being categorised together with offices and to light industry being replaced with offices, because higher rents could be gained from offices.
A survey carried out in Westminster showed that more than 20 per cent. of those premises in industrial use in 1983 were, in 1995, used primarily as offices, and that the total number of occupiers in the main industrial sectors declined from 1,146 in 1983 to 460 in 1995. Since some industrial users had remained only through negotiating more favourable rents due to the fall-off in demand for office accommodation, it seems clear that industrial use under current planning policy in the inner cities will fall further. The only way to remedy that would be a change in planning policy.
Current central government planning policy has also encouraged the growth of quangos. We have discussed quangos on a number of occasions. They are indirect and unaccountable bodies. They are TECs, UDCs, English Partnerships, or whatever it may be. They have

385
some planning functions and they tend to be single issue operations. There is therefore little integration between the issues that the quangos address and the strategic development plans, on whatever level they may be, that we believe would be necessary to ensure the kind of result the noble Earl requires in his Motion.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships one example. We have had the problem of out-of-town shopping, which the Government have been wise enough to recognise. Planning permission has been given to large shopping centres outside towns. Town centres in the smaller rural towns—this is not a question of London but it is a question of some of the towns which I, the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, know very well—have been reduced to a no-go desert area. This has now been belatedly, in our view, recognised as a failure in government planning policy and the Government are going to address the issue seriously. I understand that at some stage there will be—I hope the noble Earl will be able to say when it will come—new policy guidance from central government on how to restore and invigorate town centres in small market towns which have been decimated by the introduction of out-of-town shopping.
The verdict on current planning policy is not very good. Nevertheless, we believe that a proper planning policy has an important role to play in invigorating local and national economies. A proper planning policy should ensure—I come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said—that appropriate sites and infrastructure are provided by planning, at the right place and at the right time, for economic development. That should be a fundamental rule in terms of planning policy. Furthermore, it should provide a framework for investment decisions through an integrated system of statutory strategic and local plans and local regeneration strategies prepared in partnership with different interests—the private sector and other interests that may be concerned—with a view to ensuring that local economies generate the kind of activity the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, wish to see. Thirdly, any future planning policy has to ensure—I come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, said—that all new economic development has sustainable development as one of its key objectives. It is no good going for economic development regardless of what many of us feel is the proper role for the countryside or the proper role for towns or villages.
I agree with noble Lords who have said that planning should facilitate inward investment, job creation and the provision of community facilities in bringing under-used land into productive use. That is very important. I say this again: planning must also be democratically accountable. It is no good government overriding local or regional authorities by setting up PPG because that simply will not work as a structure.
Ironically, deregulation has made the planning procedure much more complex. Those noble Lords who complain about delays in planning procedure ought be aware that it is not entirely the fault of local authorities, because they are worried about all sorts of things
386
coming in from the side which have been introduced by the Government under deregulation and which have made their decisions much more difficult.
I believe that I have said enough to reassure the noble Earl that essentially I am on his side. I am on the side of all those who believe that planning policy should be directed to invigorating the local and the national economy. There has to be a balance struck so it is sustainable. Seeing that the noble Earl is to reply, I conclude by noting that he will be absent from your Lordships' deliberations over the next few weeks, as I understand it, and to wish him every success and good health. We look forward to seeing the noble Earl suitably reinvigorated when he comes back.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I put one point to him? Does he agree that sustainability is as much a question of our leaving at this stage the opportunity for people to continue to create the wealth, the jobs and the structure that will be required as it is of preventing further usage? Surely, sustainability means that we of this generation have a responsibility not to hold back the next generation from its aspirations.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I certainly agree with that part of sustainability, but there is another part to it which, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, is that we should not use up the resources of today's world to the detriment of future generations. Sustainability requires a balance between the two.
7.12 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for giving us the opportunity today to discuss the role of the land use planning system in invigorating the economy. I deeply appreciate the kind remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made, with which the Opposition Chief Whip is associating himself and, no doubt, all his Back Benchers as well. I am very grateful for the cacophony of kindness that has come from the Benches opposite.
This subject is very important. The Government are grateful for the views which your Lordships have expressed. There is no simple answer to planning; it is a contentious matter and there is a great deal of conflicting pressure applied to the countryside, the towns and the planning system in general. How we use our land determines not only the attractiveness of the land in which we live but also the ability of the nation to be successful economically.
One of our most remarkable national characteristics is that we seem to have an insatiable appetite for saying what is wrong and almost total inability ever to grasp what has gone right. In fact, the United Kingdom has done enormously well. As the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, said, planning has an important part to play in the economic success of the country. After all, we now find that 40 per cent. of all investment into Europe from Japan comes to the United Kingdom and 43 per cent. of all investment from the United States into Europe comes into the United Kingdom. Despite

387
the agonies of unemployment, we have the highest proportion of our working population in employment, higher than Germany, France, Italy or Spain. Our non-wage labour costs are lower than in any of our major European competitors; and we have had the massive investments of Nissan, Samsung, Siemens and Sony—because the United Kingdom is the best country in which to invest.
None of that would have happened if we did not have a good and sensitive planning system—yes, I agree that it could be better—but such investment will not happen in the future without a good planning system. I agree with my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth that planning cannot itself create investment, but it plays a large part in ensuring that investment is made.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Wade that in order for industry and commerce to succeed, new enterprises need sites which meet their requirements. Existing firms need room to expand. The planning system has an essential part to play in identifying sites for new development as well as in considering the infrastructure, the roads, water, sewerage and so forth, needed to service these sites.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that it is one thing to have development hut, as he said, it has to be sustainable development. We need not go into that phrase now, but it is important because we cannot wreck the countryside and the country for generations to come by being selfish for ourselves in the present.
The planning system operates at various levels, from the production of planning policy guidance notes by central government to the making of structure plans by county councils, to the making of local plans by district councils and to the issuing of individual planning decisions, usually by the local authorities. It is vital that all of these elements should pull together if we are going to encourage future economic prosperity.
One of the Government's main roles is to set the overall policy for the planning system. We do this through a series of national planning policy guidance notes and regional planning guidance notes. These emphasise very clearly the need for discussion to take place between planning authorities and commercial and industrial interests and for the needs of business to be reflected in development plans. Businesses should not just be told what they have to put up with. They should be involved in the planning process.
We specifically ask planning authorities to pay particular attention to the importance of encouraging industrial and commercial development, and we advise them, in preparing their plans, to think about the role which those plans have in expanding the local economy and in stimulating employment opportunities.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth that some local authorities are too keen on preserving their particular patch, as it is. That is understandable, but it can also be unkind. If local authorities do not invite—and if they do not conduct themselves in such a way as to encourage—industry then industry will not come, and people in the area will find themselves unemployed. Local authorities have a great responsibility here.
388
Within the framework of our general guidance, we issue advice on the needs of particular sectors of the economy and how these can best be met. A draft revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 6, which deals with town centres and retail developments, was issued for public consultation last July. This advises local authorities to adopt, as it were, a "pecking order" approach in the selection of sites for retail development, with town centres as the first preference. The guidance also promotes town centres as suitable locations for other uses, including leisure.
The last thing which we want is the wholesale abandonment of our town centres—whether by businesses or by communities—thereby creating a desert where all that flourishes is crime and poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, was concerned about that and said that we should act to tackle dereliction. Her Majesty's Government have invested, and continue to invest, huge sums of money in such things as the single regeneration budget and on the work of the urban development corporations - I have seen some - which have been an enormous success in helping derelict city centres to improve. A lot has been achieved under the housing White Paper in which Her Majesty's Government have announced the target to achieve half of all new housing development on derelict and vacant land within urban areas.
Town centres are at present, thank heavens, home to many thriving small and large businesses in the retail and leisure sectors. One of the aims of our planning policy is to help them to stay that way. Planning is not just about urban areas. As we have heard this evening from my noble friends Lord Wade, Lord Shuttleworth and others, it is also about the countryside. My noble friend Lord Shuttleworth will remember that in the recent rural White Paper we said how important we felt it was continually to promote the rural economy in ways which did not wreck the countryside. At the end of last year we published a good practice guide which gave local planning authorities advice on how to encourage the development of the economy of rural areas and at the same time to safeguard jobs and the pleasure of the countryside. Later this year we will issue for consultation a draft revised version of Planning Policy Guidance Note No.7 on the countryside, and we will issue a paper on the possible introduction of a rural business use class to encourage planning permission to be given to new rural enterprises.
My noble friend Lord Shuttleworth asked for an assurance that we would not tighten up planning policy and preserve the countryside in aspic, as it were. Of course, the purpose of consultation on Planning Policy Guidance Note No.7 is to consult. It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt the conclusion of that consultation. But I agree with my noble friend that there are all kinds of opportunities for expansion within the countryside which can be taken up without wrecking it. We must be careful not to fossilise the countryside or to be like the proverbial Victorian nanny who said, "Go and see what the children are doing and tell them not to".

389
Both national and regional planning guidance provide the basis on which individual planning authorities prepare development plans for their areas. We now have a plan-led system. This means that individual planning decisions have to be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there are very good reasons why that should not be so. That is why it is so important that commerce and industry should participate in the preparation of these plans before ideas become fully formulated. Arrangements have been made for this, and industry and commerce should take advantage of them.
Local planning authorities can supplement these policies and plans by preparing development briefs for particular sites. They can indicate the type of development which the planning authority wants to see on a particular site. This can be immensely helpful to those who are thinking of moving into an area and can speed up the planning process considerably. In particular, where foreign companies work to short time-scales development briefs can provide an excellent way of securing inward investment.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury spoke about delays in reaching planning decisions and the frustrations which that could cause to businesses. I sympathise with him over the utter frustration which unnecessary delay in planning matters can cause. I hope that I am able to give him a little reassurance.
We have set councils the target to decide 80 per cent. of planning applications within eight weeks of receiving them. Six years ago only 46 per cent. of applications were decided within those eight weeks. That figure has now risen to 65 per cent. I believe that that is encouraging, but clearly a great deal more needs to be done. We have announced a number of new measures to try to achieve it. We will publish separate figures to show the time taken by individual planning authorities to process commercial and industrial applications. We hope that that will keep all local planning authorities on their toes. After all, everyone likes to be at the top of the tree. When those figures are published it can be seen who is at the top and bottom.
Also, where an application has not been decided by the end of the eight-week period, we will be asking local authorities to let applicants know when they can expect a decision. That will give both the applicants and the councils something to aim for.
The main reason for introducing the plan-led system was to try to speed up the process of making decisions and to reduce the number of applications which are refused. That should also result in fewer appeals.
My noble friend Lord Wade was worried about the time taken to draw up plans. Because of the greater emphasis which is now being given to development plans, developers and local communities are taking a much closer interest in them. As a result, many authorities who are preparing plans for the first time are facing a difficult, and sometimes lengthy, process. Once they have their plan in place though updating it will be easier and a good deal quicker.
390
My noble friend Lord Wade asserted that there was a complete ban on development while development plans were being prepared. I accept that it is appropriate to defer consideration of some major applications while the planning policies are being considered by the inquiry. But the vast majority of applications can be decided while the plan is being prepared. The weight given to the emerging new plan in making planning decisions will increase as it gets nearer its final adoption.
My noble friend was also concerned about green belts. We recently reviewed the green belt policy advice and issued new guidance. The fundamental aim of green belts is to prevent what is described as "urban sprawl". So there needs to be a boundary beyond which the policy will apply. The guidance generally allows the uses referred to and provides for new buildings for, among other things, agriculture, forestry and essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation. Where planning applications are refused, the applicant may submit an appeal, and we have issued a draft new circular giving advice on best practice in the operation of planning inquiries and other appeal procedures.
What we want to do is to speed up the appeals process, to reduce delays and expense and to make the system more user-friendly while at the same time safeguarding the underlying principles of natural justice.
Businesses often find themselves having to apply for a variety of different consents before they can go ahead with a new building. That can be confusing, particularly for small firms. We are, therefore, exploring the idea that local authorities should provide a single advice point—the so-called pseudo Business Link—for the different systems. We shall be undertaking a pilot project with a number of authorities and we intend to publish good practice advice later in the year.
I recognise the concern of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury about affordable housing. That is one of the reasons why we have issued a draft circular on this subject. One of the aims of the circular is to prevent local authorities from making unreasonable demands for affordable housing on unsuitable sites. I thought I might send my noble friend a copy of the draft circular—that will keep him quiet over Easter! I am sure that he will enjoy it, and I will be interested to receive any comments which he may have, provided they are constructive and polite in nature.
Good plans, good planning and good planning decisions are all vital if we are to enable the country to build on its continuing success in a rapidly changing world. Planning decisions should be quick and be made with as much consultation with the applicants as possible.
There are bound to be enormous conflicts of interests in any kind of planning application. We all accept that. Not everyone will be satisfied, but it is important that there should be consultation and that the result should be quick. Planning authorities must not be seen as, or feared to be, "the boss". Planning should be a partnership. The applicants have much to offer the community and they should not be considered to be acting only in self-interest.

391
We are sensitive to the role which the planning system plays in providing the right environment in which economic development can prosper. I can assure your Lordships that we will not hesitate to make further changes where these are needed.
The House will be grateful to my noble friend for having drawn to your Lordships' attention an important facet of national life, even if it is on the last day of term and at an hour later than we had expected.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It is an important an interesting subject. I am grateful in particular to my noble friend the Minister for his response. I welcome his comments on efforts being made by Government to cut the timescale taken in the planning process. I was delighted to hear that he is to send me some Easter weekend reading. I am duly subdued by that thought.
I was also delighted to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that he is on my side. It is to be hoped that I shall have to remind him of that in future because as yet we have agreed only on matters to do with fishing, about which we have long conversations.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the Labour Party in wishing my noble friend the Minister well on his forthcoming trip to the surgeon's knife. I wish him a full recovery. I hope that everyone has a most pleasant Easter weekend thinking about matters to do with planning. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Southern Africa
7.31 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso Lord St. John of Bletso rose to call attention to current political and economic developments in Southern Africa; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to address a few of the key issues relating to the economic and political development in Southern Africa. I am a little sorry that the debate is taking place at this late hour of the night. I had hoped that several other Members would be present and interested in listening to the debate. I am sad that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, had to scratch his name from the list of speakers. He had intended to contribute, but at this hour he is on a flight southbound to South Africa to take a well-deserved holiday.
I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell is making his maiden speech on this subject. The right reverend Prelate comes to your Lordships' House with an enormous amount of experience and expertise, in particular in developing countries. I am greatly looking forward to his contribution tonight.
I have always focused my debates on South Africa and today it is a little daunting to try to tackle the entire region in the limited time at my disposal.
Southern Africa covers almost 4 million square miles with a population of just over 120 million. During the past decade it has had more than its fair share of political, social and economic upheaval. The two words that are key to the potential success of Southern Africa, both politically and economically, are "reconciliation" and "co-operation". Nelson Mandela has achieved the political miracle in South Africa through his policy of promoting reconciliation. After the decades of civil war in Mozambique and Angola, at long last partial reconciliation was achieved in successful elections in Mozambique in 1994. Following the Lusaka Protocol in November 1994, there appeared at long last, and particularly recently, to be the basis of a lasting compromise between the MPLA and UNITA in Angola.
Southern Africa has undergone a form of metamorphosis during the past 10 years. Countries which in the wake of independence from colonialism has opted for "Marxist/Leninist inspired economic models", referred to by some as "Afro-Marxism", have today turned towards economic liberalism and are implementing structural adjustment programmes.
The milestone of democratisation was undoubtedly the ending of apartheid in South Africa. The so-called political miracle, as I have mentioned, has put an end to many years of destabilisation which was orchestrated to a large degree by the previous government.
The recent political achievements in southern Africa have, to a large degree, been propelled by the fall of communism and the ending of the Cold War and, as I have just mentioned, the end to minority rule in South Africa has removed the final obstacle to the southern African region's desire for closer political and economic integration.
Today southern Africa appears to be more united and resolute than ever in confronting the problems that it must solve in the future. The Southern African Development Community, to which I shall refer as SADC, representing 12 member nations and accounting for 40 per cent. of Africa's total population and 81 per cent. of the continent's GNP, has gathered momentum towards tackling the region's problems through greater co-operation. For example, during 1994, co-operative diplomacy averted the government's crisis in Lesotho, and two months later prevented the otherwise certain collapse of the United Nations supervised elections in Mozambique.
The objectives of SADC are extensive. Among those objectives, it aims to achieve development and economic growth, to alleviate poverty, enhance the standard and quality of life of the peoples of southern Africa and promote and defend peace and security as well as to maximise productive employment and utilisation of the resources of the region. Agreements have been made in relation to sharing water resources and a common grid has been negotiated for electrification. The most ambitious recent call by SADC has been for the creation of a common market and the elimination of trade barriers.
While those objectives are commendable, many would argue that the reality of achieving those goals is another matter, a far-fetched dream. The theme of the

393
recent SADC conference in South Africa in February was the enhancement of trade and investment into southern Africa. That is a much more realistic objective. Without elaborating on the ramifications of the conference, there was a strong call for an institutional framework which would ensure that goods and services produced in the region were competitive on the world market. The conference highlighted the need for the region to invest in the development of human resources so as to provide skills and expertise demanded by industry.
One of the greatest problems, following the years of civil war and unrest in the region as well as the results of the long drought which thankfully has now been broken after the fantastic rains which occurred in southern Africa last year and are still happening this year, has been massive poverty and under-development as well as large numbers of displaced peoples. A recent World Bank survey in southern Africa showed that one of the major priorities for communities was job creation. The story of southern Africa's economic development has been a story of migration of its peoples, migration because of civil war, the drought and insecurity. Cross-border migration has caused problems, particularly for South Africa.
Clearly, peace and stability are essential for social and economic development. The Interstate Defence and Security Committee was established in southern Africa recently and its aims have been to achieve stability and promote socio-economic development in the region with lasting peace the ultimate objective. Plans have been established to endeavour to stem cross-border crime and the illegal flow of arms between the countries in the region.
The economic reality of the past decade has been that many countries and governments in southern Africa have, as a result of the civil war and unrest, increased military spending at the expense of socio-economic sectors. For example, I understand that between 1992 and 1994, the Angolan Government spent almost 80 per cent. of their budget on defence. That has exacerbated another problem which, of course, in Africa is a major problem; that of government debt.
That leads me to make brief mention of the problem of land-mines, particularly in Mozambique and Angola. Angola is sewn with an estimated 15 million land mines, especially in the areas around towns which have seen the fiercest fighting. I was in Luanda a few months ago—in fact, at the same time as the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington—and saw for myself the tragic consequences of the effects of these brutal weapons of war, mostly on children who lost their legs and arms. As we all know, children are especially vulnerable to land-mines and land-mines in southern Africa are certainly a fundamental obstacle to social and economic development, particularly in Mozambique and Angola. With 100 million land-mines already laid around the world, and with another estimated 100 million land-mines stockpiled and, added to this, the huge cost of clearing those mines, do Her Majesty's Government have any plans to ban these weapons of war?
Despite massive economic problems facing Mozambique in the wake of the devastation from the 17-year war, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has succeeded in repatriating almost 2 million refugees back to their country. Unfortunately, the UNHCR is finding it much more difficult to achieve a similar repatriation in Angola, to a large degree because of the massive amount of land-mines there. The civil war in Angola has destroyed much of the infrastructure, including, of course, the Benguela rail link, which desperately needs to be rebuilt and secured if there is to any chance of an economic recovery in that area. In Luanda alone, there are over 3 million displaced people.
I should have liked to have elaborated more on the recent talks and agreements between the MPLA and UNITA and the plans for the new Government of National Unity and Reconciliation in Angola in July, but time restricts me from doing so today. I shall suffice but to mention that there are clearly major logistical problems there. I welcome the 1 billion dollar aid package pledged to Angola from the EU sponsored Brussels conference last year.
Another extremely positive development has been the Maputo Corridor Project between South Africa and Mozambique to be formally launched later this year. That will upgrade road and rail links between the two countries and will certainly improve the economic interaction between South Africa and Mozambique. A major drawback to the successes of achieving democracy in most countries in South Africa has, unfortunately, been the slow process of meeting the expectations of the masses. High hopes were raised in South Africa that the reconstruction and development programme would provide jobs, houses and better education. The reality, sadly, has been that the implementation of the RDP programme has been slow and erratic. I welcome the recent move which will mean that the RDP programme will now fall under the Treasury responsibilities in South Africa.
In Zambia, now three years after the election of President Chiluba, most observers agree that the changes introduced by the new regime have been slow and not particularly effective. The economic and financial situation has barely improved and Zambia has still one of the biggest debts per capita on the African continent. Moreover, its dependence on copper is as great as ever and the population has seen no improvement in living standards. The introduction of international economic systems in southern Africa have, in many countries in the region, not been conducive to building prosperous and secure societies.
It may be contentious, but I believe that the term "democracy" in southern Africa is, in many cases, a myth. The recent election in Zimbabwe, for example, was a classic farce. In South Africa, it is my hope that the ANC will not develop into too strong a party, but that it will have a strong, enduring opposition. I am sure that that would be the wish of President Nelson Mandela. With the rifts between the Inkatha Freedom Party and the ANC, I also hope that the new constitution in South Africa will not be set in stone, but will have a degree of flexibility. The next 18 months in South Africa will be critically important for the country for

395
establishing a sound base for the future. Nelson Mandela's health poses a major problem and also a concern to many, especially if he opts to retire before his term expires in 1999.
Social and economic improvements, particularly for the majority of the black peoples, must be visible. There needs to be constant and sustained GDP growth. Deputy President Thabo Mbeki, in a recent speech aptly summarised the challenges in South Africa in his call for,
"sustained GDP growth of at least 6 per cent. by the year 2000, the provision of a basic household infrastructure for all by 2005, enhanced investment in the economic infrastructure, education and training, a national crime prevention strategy and a rationalisation of the public service".
My time is almost up but in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, I briefly wish to make a call which he was going to make this evening for Her Majesty's Government to continue their support for a satisfactory South African/European Union free trade agreement to be negotiated as soon as possible. The European Union has been South Africa's prime economic partner in terms of trade investment, transfer of technologies and financing, and has made many valid contributions to the South African economy. However, several members of the European Union have recently proposed protectionist measures by drawing up a list of products, being almost 60 per cent. of South Africa's farm exports, to be excluded from these negotiations. This is a blatant U-turn on earlier commitments by the European Union to offer a generous free trade area to South Africa. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance this evening of Her Majesty's Government's continuing support to get an expeditious free trade zone agreement with South Africa.
In conclusion, southern Africa has certainly been experiencing upheavals in the past few years but at least the changes have been more positive than negative. The international community has certainly played an important role in influencing many of the political and economic developments in the region. Mozambique and Zambia are to a large degree dependent on western donors. However, the challenge in assisting southern Africa to achieve sustainable growth has in reality only just started. Her Majesty's Government, ably steered by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, the Minister, has done excellent work in the region, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister who is to reply to the debate tonight what measures Her Majesty's Government and her European partners are planning to assist in matching the political successes, the so-called political miracle, with the essential goal of sustainable social and economic prosperity in the region. I beg to move for Papers.
7.47 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time I feel a bit like St. Paul, who, when he addressed the Corinthians, was in fear and trembling. However, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for introducing this subject and also for his gracious and kind words.
396
As he pointed out, I have spent 17 years in South America, and my knowledge and experience of South Africa in the light of the experience of many noble Lords present is superficial, but my concern is deep. It was on a sabbatical of last year that I was able to visit both South America and South Africa. During that visit to South Africa I became aware of, and was forcibly struck by, the continuing unhealed gap that exists as a legacy of apartheid. On the other hand I was also impressed by the long-standing and respected contribution of all the Churches, and not least the Anglican Church under the leadership of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in the campaign for an end to apartheid and for an end to the wars in other countries in the region.
I wish to centre my comments around two concepts: reconciliation, to which the noble Lord has already referred, and redevelopment. We have learnt from our South African colleagues, through their long struggle, that there can be no reconciliation without justice. It is not easy to achieve real justice because it is proving hard to fulfil the high expectations of the black population for jobs, housing and healthcare. If using a gun in war or crime have been the only ways in which people have made a living, the social and personal consequences prove immensely destructive.
We see, too, from the tragic devastation wrought by war in places like Mozambique and Angola that there can be no development without reconciliation. Killing has to stop before the conditions for living can be created. In war situations, long-term development and stability simply cannot be achieved. According to the Catholic Institute for International Relations, when the war in Angola restarted in 1992, the Angolan economy declined by 25 per cent. in the following year. It is a country rich in resources, and yet one-third of the population was dependent on food aid in early 1995. We hope and pray that the mediation efforts have now brought the killing to an end.
Few in South Africa believed that the triumphant overthrow of apartheid and President Mandela's achievement at the ballot box marked the end of the story; and today there are still situations of overt and threatened violence which require the involvement and concern of the international community. This is why, for example, Christian Aid is supporting the initiative of the KwaZulu-Natal Church Leaders' Group, which has requested church people from Britain to monitor the elections scheduled for the end of May. At the request of South Africa's Churches, there was a well regarded and successful international monitoring operation at the time of the South African national elections. Now it is time to repeat this operation in the worst of the local trouble spots in South Africa. I understand that it is not unusual for 20 to 30 people to die each week in political violence in Natal. Much of the carnage is attributed to the confrontation between the African National Congress and the Inkatha Freedom Party of Chief Buthelezi. However, violence in communities, as we know from Northern Ireland, is a very complex issue. Tension is high at the moment because of charges laid against highly placed military

397
leaders of the old apartheid regime and because of charges of collusion by Inkatha in killings and the former repression.
There are also important technical economic issues at stake. These do not always find adequate reflection, I believe, in our media or our public debates. The noble Lord referred to this fact. South Africa needs better access to the markets of the European Union. It is urgent for the region's economic development that the agreement concerning tariffs made in Berlin in 1994 between European and Southern African foreign ministers is implemented. South African products affected include fruit, avocados and wine. Lowering those tariffs would help to create jobs in the rural areas where unemployment is high. Since the produce comes from the southern hemisphere and is therefore subject to different growing seasons, competition with European produce is greatly reduced.
I would like to return to the issue of the destruction in Mozambique and Angola due to the wars there, to which the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, referred. As the noble Lord said, in Angola there are more land-mines than there are people. This presents us with a double responsibility. On the one hand we must seek to ensure that the economy can be rebuilt and the mines cleared. People cannot return and grow food until their land is free of mines. This is painstaking, costly and dangerous work and needs our support. Mine clearance is one aspect of our aid programme which, wherever it occurs in the world, has strong support from the Churches, aid organisations and many other quarters. The allocation of resources to this priority issue by the Overseas Development Administration is much appreciated, but one recognises the constraints under which the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has to operate. I think it is important that the Minister should know how much her stance and personal commitment on this subject are welcomed.
In this connection the General Synod of the Church of England has recently identified a further responsibility and has asked Her Majesty's Government to support an international ban on the production, transfer and deployment of land-mines so that situations of this type are not repeated elsewhere. I remind the House that the Review Conference of the United Nations Inhumane Weapons Convention, addressing precisely this issue, resumes later this month.
The Southern African experience of recent decades shows that the Church, among many others, has sought to support efforts to bring ethical standards into the tense political climate. Politicians themselves recognise that reconciliation is vital for construction of community. No human society can survive unless fundamental enmity is overcome. That is why it is essential that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, headed by Archbishop Tutu, is a success. It was he who asked the salutary question:
"How can I embrace my brother, if he is standing on my head?"
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission exists not to wreak vengeance, nor for the sake of establishing abstract truth, but for the eminently practical and
398
political task of removing the poison of past violence, injustice and lies which continues to circulate within South African society. One recognises that if the commission is successful, it may be a valuable model of good practice which will be desperately needed in other parts of Southern Africa and the whole continent of Africa.
In conclusion, furthering reconciliation and redevelopment are tasks where Churches, politicians and all people of good will can find much in common. Graça Machel, who has overall responsibility for preparing the United Nations report on the impact of war on children, stresses the vital importance of rebuilding churches, schools and other buildings to help restore the sense of community and an ordered structure to society.
In Holy Week, it is appropriate for me to emphasise that the message of our Lord is: "Life in all its fullness". Reconciliation and redevelopment are essential elements if the conditions for a fully human life are to be created for all the people of Southern Africa. We must do all in our power to support and encourage them.
7.57 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure and privilege to follow the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and to have the privilege of congratulating him on it. I know that he has considerable expertise in South American and international affairs and that he will bring to the House great wisdom in our debates on those subjects. Those who follow the South American activities of the House look forward to contributions from him in that arena.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St John, for this opportunity to talk about southern Africa tonight. He and I bumped into each other in Luanda, Angola only a few weeks ago so I could hardly avoid his summons to speak tonight. Subsequent to that meeting, I attended the Nestle Lecture in the Banqueting Hall just along the road the other day given by the distinguished Ghanaian economist, Dr. Joseph Abbey. Dr. Abbey's lecture was entitled "Africa in Crisis" and painted a pretty dire picture of the state of the African continent and particularly the countries south of the Sahara. I cannot say that I agreed entirely with his analysis nor all his conclusions, but what was refreshing was to hear an African who did not blame the slave trade of a century ago, did not blame former colonial powers and accepted that much of Africa had only itself to blame for its economic and social predicaments.
I have some sympathy with his conclusion that the Bretton Woods structural adjustment programmes which have had such an impact on many African economies nevertheless offer a harsh medicine rather difficult for some countries to take in the prescribed dose. Such measures as scrapping agricultural produce boards, which were simply taxes on farmers and exports, and the ending of exchange controls, which have got rid of the preferential access of the fat cats or "Wabenzis" to, imported luxuries, have done a lot to help those economies. Sure enough, the outflows that everybody

399
predicted did not happen. Many of the economies have experienced inflows (even if local treasury bill markets have got a little over-heated in the process).
In the few minutes available to me, I do not want to go into a long navel contemplation exercise on African economic theory. Rather I want to set a quick scene in relation to what I believe can be done without vast capital resources to improve the economies of certain African countries.
The Soviet Union has gone. In its going, the principal sponsor for bad economic behaviour has folded his tent. At the same time, investors have begun to realise that the Soviet Union itself is no economic El Dorado; in spite of the promises, apparent oil reserves and so on, there are few quick fortunes to be made there; and above all there is little political stability. Worst of all, there is virtually no established law or business precedent to protect the foreign investor.
Suddenly Africa, from which Dr. Abbey alleges the West is still withdrawing, does not look such a bad place. The rudiments of commercial law are still in place, as is the odd vestige of impartial justice; language is not a barrier; and on the whole the telephones still work—where they do not, that presents some opportunities! Above all, as Dr. Abbey points out, Africans are realising that such theories as Nyrere's Ujamaa socialism simply do not fill bellies. More importantly, they are realising that the world does not owe Africa a living; and if Africa wants foreign investment, it must offer fully competitive terms and a conducive commercial environment.
The opportunities for economic development are legion. Angola and Mozambique, for example, as we have already touched on in this debate, are two countries both emerging from the ravages of long-running civil wars, both with shattered economies and infrastructures but with the enormous natural resources and endowments needed to climb back out of the pit.
Both have suffered, first from a long association with a rather bureaucratic colonial power and then from a serious flirtation with Marxism. It has left them with governments which, whatever their present good intentions, are still far too centralist and authoritarian to allow entrepreneurial activity to flourish and truly to encourage the creative talents of their people.
The best example of how a simple change of attitude can dramatically improve, and I hope already is improving, the economy of Mozambique is in the tourist industry. Mozambique has the most fantastic coastline in Africa. It is largely unspoilt and unexploited.
I paid my first visit to Mozambique for 12 years some 18 months ago, arriving in a light aircraft. On my arrival I was greeted by sullen and officious immigration officers and even sullener customs officials. I was then made to pay exorbitant fees for landing and customs and immigration. Just as I thought I was through it all, I was asked to pay a further 60 dollars for radio navigation fees, a supreme insult as the control tower was not even working!
The following day I called on the director-general of tourism. I asked him whether, now that South Africa had abandoned apartheid and Mozambique was no longer
400
Marxist, South African tourists who until 1975 more or less kept the Mozambique economy afloat would be allowed back. I was informed that his department viewed the average South African tourist as likely to spend about 5 rand a head, camp on the beach and damage the beach with his four-wheel drive vehicle. This view was apparently based on an analysis of pre-independence trends from 1975, and according to the director-general Mozambique wanted only "big spending" tourists. I tried to explain that, while I was not a big spending tourist, they did tend to arrive in light aircraft, did not like being ripped off and wanted value for money.
More importantly, it is a simple fact that tourism is a pyramid, and few countries can choose just the tip. The best example I can give is that the driver of an expensive car will not venture abroad if he cannot get his vehicle serviced in an emergency; but the service facility needs more volume than just the odd Rolls or Mercedes to survive, and that volume has to be provided by regular trade from less expensive vehicles.
I am glad to say that on my last visit to Mozambique a few weeks ago the officials were vastly more polite and—a real sign that tourism is on the up—I found that car hire companies had returned to Maputo airport offering self-drive cars. So maybe, just maybe, my little homily to the director-general had some effect.
The noble Lord, Lord St John, also touched on the initiative of the Maputo Corridor. That should really open Maputo up as the gateway port for what I am told I now have to call Mpumalanga (I used to know it as the Eastern Transvaal).
By contrast with Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia are privatising everything their governments can think of and inviting foreigners to come back into the agricultural sector. What is not clear, however, is where the skilled manpower to drive a privatised economy will come from. Virtually all these African governments have progressively toughened residence controls and steadily driven out the expatriate middle manager and the smaller white entrepreneur as contributors to their economy. It was particularly depressing to hear President Mugabe only last week talking about redistribution of farmland. The only reason that his country is the success that it is is that it has a background of efficient commercial farmers.
If any African government are looking for just one totally self-financing method of boosting their economy, rather than frightening them out, it would be much better to encourage the small foreign entrepreneurs to return—to return to farming, the service industries and small manufacturing. Far from keeping Africans out of better jobs, these people create jobs, raise standards and ensure that goods and services are there to meet the demand.
There is a huge well of talent to do just that in South Africa. The South African business community was kept out of most of Africa for many years. Now, with the political changes, South Africans are to be seen in almost every capital in Africa—mining men, construction engineers, airline pilots, military advisers and transport contractors—everywhere from Nigeria to

401
Tanzania. I sometimes feel that old Cecil Rhodes in his grave in the Matopos Hills will now have a quiet smile on his face.
There is one major topic on interdependence which is important. The Southern African rail system, on which we have touched slightly, though far from perfect as an interstate network, at least in theory connects most of the countries of Southern Africa. South Africa is connected to Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi, Zaire, Angola and, via the different gauge Tazara system, to East Africa. Sadly, theory is about all it is though, because the Benguela Railway lies in ruins. It is an interesting point that I saw an estimate the other day which said that the cost of repair or replacing the permanent way of the Benguela Railway system would be about the same as the current annual cost of flying supplies up to Kuito and Lueña and the hinterland. Further east in Malawi, there is a major missing link at the moment as a result of the Mozambique war; namely, the section of the CFM system from Beira up to the Zambezi which badly needs replacement. It is those sorts of projects with which the major donors could help. If Mozambique kept that line going it opens up the huge coal reserves potentially of Tete Province.
I could go on all day. Suffice to say that I believe that there are many inexpensive politico-economic solutions to southern Africa's problems which require only changes of attitude rather than vast capital infusions. We in the West should encourage economic decentralisation and economic interdependence between the territories. We—by "we" I mean HMG, the World Bank and international lenders to the third world, and indeed SADAC as an organisation—can help financially by assisting with the rebuilding and upgrading of road and rail links. We should bring pressure on countries like Zaire to put their houses in order. I can only touch on this matter, but Zaire is probably the worst mess in Africa at the moment. We should give every assistance to those countries which have recently emerged from the dark days of civil war to continue the process towards liberated democracy. Post-independence Africa in the latter part of the 20th century has been something of a pig's ear. I hope that it can be a silk purse in the 21st.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I have never been to Mozambique. Nor, I must say to the right reverend Prelate, have I ever been to South America. When I was Speaker I paid a visit to Malawi and I was not met with the kind of sullen attitude mentioned by the noble Viscount. Indeed, my recollection on arriving and seeking to telephone the High Commissioner was of a voice which said, "Hold on a minute. I haven't got this thing switched on." I thought that rather charming.
I take a rather more idealistic view of the debate tonight. I was at a school speech day about a month ago and stole what I thought was one of the most positive mottoes I have come across. It was: "Look up and not down; look out and not in; look forward and not back. Lend a hand". I paid my first visit to South Africa in
402
1995 as a Commonwealth observer in the elections. I was enchanted by the beauty of that country and even more by the commitment of the people to participate in democratic elections. Surely that was an object lesson to those in our own country who claim they cannot be bothered to vote.
Two years on it behoves us all to ensure that the first tender shoots of democracy take firm root. The most pressing need is to ensure the economic success of South Africa and in particular the creation of new businesses and of new jobs. Your Lordships will have heard me refer on previous occasions to the Prince's Trust and in particular to the Prince's Youth Business Trust, of which I am proud to be a trustee. This year the trust celebrates its 10th anniversary and over that period in this country it has helped some 27,000 young unemployed people to become self-employed and has thereby created new businesses and new jobs.
One of the most difficult problems faced by South Africa is the urgent need to create real employment opportunities in deprived areas and in particular in the townships. This is an area in which the expertise and also the track record of the PYBT can be of great help. I am pleased to tell the House that the Prince's Youth Business Trust has been asked to play a part in the establishment of the Nation's Trust which is about to be set up in South Africa under the joint patronage of the President, Mr. Mandela, and of Her Majesty the Queen. This new trust will draw on the experience and the expertise of the Prince's Trust in developing in South Africa a programme to help young people. The Prince's Youth Business Trust will second an experienced manager to establish a scheme designed to encourage and to help young unemployed South Africans to set up in business, thereby giving them self-satisfaction and an income and also, it is to be hoped, creating new jobs for others.
As in the United Kingdom, the South African scheme will focus on people who cannot get help elsewhere and again, as in the United Kingdom, the Nation's Trust will be supported by prominent South African commercial enterprises, a most encouraging example of collaboration between the public, the private and the charitable sectors of the economy.
The Prince's Youth Business Trust advisory system is one of the main reasons why in our country about two-thirds of the businesses it helps to set up are still trading after three years. We hope that this track record of success will be replicated in South Africa.
We are all delighted that President Mandela is to pay a visit to our country in July. His remarkable leadership—and, it must also be said, the leadership of Mr. de Klerk—achieved what the noble Lord, Lord St.John of Bletso, rightly called the miracle of the creation of a new South Africa. It is a particular pleasure that one of his first actions on becoming President was to seek to rejoin the family of the Commonwealth, now also enlarged by the admission of Mozambique and the Cameroon and, it is to be hoped, shortly by Angola as well.

403
When I was president of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I heard a charming story from the Speaker of the Canadian Parliament. He said that when geese fly they do so in formation. If a goose gets out of formation, it is honked back into line. If a goose is wounded or falls to the ground for any reason, two other geese go down to see what they can do to help. Furthermore, the lead goose changes from time to time. The moral of the story is that we are all likely to reach our destination in safety if we keep together than would be the case if we were to seek to go it alone.
It is in that spirit that we should seek to encourage and to help not only South Africa, but also the other countries of the region, to prosperity.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord St John of Bletso for allowing us to revisit Southern Africa with this debate. I note that culture, sport and tourism do not figure in the title this year, but I cannot let the moment pass without congratulating South Africa on some remarkable sporting achievements since the last debate in February last year.
I wish to confine my remarks to South Africa and to a single area of the economy which is often overlooked. That is education—an investment for the future. I shall rely heavily for my facts on a recent Financial Times survey on South Africa and 1992 figures from the World Bank. According to the South African Foundation, 2.3 million young people in their teens and 20s, are out of work and of these 1.5 million have never had a job or have been unemployed for over four years. It should be remembered that it is estimated that 50 per cent. of the black population is under 18 years of age. Only seven out of every 100 school leavers seeking work will find employment this year. As we have heard from the noble Lord, for positive employment, an economic growth rate of 6 per cent. is probably required as against the 3.5 per cent. growth rate achieved at present. The unemployment rate in the area is about 32 per cent., which is extremely high and leads to the danger of instability caused by young, bored people and puts strains on racial reconciliation and nation-building.
What can be done to achieve a better educated and more highly skilled work force? According to a World Bank discussion paper of December 1995,
"The critical first step in improving training is to strengthen primary and secondary schooling—the most equitable and cost-effective investment the state can make in education".
But all this costs money, and the 35.4 billion rand—which is about £6 billion in sterling terms—education budget is, for the second successive year, the single largest item of government expenditure. However, according again to the World Bank, it is 4.4 billion rand, or about £750 million sterling, below what is required to make up the national shortage of 65,000 classrooms. Certainly, money can be saved and waste of resources prevented if education provided and skills taught are closely focused to provide school leavers with the exact skills that industry and the jobs market are seeking. I wonder whether, in the short term, and for those who have previously been denied a formal academic
404
education, more emphasis should be put on vocational skills to enhance employment and exports. It should also be recognised that prior learning and workplace skills can he just as valuable as formal academic awards.
However, much still needs to be done. According to the 1992 figures, only 14 per cent. of black children stay in school until matriculation, compared with 88 per cent. of white children, and only one black pupil per 10,000 is eligible to enter university in mathematics or science. It is to be hoped that the reconstruction and development programme fund will shortly come to fruition, thereby unleashing greater educational opportunities for the underprivileged. As President Mandela is as keen as I am on education in South Africa, I am sure that resources will continue to be found for the eager-to-learn young people, and that in the next debate initiated by my noble friend Lord St. John we shall learn that considerable progress has been made.
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I too would like to thank my noble friend Lord St. John of Bletso for initiating this debate today. I have just returned from a long-overdue visit to South Africa, which was my home for many years, so this debate is extremely timely for me. Like the noble Earl, I shall confine my remarks to South Africa. Much of what I have to say is based entirely on personal observation.
The political miracle brought about by elections in 1994 now needs to be complemented by an economic miracle. Perhaps the majority of South Africans feel that things are improving as many now have access to clean drinking water and almost half a million homes which were previously without electricity now have it. Education is also compulsory, and there is free medical care. However, education, at both school and adult level, with subsequent training, is a long-term investment which will reap dividends in the future.
Right now, there is unemployment of about 45 per cent. in the formal sector and about 35 per cent. in the informal sector among the black population. A large proportion of this group is unskilled. In fact, unemployment is in many ways South Africa's biggest economic challenge.
Unionised workers do earn far more than their non-union counterparts. Wages also tend to be high in relation to productivity by world standards. The labour market needs to function far better at the low-skills end. More low-wage jobs need to be created for this sector because at the moment they have no wage at all. The consequences of this can be devastating, and only encourages the inequalities in society as a whole. Our system of trade unionism, already tried in the past, only discourages job growth as only the skilled benefit. Again, education and training will close the gap, but that takes time. However, in order for the South African manufacturing industry to be more competitive in world markets, the labour market needs to be far more flexible than it is.

405
President Mandela said in his speech to the third session of parliament on 9th February this year:
"We can neither heal nor build, if on the one hand the rich in our society see the poor as hordes of irritants, or if on the other hand the poor sit back, expecting charity. All of us must take responsibility for the upliftment of our conditions, prepared to give our best to the benefit of all".
So education for both adults and children alike needs to be high on the agenda.
If the majority are also to benefit, South Africa clearly needs a development strategy of rapid growth, perhaps in the region of five to six per cent., to entice new investment and make the country internationally competitive. I certainly got the impression from one businessman I spoke to that the Government were doing all that they could to create a market-friendly environment. At the moment, in spite of economic growth of around 3 per cent., only about 12,000 jobs have been created. It will continue to be a struggle to widen the skills base and absorb more people into the economy. Part of the problem is that investment in plant and machinery is less expensive and more productive.
NEDLAC, meaning National Economic Development Labour Council, has been set up by government, business and labour together in a three-way co-operation process to promote competitiveness, export and job creation. Consensus has already been reached about the required incentives and will come before parliament this session.
As far as concerns exports, we used to give preferential treatment to Commonwealth countries, but no more. Our excise duty is among the highest in Europe, which makes it difficult for countries like South Africa to infiltrate our markets. For example, a duty of £12.64 on a nine-litre case of wine, excluding VAT, customs and all other costs, means that a £1 bottle of wine costs £2.24 before wholesale and retail costs are taken into account.
I understand that most of the costs on education, health, housing and public transport—which for the majority is non-existent—have been provided by the reconstruction and development board. However, government spending is already high and getting higher. In the recent budget almost 70 per cent. of the 16 billion rand increase in spending for next year will be taken up by improved conditions for civil servants and interest on the country's 280 billion rand debt. Taxes are high by world standards. I suspect that there are not enough taxpayers to support anything like the amount needed. There seems to be a thriving cash economy that contributes nothing to the treasury. If one adds to that the culture of non-payment, one begins to appreciate just what the government are up against.
This brings me to the prospect of privatisation. The government have considerable holdings. If they were to sell off their involvement in the private sector they could realise 60 billion rand of much-needed money to fund their programmes. Two weeks ago the Chancellor, the right honourable Kenneth Clarke, received a positive response from the government on this subject when he met the Deputy President, Mr. Thabo Mbeki.
406
On the political side, I felt that people were more at ease with one another. All those to whom I spoke expressed a real desire to contribute to making their country more secure both economically and politically, though, not surprisingly, few knew exactly how to achieve this. Many young couples worried about the education of their children in the public sector; many homes need two salaries for their upkeep; property is expensive; but food by our standards is very reasonable and plentiful.
Crime is a problem. The government are concerned about it and are trying to introduce measures to prohibit the carrying of dangerous weapons as South Africa has one of the highest murder rates in the world. There is a taxi war going on, with drivers competing not only with one another but also with minibuses, which pack their vehicles to the brim, and it is the poor passenger who gets caught in between. I am not surprised that many people prefer to walk. It is safer. Crime harms the economy both directly and indirectly. Unless it can be checked it will eventually harm tourism, which South Africa needs. She is now on the international stage, whether she likes it or not. For her to harvest all the good will which has come her way from the international community, in return she will have to continue to make reforms sooner rather than later. Like the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and the right reverend Prelate, I also hope that past assistance from HMG will prove to be the start of a future programme to help South Africa achieve the economic miracle that I mentioned in my introduction.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the affairs of southern Africa burn bright with my noble friend at the helm. I should like to follow his lead and extol the trend towards regionalism. Since the end of the Cold War, attention has been able to focus on seeking equitable and balanced solutions to many global problems—solutions without purely national interest.
The world is ever-changing. Borders are no longer appropriate divides. All directions are sign-posted "regionalism". Sustainable solutions to the woes of Africa will come with economic development through regionalism. And the most together of these groupings is SADC. It covers a wide area, with members stretching from Tanzania down to South Africa and over to Mauritius. But the process is gradual and being implemented sensibly in a way that prevents, for example, the de-industrialisation of member states.
The SADC is about to implement a trade protocol that will break down barriers. That will be a first step towards the long-term objective of establishing a common market in the region. Two priority objectives of SADC which are fundamental and from which I believe all else flows are, first, to promote self-sustaining development on the basis of collective self-reliance and the interdependence of member states; and, secondly, to promote and maximise productive employment and utilisation of resources of the region. That is achieved through sectoral co-operation. Duplications of functions are minimised. Everything is covered, from A to Z: Angola with responsibility for

407
energy, to Zimbabwe covering food, agriculture and natural resources, and co-ordination is also being developed in political, defence and security areas.
The political arm of SADC has developed a mechanism for dealing with conflict prevention, management and resolution in southern Africa. This is Africa resolving its internal affairs. Africans want to be their own policemen, even to the extent that military intervention could be decided upon. And SADC is more. Currently being discussed is a protocol on free movement of persons. Those are all building blocks beyond just words.
I shall say a word about developmental aid. What can we as donors do to nurture the process? There is a strong case for regional considerations before bilateral ones. Regional infrastructure in transport, shared waterways and electricity is crucial. High unemployment in southern Africa, for example, can be addressed with interconnected power grid-systems taking electricity to peoples' homes. That would give people the opportunity to work, generating small businesses and revitalising the economies through trade and investment.
There are those who express concern that South Africa will receive the lion's share of inward investment. Certain it is that many promises were made to countries such as Namibia that, after apartheid, investment would flow. That has not been forthcoming. South Africa has the strongest economy in the region. It is not, however, in its interest to prosper in isolation. I accept that there is the Lomé model but it is far from effective. The theory is right, but it fails to perform. One of the few immediate benefits is that it exists. It would be more helpful to build upon it rather than to start from scratch. Primary fault can be found in one word: education or lack of it. The benefits need to be explained, not just in Commission and Government circles in Brussels, but in the field, to the peoples of the beneficiary states. Could the United Kingdom, with its understanding of such issues, be a driving force in that regard?
Perhaps I may conclude by re-emphasising that all the states bar Angola are Commonwealth members. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee this morning published its findings on matters in relation to the Commonwealth, with membership criteria considered. Is there a growing case at the appropriate time for Angola to be considered as an associate member?
8.35 p.m.
Lord Sempill: My Lords, I cannot thank my noble friend Lord St. John enough for this opportunity because I am about to give your Lordships my thoughts on South Africa, a subject which is close to my heart. Some 20 years ago I stepped off an aeroplane in Malawi, inhaled my first smell of Africa and fell in love with it. By the time I had finished my year's training in buying tobacco leaf I had visited substantial parts of south and south-eastern Africa and I vowed to return. Subsequently, my family and I moved to South Africa in 1980 and I stayed there for just over 12 years.
I obviously witnessed at first hand the amazing transition from apartheid to democracy. I spent most of my time there working for a brewery, which was one of
408
the biggest in the world. I was directly involved in the marketing of two famous beer brands, both of which are an integral part of South African life—so much so that my colleagues and I regularly visited shebeens, the illegal drinking establishments of the townships. I personally managed a musical road show which visited every township both in the republic and the then homelands, bringing live music to the people. Because of that experience I wish, as have other noble Lords, to address my comments specifically to South Africa and the reality of life for the vast majority of people in that country today.
Thabo Mbeki, vice-president with a major responsibility for the economy, has declared the following objectives: an annual growth of 6 per cent.; annual creation of between 300,000 to 500,000 jobs; and provision of basic housing for all by the year 2005. Those are quite daunting objectives and they will need the full support of the international community.
In reviewing key economic indicators—namely, population growth, education, housing, employment and health—the current picture is not good. Today South Africa has a population estimated at around 43 million and it is growing at just over 2.5 per cent. Various sources agree that the population will continue to grow at that rate, doubling to over 70 million in 30 years' time.
More important though is the mix, a point mentioned earlier. About 38 per cent. of the population are under 15, and in complete contrast to western Europe, only 4.5 per cent. of the population are over 65. Perhaps the biggest change to have occurred recently has been the migration of rural people to the townships and the cities. That migration is simply created by poverty, which currently affects approximately one-third of all South African households. More than 70 per cent. of those households are based in the rural areas.
That statistic is based on a defined poverty line, which is a household of two adults and three children on an income of 840 rand a month; in our currency, about £140. According to a recent study, some 18 million people fall into that category. Those households are a mixture of traditional huts, shacks, hostel rooms or semi-detached houses with fewer than three rooms. Their primary source of energy is a combination of paraffin, wood and coal. And, would your Lordships believe, the most important source of lighting is the candle? When your Lordships then understand that only 60 per cent. of urban dwellers have sufficient water and only 7 per cent. have flush toilets, you will begin to see a very different picture.
As the government begin to tackle those issues the flood of people continues. Informal settlements already account for more than 7 million people, with more than 2 million found living in and around Durban alone. In late 1994 between 5,000 and 10,000 people were moving in to the Cape metropolitan area every month. With internal migration of that magnitude, the last thing the new South Africa needs is the arrival of immigrants from its neighbouring countries whose economies are in an even worse state.

409
Recent success in the African Cup, the final of which was held in Soweto, came with an amazing price. At least 15,000 spectators from outside South Africa have yet to go home. Imagine our outrage if in the forthcoming European Cup some 15,000 European football fans decided to stay behind.
All that movement has placed a great strain on the government's housing ambitions. Current figures show a backlog of around 1.5 million units, with a need to build approximately 150,000 per year for the next 10 years. We must not forget that they must build an extra 200,000 to cater for the additional growth in the population.
Economic growth therefore becomes paramount in that situation. But there again the situation is not good. As we have heard, approximately 30 per cent. of the economically active are unemployed. That represents about 11.5 million people. That high level of unemployment has been aggravated by a lack of necessary skills brought about by a lack of education. An unskilled labour force is a severe weakness in this highly competitive world of emerging markets, where cheap skilled labour is a major draw card for foreign investment.
The government spent an impressive 22 per cent. of their total budget in 1994–95 on education, but they will need to spend more, specifically when they are committed to giving every child 10 years of free and compulsory education. The current schooling is characterised by a high percentage of over-aged pupils, high pupil/teacher ratios, high pupil/classroom ratios and insufficient equipment, learning materials and facilities. Not surprisingly, just under one-quarter of the current population has not received any formal education whatever.
As we know in this country only too well, education is the key to the future. It helps to stimulate growth in the economy, improve the quality of life and eradicate the worst aspects of poverty and health. Today the South African health indicators are a reflection of the country's general socio-economic development. They reflect severe racial contrasts, with the black and coloured population groups showing high infant and child mortality rates, the lowest life expectancy, the highest rates of TB notification and the highest rates of HIV infection. In essence, that is a typical third world scenario. The indicators for the whites and the Asians compare very favourably with most industrialised countries.
All in all it is not a pretty picture. It is certainly not the picture that we have received here: the new South Africa; the rainbow nation; the world champions in rugby and boxing; quarter finalists in the recent Cricket World Cup. But all that success is marking the failure of the reconstruction and development programme to deliver on its promises.
However praiseworthy and necessary their goals may be, we need to ask whether the government are committing themselves beyond their capabilities. The government, full of good intentions, suffer from paralysis simply because they have taken on too much.
410
For example, only 10,163 houses have been built with state funds in the past 18 months and the RDP stipulated that at least 500,000 should have been built.
In concluding, I must ask whether South Africa will go the way of the rest of Africa. Many influential market-makers believe that that is inevitable. The poverty, the appalling levels of crime and political violence are all realities in the daily lives of the majority of the people. Those are ideal conditions for the collapse of a young and fragile democracy. But I believe, as do many of my South African friends, that they hold the key to the future development of southern Africa. After all, it is in their interests to see a stable and prosperous Africa. Just as they are prepared to undertake a long-term commitment, I ask that Her Majesty's Government should swing their full support both in terms of investment and people behind the South African Government. After all, as a nation we have a strong historic tie and I believe that that merits preferential treatment.
Finally, I can think of no greater inspiration for us and the people of southern Africa than the extraordinary achievement of Nelson Mandela in initiating and uniting what was once a deeply divided society. That achievement will only bear fruit if economic growth can be sustained and poverty eradicated. They deserve our fullest support. To this end I say: N'Knosi sikelel' IAfrika—God bless Africa!
8.47 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, it falls to me also to thank the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for initiating this debate and to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his magnificent maiden speech. With his knowledge of South America, I am sure that he will add greatly to our debates on an area which is quite often overlooked in this House.
To begin with, I must say that I am rather disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is not present. I say that because I wanted to refer to a previous debate in which she drew my attention to the ODA's Internet site. It is one of the best web sites I have come across. I wanted to mention it particularly because it gives quite a detailed account of where the noble Baroness will be over the next few months. With that information, we shall be forearmed over when to initiate debates in the future.
Tonight's debate is also important due to the fact that, although the noble Lord has initiated debates about Southern Africa before, the subject is one that needs constant attention. The democratisation of Africa really relies on the success of South Africa. The democratisation of other countries such as Mozambique, Zambia, Malawi and, most recently, Tanzania has in every case been a miracle in its own right. Because of the effect in South Africa people tend to overlook the impact of this change on their own population. However, these are fragile flowers and unless debates are initiated on the subject certain areas may be overlooked. The elections in Mozambique took place a mere few months after those in South Africa but they were hardly mentioned.

411
I should like to concentrate on the election process and the continuing role of democratisation. Most people believe that democratisation ends when an election is finished and the winner takes power, but that is not the case. South Africa is a case in point. At present democracy does not really exist in South Africa. At the moment there is a government of national unity which will rule until multi-party politics take over after the elections in 1999. That will be the real test. The five years before 1999 will be the basis upon which multi-party politics in South Africa can take place and that brings into contention the role of the ANC under President Mandela. There is no doubting the fact that it was due to President Mandela that the miracle took place. However, there is doubt about the future when he is supplanted in his role as leader of the ANC. That is important because the May elections, which will take place quite soon, will be a real crucible.
The area that I should particularly look at is that of Natal KwaZulu. The recent massacre in Donnbrook of men, women and children as part of the continual political violence between Inkatha and the ANC is a terrible reminder of the strife which has taken place on the borders of Natal KwaZula and which still continues. President Mandela's initiative to try to introduce democracy into KwaZulu through the election process is to be lauded. However, one aspect which has been overlooked is the fact that the leader of the Inkatha Party, Chief Buthelezi, who actually took part in the election process, was promised international mediation. Perhaps international mediation could prove a way forward if it were pressed. Maybe the Government could press for that.
The other area I wish to consider is the area where I believe this country can take most direct action, and that is the European Union's trade relations with South Africa. It seems so recently that the European Union was promising everything to South Africa before the elections, but it does not seem to have delivered. The agreement by the European Union foreign ministers in March of a negotiated mandate for a proposed economic co-operation accord with South Africa is long overdue. When in 1994 South Africa made the transition to a non-racial democracy, Europe pledged its support to help to build the new state. So far, substantial help has not been forthcoming.
Under apartheid, black South Africans suffered economic discrimination. The new South Africa promised to change all that. Although there is economic prosperity in South Africa at present, it is still the case that one in three black South Africans is without a job. These people are waiting to see economic improvements to their everyday lives. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, referred to the slowness of the RDP to take effect. That will constitute one of the big danger areas as regards a reconstructed South Africa. If that programme fails, that will be a dire warning for the future.
Improved trade relations are vital to the future of South Africa, in order to create desperately needed jobs and pay for reconstruction, especially the Government's reconstruction and development programme. The European Union is South Africa's largest trading partner, receiving nearly half of all its exports. However,
412
while other non-Western states were negotiating better trade deals with Europe, South Africa was still under apartheid. Many South African goods still face stiff import tariffs, averaging 18 per cent. last year on non-mineral items. Now is the time for the European Union to negotiate a meaningful deal with South Africa that will help it to prosper as a democratic and stable nation.
The European Union, however, seems reluctant to offer such an agreement. It has taken four months just to agree on a negotiated mandate, and already it has produced a list of products which are to be excluded from the negotiations for fear of their impact on the European Union's agricultural sector. This list accounts for nearly 38 per cent. of South Africa's farm exports; precisely the sector which has the best chance of generating jobs most quickly. It seems that the European Union has little real commitment to South Africa, or for that matter to free trade. The agreement proposes the eventual creation of a free trade area, but the exclusion list could well mean that the deal contravenes the World Trade Organisation guidelines, which require free trade areas to cover substantially all trade between two parties.
I welcome the position Britain has taken in these negotiations: these problems have been caused mainly by other European states. I urge the Government to continue to press for a fairer deal for South Africa. There is the potential for these negotiations to produce an agreement which would significantly benefit both South Africa and the European Union. It would be a shame if such an opportunity were missed.
I wish to end by referring to a point which has been mentioned by many noble Lords, and I am sure will be mentioned in many future debates; namely, the role of land-mines in Southern Africa. The economic well-being of Southern Africa will only really come to fruition if the problem of land-mines can be solved. Recently I discussed the Chemical Weapons Convention in this House. It has been acknowledged by all parties that chemical weapons have no moral justification. The main emphasis of land-mines is the coercion of civilians. Civilians are the major victims of land-mines. That is the issue which cripples many countries.
I have personal experience of this problem. When monitoring the elections in Mozambique, I drove between two polling stations and we counted those people with one limb. We counted 38 people walking on crutches between two polling stations. I felt the fear that land-mines produce after driving 20 kilometres along a mined road. One has the choice of driving back those 20 kilometres one has just driven down, or driving 10 kilometres further down the mined road. That feeling is shared by many African people. They are denied access to many areas, some good farming land.
The Government will say that they have no part in producing such land-mines. However, any land-mines will have a knock-on effect on civilians. Until they are regarded as weapons, they should not be used. Recently the military effectiveness of land-mines has been severely questioned. Until they are banned in their

413
entirety the problem will continue to affect civilians, especially in Africa. Perhaps it is time for the Government to say they are against all land-mines.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I find myself in so much agreement with his analysis and concerns, not least his concern about land-mines. I commend to noble Lords a letter in the New York Times today signed by General Schwarzkopf of Gulf War fame and 14 other senior United States officers strongly arguing the need for action on this front.
I am sure we are all deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John, for the debate. He brings a great deal of personal conviction and experience to our deliberations on Africa. I always look forward to his stimulating contributions. I am sure too that all of us wish to pay a special tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell. In a profound way he reached the heart of so many of the issues that concern us. I was very glad to hear his emphasis on forgiveness and reconciliation. When we think of that giant among world leaders today, President Mandela—the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill so properly referred to him—it is his ability to build into his statesmanship, after those terrible years in Robben Island, instinctive and consistent forgiveness and reconciliation that makes him so significant.
My feelings about the president were well encapsulated in a cartoon in the Guardian at the time of the Euro-elections. Standing on the doorstep of his house was an archetypal bloody minded English elector, with an exasperated canvasser standing next to him. The canvasser was saying, "Well, you can't vote for Nelson Mandela, and that's the end of it." I believe that many people throughout the world wish that they shared South African citizenship in that respect and were able to vote for the South African leader.
In reflecting on what the right reverend Prelate said, I am sure he will agree with me that it is not only forgiveness and reconciliation but the importance of conflict resolution and pre-emptive diplomacy in the management of international affairs that is so important. It is a terrible reflection on our age that we still conduct so much of our foreign policy on a reactive responsive basis.
I was privileged to spend some years as director of Oxfam. I can remember standing in the middle of a great refugee reception area in war-torn Mozambique. I was glad to see that supplies were getting through and that I would be able to return and tell the people at home that because of that our efforts had been worthwhile. However, I remember a surge of anger coming over me thinking that the real humanitarian challenge was to ask, "Why is this happening?" How do we prevent a recurrence of tragedy, devastation and suffering on that scale? When we see the consequences of conflict in Angola, Mozambique and the other territories of that part of the world, the challenge is overpowering.
In the midst of that, we have also been considering the issues of democracy, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Our experience of the area, fitting in
414
with the principles of forgiveness and reconciliation, is that while elections and universal franchise are crucially important, they are not enough. The commitment to power sharing and the importance of a civil society as a whole are the other vital lessons that we have learnt from the story of southern Africa.
South Africa itself is obviously central to the situation. As the noble Lords, Lord Sempill and Lord St. John, and others, said, it is probably right to spend time looking at the situation in South Africa because it will be central to the future of the region. Under President Mandela, South Africa is becoming a strategic player. That is well illustrated by its role in the South African customs union, the Southern African Development Community and the proposed common market for eastern and southern Africa.
However, within South Africa huge challenges remain. While it is true that the economy is enjoying steady growth and inflation is at its lowest for many years, it is also true that the benefits are shared only by a minority. That inevitably has serious implications for social and political stability. Official unemployment is 33 per cent., but some 50 per cent. of the black population are still without formal jobs. Sixty-seven per cent. of South Africans—overwhelmingly black—still live below the poverty line. The majority have no access to electricity, water or permanent homes, and the housing programme, as we have been reminded, is lagging badly behind schedule.
Sadly, fear of violence which for some years has been endemic in many areas is widespread and violence against women is prevalent. In Kwa-Zulu/Natal, as many as 500,000 people—85 per cent. of whom are women and children—may have been displaced and as many as 13,000 people may have died in conflict over the past decade. According to the World Health Organisation, the health of the population as a whole still compares badly with many developing countries. Literacy rates are estimated to be 99 per cent. for whites; 84 per cent. for Asians; 66 per cent. for Coloureds and still only 54 per cent. for Africans. More than 1.5 million children are thought to be out of school and only half the children on farms are in school at all. In other words, the legacy of apartheid remains immense. It would be the ultimate act of betrayal if, at this point, the strong, principled and determined political leadership of South Africa were to be deserted by the international community. It is now that our commitment to successful change is perhaps more than ever on trial. We should be demonstrably strengthening our solidarity, not only in the interests of South Africa itself, but by helping to build a strong South Africa in the interests of the region as a whole.
The firm resolve and courageous priorities of the South African Government, against all that, are there for all to see. Apart from the modernisation of the economy, which must be heart-warming for the high priests of liberal economics as Telekom and South African Airways are privatised, 100 million rand of reconstruction and development programme funds were allocated in 1994–95 to fund school renovation, promote school governance programmes, improve attendance, and encourage parents, students and the broader school

415
community to contribute to discipline, maintenance and ongoing improvement in schools. A total of 2.7 million more people were connected to the electricity supply and 8.8 million primary school children now receive one free meal, known as the Mandela sandwich, each day.
A reform programme has been put in place covering land restitution for victims of forced removal, land redistribution for landless people and tenure reform. Redistribution and restitution have already benefited several thousand families and government funds have already helped between 2,000 and 3,000 families to gain access to land for resettlement.
A labour relations Act has been put in place; a government commission on gender equality has begun its work; a convention on the elimination of discrimination against women has been signed; and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, set up under the leadership of Archbishop Tutu, is due to report within two years, although it has to be said that there are doubts as to whether the allocated budget is adequate for nation-wide hearings.
Progress is being made on the new constitution with provision for a Bill of Rights recognising economic and social rights as well as political rights for progressive realisation; and the Constitutional Court has been inaugurated, with its impressive first ruling against capital punishment.
At a time of widespread conflict across the world, fed, as it is, by the profiteering arms trade, South Africa has set other arms exporting nations—not least ourselves—a far-reaching example by the appointment of the Cameron Commission, which has recommended a range of important measures to monitor and control South Africa's arms exports and to ensure transparency for South Africa's part in the arms trade.
All this, and more, speaks powerfully for the calibre of government South Africa enjoys. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will be able to reassure us about the British Government's determination to back this impressive endeavour to the hilt.
Meanwhile, where stands the European Union? As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, argued, the evidence is far from positive. As the noble Lord, Lord St John, indicated, our debate comes just the week after the European Union Council of Ministers finally agreed its negotiating mandate for a proposed economic co-operation agreement with South Africa, at the heart of which lies trade relations. As South Africa's biggest trading partner, the deal will be vital to South Africa's economic prospects and its ability to deliver jobs and lift the black majority out of the poverty and disadvantage bequeathed by apartheid. It is therefore sobering to note that the Financial Times said of the European Union deliberations last week, "Relations between South Africa and the European Union are at a low ebb." That is a bitter reality so soon after all the pledges of support for the new democracy in 1994.
The European Union is the destination for nearly half South Africa's exports. However, fresh and tinned fruits, wine, vegetables, clothes and textiles, in particular, face severe import tariffs. And these are the very sectors that could generate employment most quickly. On melons,
416
for example, South Africa pays an 11 per cent. tariff; Turkey, Venezuela and Costa Rica pay nothing. On fresh flowers, South Africa pays 15 per cent.; Israel pays 2 per cent. and Colombia nothing. On avocados South Africa pays 6 per cent. while Israel, a major competitor, with low transport costs, faces no duty at all. When these other countries were winning better trade terms, apartheid South Africa was out in the cold. South Africa's system of racial discrimination was swept away in 1994, but European governments have still to give the new South Africa equal treatment at their borders.
At the same time, by pressing for a separate deal with South Africa rather than bringing South Africa into the Lome agreement on aid and trade with all the other countries of southern Africa, the European Union could serve to undermine South Africa's progress towards building up the regional trade and economic co-operation—especially through the Southern African Development Community—which, paradoxically, the European Union rightly says it wants to support.
Against this background it is indeed worrying to note that in the proposed European Union mandate for co-operation some 38 per cent. of South Africa's farm exports to the European Union may be excluded—probably fruit juices, lemons, oranges, apples, peas, tinned fruits and the like.
There are also anxieties about the position of products originating in ACP countries but processed in South Africa. Such products are, of course, central to the developing southern Africa regional co-operation positively advocated by the European Union. To prove their commitment to the success of the new democratic South Africa and its place within the region as a whole, the British Government must now redouble their efforts to push for an improved offer by the European Union. It would be very good if today the noble Lord could reassure us on that crucial matter.
This has been a useful and timely debate. We need to seize the opportunity to help build the foundations for southern Africa's potentially exciting future. South Africa will be central to that. When President Mandela eventually hands over, it will be a formidable challenge to his successor even to try to emulate his example. Fortunately, there are strong people coming forward. What will matter greatly is that the people of South Africa—indeed, the people of southern Africa as a whole—can see and tangibly experience the fruits of change, greater social justice, better education, more adequate housing, fuller employment and, generally, prosperity in its fullest sense. Without that, all the positive potential could turn into political disaster.
After the long, dark years of tyranny, for which we must all accept some of the blame, surely we must all now share responsibility for contributing to a fulfilling, viable future for South Africa and its talented people, so that South Africa can play the key part that it should be equipped to play in the region and indeed in Africa as a whole.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, would like to hear that my noble friend Lady Chalker is very sad not to be able to be here to comment on this debate.
I am pleased that the House has again turned its attention to developments in southern Africa and I thank the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for having provided us with this opportunity. This is a region where the woes so often associated with Africa—famine, drought, civil war, displaced people—have given way to the challenges of peace. For the first time in more than a quarter of a century, peace holds throughout southern Africa. Apartheid, repression, military and civil dictatorship have virtually gone.
The region is passing through profound political and economic change. The establishment of a non-racial democracy is South Africa was an historic achievement for its people. In 1994, Mozambique held free and fair elections after years of civil war. With international help, the peace process in Angola is moving slowly forward, with the prospect of UNITA joining a government of unity and national reconciliation this summer. In Malawi the country's first multi-party election in 1994 resulted in the peaceful transfer of power. In the same year, in Lesotho the elected government were restored to power. There have since been elections in Botswana and Namibia. Swaziland is currently experiencing internal division and political uncertainty but we are hopeful that it too will soon find a democratic way forward.
Much has been achieved but much remains to be done. While good governance and economic reform have been widely embraced, decades of ideological confusion and state ownership have yet to be fully shaken off. There is now no argument in the region on the imperative of economic reform. Government recognise that future prosperity lies in the enterprise and initiative of their peoples. They are allowing markets to work, encouraging the private sector, attracting foreign investment, liberalising trade, cutting down bureaucracies and in several countries cutting military expenditure too. Donor governments have helped with those changes in strengthening democratic and state institutions, drawing attention to corruption and financial irregularity and encouraging programmes of economic reform and structural adjustment. We have used our bilateral assistance and, where necessary, withheld it to help bring about those changes.
But aid cannot by itself achieve the economic transformation which will set southern Africa on the path to prosperity. Only sound economic management, large-scale investment and the development of international and regional trade can do that. That is why we support the efforts of the Southern Africa Development Community to enhance regional economic and political co-operation. From having had a wide experience in emerging as well as developed economies we can commend the virtues of a single market to the member states of SADC. We welcome the new enthusiasm in the region to develop cross-border co-operation of every kind.
418
It is the transformation in South Africa that has made many of these positive developments possible. Not only has the reconciliation of South Africa's peoples been a shining example, but the Government of National Unity's pursuit of sound economic policies and their evolving support for regional co-operation are having a profound effect on South Africa's neighbours. South Africa has become a regional force for stability. I should add that there is still much to be done in reducing tariffs and working towards open and flexible trade regimes.
But there is one word of warning here. The successes in South Africa must not undermine the economies of her neighbours. Perhaps I may run through a little of the history of SADC and attitudes towards it. SADC's relations with the EU were formalised at the Berlin conference of September 1994. The conference culminated in a declaration in which both sides committed themselves to entering a comprehensive dialogue to further the development of relations between the two regions. Since then, developments have been slow. The next meeting at ministerial level will take place in October in Harare. However, SADC has been successful in mobilising funds from international donors for regional integration projects. More than 3 billion US dollars has been spent on a total of more than 550 projects, programmes and studies. The main project expenditure has been on transport infrastructure, telecommunications, energy transmission and food safety measures. SADC has been less successful in reducing dependence on South Africa and promoting free trade among its members.
The UK has supported SADC projects since the 1980s. The main focus of support is currently the transport sector, worth some £6 million in 1992–93. The northern transport corridor—Dar es Salaam to Malawi—and the Maputo corridor, including projects for both Maputo port and the Limpopo railway, have received capital aid support. More limited support has been given to the Beira corridor, which links Zimbabwe to the sea, and the Nacal line linking Malawi to the sea. In natural resources, our main project is the research programme, carried out jointly with the governments of Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania, on fish stocks in Lake Malawi. In the natural resources sector, SADC offers a potentially useful forum for raising awareness on environmental and conservation issues.
For the future, we are phasing out our support for transport projects in line with the declining aid framework for SADC. We expect to focus on technical co-operation projects; for example, on ways to promote regional integration.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and other noble Lords commented on the EU/South Africa trade negotiations. It is well appreciated that throughout negotiations over the EU supplementary mandate for a free trade area with South Africa the British Government have been arguing for the most liberal arrangements possible. We are disappointed that the EU member states did not agree on a better outcome, but there was clearly no point in

419
delaying further the start of substantial negotiations with South Africa. The important thing now is for the Commission and the South African Government to take things forward towards an agreement that will be in all our interests; and we shall be pressing for that.
The mandate that was agreed at the Foreign Affairs Committee on 25th March includes a list of agricultural products, as detailed, which will at the insistence of certain member states be excluded from the negotiations for a free trade area. We had consistently opposed any list excluding products from the scope of negotiations. We believe that the list annexed to the supplementary negotiating directives may well make it impossible to negotiate a satisfactory agreement which is compatible with WTO rules. For that reason we abstained from voting on the mandate. The EU mandate was formally presented to the South African authorities in Brussels on 29th March, and we await the formal reaction of the South African Government.
Our policy of promoting good government is a constant theme in our relations with southern African countries. The Commonwealth, following the admission of South Africa and Mozambique, is a valuable instrument in support of this. Along with sound economic policies, good government is a force for development and progress. A well-governed country is a stable country and is much less likely to threaten its neighbours and the international order.
I shall now make a brief comment on the Reconstruction and Development Programme. The South African Government continue to make sound progress in the process of economic and political reform after the 1994 transition. President Mandela has followed the path of reconciliation. While the programme has not been as successful as hoped, a major effort is under way, through the Government's RDP programme, to redress the inequities created by apartheid. At the same time, South Africa has pursued fiscally prudent policies. That was reaffirmed by the recent budget of 13th March. The local elections of last November bring South Africa another step closer to completing the transition to democracy. We have every confidence in South Africa's ability to find solutions to the immense challenges which it faces.
I shall speak briefly on education, which the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and others emphasised. Our support to education has always been an important component of our aid programme to South Africa. We are delighted now to be extending that co-operation direct to government. Education reform is one of the major challenges facing the new Government and one of the major building blocks for the creation of a democratic and non-racial society. It is an agreed priority area for our aid programme to South Africa. Our aim is to support the new Government in their task of reconstructing education on a sound, professional, equitable and affordable basis. We work in close consultation with a wide variety of partners in the field of education in South Africa to determine how we can best help. We have agreed that we shall focus on improvements in the content and quality of education at school level, the development and implementation of education policy and basic education.
420
An example of British assistance is the Soweto Skills Initiative launched in 1994 by the President of the Board of Trade. The scheme brings young entrepreneurs to the UK on attachment to British companies. The ODA administers the programme and finds British companies to sponsor candidates. Fourteen black South Africans have so far benefited from this programme and a further two are currently in the UK.
On KwaZulu Natal, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was concerned about the high levels of violence which concern everyone there. However, he seeks international mediation. That question must be for the parties themselves. We cannot impose it from outside. We are very doubtful that President Mandela would accept international mediation in this situation.
The right reverend Prelate and many other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale, mentioned the problem of land-mines. The ODA has provided some £2.8 million in support of de-mining in Angola. That includes the provision of key staff for the United Nations Central Mines Action Office and funding for the humanitarian de-mining programmes of the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group. Further possible future involvement in the de-mining section of Angola is currently under review by the ODA.
As regards the support or non-support of international land-mines, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, put it correctly. Britain has not produced or exported anti-personnel land-mines for several years. We have a comprehensive ban on the export of non-self-destructing and non-detectable anti-personnel landmines, as well as a total ban on the export of all types of anti-personnel mines to any country which has not accepted the constraints of the United Nations weaponry convention. That is the attitude of this Government. We would obviously support other governments taking the same attitude.
The right reverend Prelate also referred to the UN Weaponry Convention. We are at the forefront of international efforts to strengthen the convention and introduce tight international specifications for self-destructing and detectable anti-personnel mines, as well as other important provisions. We are therefore particularly disappointed that the Vienna review conference in September/October last year was unable to reach agreement on the tighter restrictions for which we were pressing.
There are considerable grounds for hope in the important recent developments in southern Africa. We shall maintain our involvement in the region. It needs our support. In particular, we shall continue to seek ways of helping those countries along the path of democracy and good government and, with the judicious use of our aid programme and with the support of British trade and investment, we shall encourage sustained growth, which can alone lessen inequalities and improve living conditions for all southern African peoples.
Finally, very kind remarks have been expressed this evening about my noble friend Lady Chalker. I shall make absolutely certain that they are brought to her attention.
9.26 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this most interesting debate. I also thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I congratulate especially the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell on his outstanding maiden speech. I wholeheartedly support his view that success in southern Africa must be based on a culture of reconciliation. I echo his call for a ban on the use of landmines as weapons of war and his call for continued international support for the southern African region and its stability for the future.
I should have liked to thank each of today's speakers individually. Each has spoken from his or her own experience and expertise, with personal experience of having been in South Africa. I am delighted that almost all of the key issues have been covered, from democratisation of the region to education, political reconciliation, unemployment, regional transport links, security and crime, housing, landmines, the free trade agreement and what Her Majesty's Government and the European Union are doing to assist the region for the future.
I certainly believe that it is the hope and prayer of all noble Lords that southern Africa will be seen in the future as the beacon of success and stability in Africa. I repeat my noble friend's call: N'Knosi sikelel' IAfrika.
I take this opportunity, at this late hour, to wish all noble Lords a pleasant and enjoyable Easter Recess, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Foreign Prison-made Goods (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
9.28 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This morning we read that the G7 summit had a slight argument about the best methods of detecting the use of slave labour in developing countries, with Britain and Germany on one side of the argument and America and France on the other. However, I think that there was universal agreement that we had to find better means of detecting the use of slave labour in developing countries and, from there, to move to the kind of steps that we need to take to prevent the import into our own countries of goods made by slave labour or child labour.
The Foreign Prison-made Goods Act has been on the statute book for 99 years and in all that time not a single case has been successfully brought in the courts under it. For most of that time it may not have been very important whether the goods made in foreign prisons were excluded from the British market because they represented no significant threat to our industries, and there was no evidence of human rights violations associated with large scale production in foreign prisons for export.
However, in the past few years there has been a flow of information from China about the Laogai, a prison system in which forced labour is used as a punishment.
422
The noble Lord, Lord Howe, referred to this matter in his report on a visit to China in 1993. He urged the Chinese authorities,
"to adopt and enforce safeguards in regard to compulsory labour of prisoners. These safeguards should include maximum hours of labour, minimum periods of rest, and safeguards with respect to the health and safety of places of compulsory labour".
The noble Lord said that compulsory labour should not be used as a means of coercing prisoners or imposing additional punishment upon them. He recommended that, in line with international norms, political prisoners, including those sentenced for so-called counter-revolutionary offences, should not be required to engage in compulsory labour.
In Harry Wu's most remarkable and moving book, he describes the reality of life in the Laogai. He and other prisoners endured the most appalling cruelty. He was lucky to survive at all when so many of his companions died. At the Qinghe Farm prisoners were roused at 5.30 in the morning. After a ladleful of porridge, a salted turnip and small dumpling they were sent off to the fields where they laboured for four hours without a break. They had a half-hour lunch consisting of two dumplings and a bowl of thin soup, and that was followed by another stint until the work quota had been fulfilled. When they returned to the compound there were two more dumplings and another ladleful of soup, followed by two hours of communist indoctrination.
At the Wangzhuang coal mine, conditions were little better. Torture and beatings were common. Occasionally, prisoners were executed. During the Cultural Revolution prisoners were made verbally to lynch suspected deviants, and sometimes to attack them violently. Harry Wu described a scene where he was tortured at one such meeting and his arm broken by the study leader, who hit him with a spade. Amnesty International, in its latest report on China published last month says that torture and ill-treatment of prisoners in China's penal institutions largely result from official penal policy. It targets particularly any prisoners who refuse to admit their guilt, such as 11 political prisoners who arrived in the Lingyuan No. 2 labour reform detachment in Liaoning Province in May 1991. These inmates were severely beaten, and four who were sent to the correction unit were stripped naked and given high-voltage shocks. Prisoners at a labour camp in Nuomuhong, Qinghai Province, said they were treated like slaves, working up to 12 hours a day and getting beaten if they complained. Chen Pokong, a pro-democracy activist who was in the Guangzhou No. 1 re-education through labour centre in Guangdong Province, said he worked for up to 14 hours in a stone quarry during the day and made artificial flowers at night. He said that inmates who did not work hard enough were often beaten until they were bloodstained all over. Nigel Rodley, the UN Rapporteur on Torture, singles out this establishment for special mention in his current report to the UN Human Rights Commission, but he says that, more generally, he continued frequently to receive information concerning torture and ill-treatment of detainees, including those in labour camps.

423
In the Human Rights Watch World report 1996, China is accused of continuing to round up, imprison and physically abuse peaceful dissenters. The cases of Wei Jingsheng, Chen Ziming and other well-known prisoners are highlighted. The report says that Chinese courts impose sentences of up to 20 years on those who oppose the one-party system, and that where the evidence is weak they substitute bogus criminal charges or impose administrative labour re-education terms, a form of punishment which is condemned by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
Harry Wu now works from the United States, where he highlights the abuses of the Laogai, and is concerned about the West's indirect support for the system, through the purchase of goods made by prison labour. He has published abundant details of the places where forced labour of prisoners is used to produce or grow things for sale, and has also identified products which are exported. He is not alone in the campaign. Glenn Calderwood, the current Clerk to the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, says in a report he wrote for the International Society for Human Rights:
"Products of every description go to make up China's huge export surplus, from tea to tools, batteries to bikes, shoes to soap, fabrics to fine arts, or toys to trucks. Purchase any one of these items and you could be adding unwittingly to the profits of the Laogai—the network of labour camps in which prisoners are tortured and starved to ensure that they keep on producing for the state".
The ISHR put the number of inmates in the Laogai at anything from 10 million upwards. The Laogai Research Foundation says 10 million to 14 million. Harry Wu says that he has collected information on about 1,000 "labour reform camps", and estimates the total number at between 3,000 and 4,000. In evidence to the Congressional Subcommittee on Human Rights in 1991, he said that the current population of the camps was between 12 million and 16 million, including many political prisoners. The so-called "counter-revolutionaries" were estimated at 10 per cent. of the total in a 1980 internal document of the Public Security Ministry.
According to the US State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 1995, some prisons contract with regular industries to perform light manufacturing and assembly work, so disguising the use of slave labour. Another device is to use names appearing to be ordinary companies, and to resell goods through the state-run import export organisations. An example was the Shanghai Laodong Machinery Plant, which made hand tools, including monkey wrenches, under the name "Laodong Brand Monkey Wrench" and "Elephant Brand Monkey Wrench". At one point in 1991, the US Customs withheld release of these products, as being in suspected violation of US laws which prohibit the entry of all,
"goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country by convict labor or/and forced labor or/and indentured labor under penal sanctions".
So the US legislation is a good deal wider than ours, as can be seen. The US Customs have the power to make a temporary order against any shipments of goods where they have,
"reason to believe, but not conclusive evidence",
424
that the specified goods fall into the category which is prohibited from entry.
So far as I can ascertain, the "withhold release" orders have never been followed by court decisions, because, in the US as in Britain, the standard of proof required is too high. The Americans realised that, although there were grounds for suspicion that goods produced under inhuman conditions were slipping through the net, they were unlikely to stop this trade by legislation alone, so in 1992 they signed a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese, prohibiting trade in prison labour products. Then in March 1994 they agreed on a "statement of co-operation" detailing specific working procedures for implementation of the memorandum. That was supposed to allow inspection of prison facilities where it was suspected that goods were being produced for export, but the State Department, in the last report that I mentioned, states:
"co-operation has stalled since mid-1995. As of the end of 1995, the authorities had not granted access to a prison labor facility since April 30. Repeated delays in arranging prison labor site visits called into question Chinese intentions regarding the implementation of the MOU and SOC. For example, authorities refused repeated requests (the first was made on May 30) to visit the Wuyi plant in Zhejiang Province, despite the terms of the SOC requiring a visit within 60 days of a request".
The State Department also reports that the so-called "re-education through labor camps", to which victims are sent by administrative decision, are not defined as prisons by the Chinese, who therefore deny access to them under the MOU.
In Britain, there was an attempt by the Laogai Research Foundation and Sue Lloyd-Roberts, the TV journalist, to mobilise the Customs against the importation of chain hoists made by the Wulin prison factory. The cost of manufacturing these products in the UK was about £100 per item, whereas they were being imported from China by a firm in Coventry, boxed and ready for sale, for £6.50. The Customs looked into the matter, but decided not to proceed, I believe on the grounds that the factory in question employed both free and prison labour and it was not possible to say with any certainty that prison labour had been used in manufacturing the chain hoists.
This illustrates two problems with the present legislation. The first is that, where production or manufacture occurs in establishments of this kind, the only sure way of establishing a case would be unscheduled on-site visits by teams of inspectors. Since the Chinese are not for the time being prepared to allow any visits at all, let alone unscheduled ones, there is no way of proving a case. If, therefore, we relaxed the burden of proof so that the Customs can act when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the goods do come into the prohibited category, then it would be up to the Chinese authorities to satisfy us by allowing unrestricted inspection.
The second problem is that the Customs are not under an obligation to look for evidence themselves, but only to consider evidence presented to them by individuals or NGOs. Obviously, there is no organisation with the resources to do this job, or with the clout to gain access to the 3,000 locations in China where these goods are produced, when even the State Department cannot do so.

425
At least with the American system there is a government to government mechanism which, however imperfect, allows the question to be raised in the Congress, and it becomes clear when the Chinese are not acting in good faith. If they had nothing to hide they would have no reason to block the visits by inspectors to their prisons.
Neither the onus of responsibility for taking the initiative to stop goods entering nor the question of inspection at the point of origin, is dealt with in the present Bill. It was intended, rather, as a peg on which to hang a much wider discussion about what we mean to do about the Laogai. If we are serious about the matter, we would have to deal with it at the level of the European Union, since goods in free circulation within any member state can pass into Britain immune from the provisions in the parent Act. A Customs official described it to me by saying that for the purpose of Customs moving from Holland to Britain is no different from moving from Liverpool to Manchester. Are the Government prepared to enter into discussions with other EU states to see what measures could be taken by Europe as a whole to stop goods made by forced labour in the prisons of China entering the Union? Would they consider asking the Chinese to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding and agreeing a Statement of Co-operation on the US model and, if so, could we also talk to the Americans about joint teams of inspection and put that to the Chinese as a way forward?
It may be said that if Beijing can stop co-operating with the US, they could follow that unfortunate precedent with the EU. A mechanism as loose as the SOC, which did not have the status of a treaty, was not likely to be effective when, at the same time, as Human Rights Watch put it,
"Governments actively pursued trade and investment with China unhindered by any linkage to human rights".
If there had been economic penalties for any breach of the SOC, and these had been applied in April 1995 when the Chinese first stopped the inspection visits, the deal might have worked.
The European Union, in examining the model, would have to consider what the fall-back position would be if we were no more successful than the Americans in gaining access to the sites. Best of all would be for the EU and the US to agree on a joint approach, and, if it proved impossible to get China's agreement, to consider what leverage we might have consistent with our obligations under the GATT against the flow into all our countries of goods produced at very little cost in money but a great deal of blood and suffering. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Avebury.)
9.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, this evening we are discussing a wretched, miserable and despicable situation. It does not exist in this country and we tend to think that it is not our responsibility. But I listen with incredulity at times to what we are told. In this country we have a humane system which is a
426
million times better. And what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury has said makes one despair as a member of the human race.
The great difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury has, which other people share, is being able to bring forward incontrovertible proof of what he alleges. It is also difficult to know what action is open to us and how much can be achieved. I shall listen, as I am sure will the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with care to what the Minister has to say; but I am certain that he will be sympathetic to the aims of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
I wish to express my appreciation, and, indeed, that of the whole House, to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It is not the first time that we are indebted to him for doing the spade work on the kind of issues about which we all feel guilty when they are exposed but which, in our busy lives, we do not have time to delve into. This Bill raises an issue which is well worth the time of the House, even on a very busy day such as today.
I have listened with horror to the details of the situation. But there are other horrors of which we have heard this week and of which we are conscious. One thinks of the horror in Rwanda. That is not as a result of inhumane treatment of prisoners but rather the inhumanity of one race or sect against another in the same country. In this House, we discuss regularly the problems of Bosnia, and we have all seen the television pictures of the terrible events there. It is a miserable situation which we cannot duck.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has painted a picture of the fears, fantasies and facts which surround this situation. I am very grateful to him for doing that. At one time, I had the privilege of representing the Prison Officers' Association and I visited about 30-odd prisons. I was always critical of our prison estate, not least when the industrial work which was available seemed to be diminished. But one cannot compare the situation which exists here with that which exists elsewhere, not just in China but in other countries of the world—and not always in prisons. I saw a recent television programme about Indian serfs, peasants, those of a lower class. They were not political prisoners, and I know that it is political prisoners to whom the noble Lord, Lord Avebury refers this evening. But there are people in this world whose lot in life is very miserable because they are suborned and subjected to terrible treatment.
When my wife visited Srinagar a few years ago, she returned proudly with a small marble table which had been made by children. That was fine. We thought we were assisting the poor people to have a better life. But we realised also that they were being dreadfully exploited.
The size of the problem is enormous. I certainly hope that the Minister will be helpful and respond to the suggestions made. The core of this Bill is Clause 1(2). That seeks to help Customs and British civil servants. I am not sure that even if the Bill were passed, that would solve the problem. The noble Lord put forward a number of ways of doing so. For example, consultation with the TUC. It must have a say in the matter because it is very concerned about working conditions.

427
Moreover, it is an international organisation so it is not just concerned about products made by British workers in this country in good conditions. I believe that the British would be repelled if the kind of things drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, could be proved. The dimension of the European Community which was mentioned is certainly something which we ought to consider.
We are discussing a tiny issue in the totality of what we have dealt with in this House today; but such issues mark out the spirit and humanity of the society in which we live. Anything that we can do or say which exposes or gives courage and hope should be said; and, indeed, it has been very well said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We should all be grateful to him for reminding us of how fortunate we are to live in this country in comparison with the unfortunate lot of so many millions of people who live in other parts of the world and who suffer under regimes which are light years away from what the British people seek to achieve. I thank the noble Lord for doing what he has done, and like him I look forward to hearing the Minister's response in the hope that he can say something helpful.
9.51 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have had a short but important debate. I share the horror that has been expressed as regards any inhumane practices; indeed, we heard considerable evidence. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, eloquently and thoughtfully argued his case for the prevention of inhumane treatment and the exploitation of prisoners overseas. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, had his own concerns and I hope that I shall be able to comment on those as well as those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It goes without saying that the Government are also deeply concerned about the violations of fundamental human rights wherever they occur.
However, neither the proposed amendment nor the Foreign Prison-made Goods Act are really effective vehicles with which to tackle the issue. Perhaps I may explain the various points which are fundamental to those arguments. As a starting point, it is very important to recognise that not all prison-made goods are the product of oppressive or cruel practices. Of course, that fact has already been acknowledged. If conditions are right and satisfactory, on the whole prisoners welcome being given the opportunity to work. Indeed, the UN standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners recommend that,
"sufficient work of a useful nature shall be provided to keep prisoners actively employed for a normal working day".
Our own prison system is fully committed to a regime of rehabilitation. Prisoners are encouraged to gain work skills, attitudes and habits. However, I am not so naïve as to believe that good regimes of rehabilitation apply in all areas of the world. Indeed, we have heard some bad stories this evening of desperate and inhumane practices.
Our approach fits within one of the corner-stones of the Government's foreign policy. That policy is to work for a stable and peaceful international order
428
characterised by good government which is democratic, accountable and competent. We attach particular importance to respect for the rule of law and the protection of the rights of individual citizens regardless of social class—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham—or, indeed, ethnic group. However, measures to restrict trade are seldom the right tool for achieving these goals, especially when they are not universally applied by all countries. Rather, we need to work through positive action such as development and technical assistance programmes promoting international standards.
I believe it is broadly recognised that linking trade and human rights rarely achieves much in terms of persuading other governments to treat their people properly. Any action that we might take on imports could have no effect at all on the production of goods and services which are consumed domestically in the country concerned or exported to other countries apart from ourselves. Generally the effect of trade restrictions would merely be to impoverish developing countries and to depress their social standards. In other words, free trade is not inconsistent with helping to improve human rights.
That, I understand, is basically the background to the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, brings before us this evening to amend the 1897 Act. I shall say a few words about the original Act. History shows that it was originally introduced for the purposes of trade protection and not to benefit the rights of workers in overseas prisons. I would in no way suggest that the reasons of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for bringing his amendment Bill to the House are not entirely humanitarian. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, also spoke this evening because of his strength of feeling on these issues.
There are problems with the Act. I have to tell the House that it may not sit happily with our international trading obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. While there is an exception to the rules which allows measures to be taken by a contracting party in relation to the products of prison labour, any such measures must observe the overriding rules of non-discrimination and equivalence of treatment between domestic and imported goods.
In particular, since the 1897 Act does not apply to all foreign prison-made goods—only to those of a kind manufactured in the UK, and when they are not imported from or through other EU countries as a result of an amendment—and since UK prison-made goods are made and sold without corresponding restrictions, the Act might be held to be discriminatory and so open to challenge. This last problem would remain even if the EU acted on a collective basis.
We are committed to the success of the multilateral trading system and to encouraging others to implement and to observe their WTO obligations. We certainly would not wish to do anything which might result in the UK being challenged under the rules which we firmly believe must be fully upheld by all those countries concerned. However, these arguments are to some extent beside the point. The simple fact is that the

429
1897 Act is one that has proved impracticable to apply although it might have had some deterrent effect, but that is obviously difficult to measure.
The Act provides that goods may only be seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on the basis of evidence proving that they have been made in a foreign prison. In practice, that evidence would have to be specific to the consignment concerned. There are two good reasons for that: first, to ensure that any proceedings are viable, and, secondly, because of the potential disruption to perfectly legitimate trade in non-prison made goods that could otherwise arise. Because they are generally indistinguishable from other goods and because of the complex routes of production and delivery, there are severe practical difficulties in identifying goods, especially at the port of entry, which have allegedly been produced using prison labour. That was a point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his opening remarks. Of course it is important to note that the likelihood of receiving any co-operation from an oppressive regime would be slim indeed. Against the backcloth of the difficulties I have highlighted I am sure that it comes as no surprise to the House to learn that there is no record of any goods having ever been seized or prosecutions made under the 1897 Act. The proposed amendment, besides doing nothing to render the Act consistent with our international trading obligations, would not address these fundamental enforcement problems. That, I understand, is also very much the view of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. In reality it would not make easier the basic requirement that Her Majesty's Customs must be able, if required to do so, to satisfy a court of law as to the grounds for seizure.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about European action. All the practical difficulties that I have highlighted would apply just as much to European-wide action as to UK action.
I am sure the House might wonder, if the Act was unenforceable and ineffective, as I have detailed, why it is still on the statute book. The answer is simply that we have not before now regarded the possible repeal of the Act as a priority issue with which to take up parliamentary time. However, this debate today has been extremely helpful in examining the issues. As a result, the Government may well give further consideration to the case for retaining the 1897 Act, or indeed otherwise.
As we have heard this evening, the plain fact is that the Act, with or without the proposed amendment, is anything but comprehensive; it is probably not consistent with our international trading obligations; it does not make the distinction between, on the one hand, exploited prison labour and, on the other, voluntary prison labour; it does not help to protect prisoners whose rights are not being respected; and, last but by no means least, it is in practice unenforceable.
Perhaps I may address the wider points that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, so passionately made about the issues of slave labour and of sub-standard social standards. We in the UK are, of course, fully committed to the elimination of slavery and such equivalent practices. We believe that this is best achieved through
430
a combination of promoting international standards, such as through the ILO and the UN, and positive action such as technical assistance programmes. Nonetheless, I believe that this Second Reading debate on the Bill has given us the opportunity to discuss these very important issues of humanitarian difficulties across the world. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving us that opportunity and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his participation.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his encouraging words. I accept from him the doubts which he voiced about whether the Bill before your Lordships would solve the problem.
The Minister explained in detail not only why the Bill would not solve the problem but that the parent Act on which it is based may not be consistent with our international obligations. I had rather foreseen that. That is the reason that I venture to propose some alternative ways forward which I hope the noble Viscount will take back to the department for further consideration.
We should look at the American methods and consider whether in the European Union we should have a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese providing that they will not attempt to export goods from the Laogai into the European Union; and accompanying the memorandum of understanding we should have some system of inspection which allows us to go into the Chinese prisons and make sure that the goods are not identical with those being exported by their export/import companies.
It is common ground from the statement that emerged from the G7 meeting this morning that we want to do something about slave labour. The only difference between the members of the G7 was whether that should be accomplished through the World Trade Organisation or, as Britain would prefer, through the ILO or the OECD. However, the principle seemed to be agreed by all members of the G7: that we should attempt to tackle the wicked practice of using slave labour to produce goods, whether for home consumption or for export. I accept what the Minister said about the 10 million or 12 million people in the Laogai continuing to be used as slave labour for the domestic markets, even if we were able to stop the goods from entering this country. We might be able to salve our consciences but we would not have cured the problem.
I ask the Minister whether he will consider the proposal I made that we discuss the matter with our European partners and preferably go on from that to look at the American experience. We could then see whether it would be consonant with the European approach to matters and with the obligations of both the United States and Europe under GATT. I believe it must be because the American discussions with China have been conducted fully within the framework of US obligations under GATT. That is why it would be a useful model for us in Europe to consider. It might save us a great deal in trying to work out the problem from scratch when others have already been through it

431
carefully, even though the Americans have hit a barrier for the past year or so. The inspections that were part of a corollary to the memorandum of understanding have not been carried through.
I suggest that if the European Union and the United States could get together and have a common approach to Beijing, then the combined forces of two big trading blocs might persuade the Chinese that it was in their interests to allow whatever limited amount of inspection was consistent with their ideas of sovereignty. Having made that point and in the hope that the Minister will take it away and consider it, I fully accept all—
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for permitting me to intervene. I attempted to go over the difficulties that I foresaw with European action and that it would face the same difficulties as national action. As regards the EU/US approach, there was a feeling that it was difficult to see how it would not run into the difficulties that the approach of the US memorandum of understanding has met. Nevertheless, the noble Lord made a number of suggestions and I shall ensure that they are considered.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. Perhaps he will bear with me on one further point. If those approaches do not seem to work, we may come to the conclusion after discussing them with the Americans that an impasse has been reached so that it would be pointless for us to copy it in Europe, even with the combined force of the two
432
great trading blocs. It would then be useful for us to know what action the Government intend to take either with the ILO or the OECD to combat the use of slave labour. At the G7 meeting this morning the Government said that they did not believe that the World Trade Organisation was the right place for that but they would consider the two other forums. I believe that there is that element of common ground between us: we all want to see slave labour eradicated or combated. We are not quite sure of the right way to do it and we must work within the framework of our obligations under GATT.
Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for the kind way in which he has received my proposals and for undertaking to consider them. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for second reading, by leave, withdrawn.

London Regional Transport Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Adjournment
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, now that at last we have come to the end of this day, may I wish a very happy Easter to one and all. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
House adjourned for the Easter Recess at nine minutes past ten o'clock until Monday, 15th April next.