Lords Sitting of 25 April 1996

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

Government Statements: Repetition Procedure
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked the Leader of the House:
How many Government Statements made in the House of Commons in the last year have not been repeated in this House, and how many of these were not repeated as a result of a decision by the Opposition.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, in the period from 1st April 1995 to 1st April 1996, 30 Statements were made in another place and not repeated in your Lordships' House. In each case a decision on whether or not to repeat the Statement was made in accordance with guidance recommended by the Procedure Committee and endorsed by the House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if a Statement is important enough to justify being made in another place, surely this House is not being treated properly if the same Statement is not repeated here, and if this House is ignored by the Government for this purpose? In these circumstances, is it not particularly odd that a decision as to whether or not a Statement should be repeated here can be made by the party opposite whose attitude towards the whole future of this House is well known?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I would not be exaggerating the flavour of what seem to be a great number of Procedure Committee reports over the years on this subject if I characterise them by suggesting that there was a mild feeling that making Statements in your Lordships' House was an alien procedure from another place. I exaggerate a little to make the point to my noble friend. It might be helpful if I remind my noble friend that the Procedure Committee recommended that Statements should be repeated,
"when in the opinion of the Leader, after consultation through the usual channels, they are on a matter of national importance".
If I take the first part of my Answer, I hope the House will feel that that is the right procedure. It is certainly in line with the nature and ethos of your Lordships' House.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree—and perhaps, on reflection, would not my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter agree—that a number of Statements made in another place are scarcely worth making at Hyde Park Corner on a Sunday morning, and
1246
that they are made for reasons more concerned with intricate negotiations to avoid other forms of parliamentary debate than for their own merits?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend tempts me strangely, particularly in view of the fact that I have heard him with some elegance make many Statements of an oral nature in another place. However, I think what my noble friend says undoubtedly supports the first part of the Answer that I gave to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the noble Viscount the Leader of the House aware—I know he is, but perhaps his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is not—that that same report of the Procedure Committee also stated that the criterion for oral repetition was to be,
"strictly interpreted, so that the number of Statements taken orally is substantially reduced",
and that that recommendation of the Procedure Committee was accepted by the House?
Is the noble Viscount the Leader of the House aware that we on these Benches appreciate his courtesy in consulting us on the issue of whether or not a Statement should be repeated in this House? Is he also aware—I know he is—that any opinions expressed by us are of course within the usual channels? The noble Viscount will be aware that some of the matters that we try to take into account in considering whether or not a Statement should be repeated here are the state of business in this House and the importance of the Statement itself; that is, whether it falls into the "Tebbit category" or is considered in the opinion of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to be a matter of national importance. Is the noble Viscount aware that we take very much to heart what the Procedure Committee says the House should do with regard to Statements made in another place?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful, as always, to the noble Lord for what I think reflects entirely my sense of what the feelings of the House are. He is, of course, as aware as I am that the usual channels always work best when the details of that rather arcane procedure continue to be wrapped in mystery.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I entirely agree with the comment that the usual channels should operate in confidence and, at the end of the day, through confidence, they stand by what they have agreed. Will the noble Viscount the Leader of the House draw the attention of his ministerial colleagues to the fact that it is no defence when questions are raised—certainly this has happened in this House in the past 12 months—as to why a Statement was not repeated here to say that the Opposition did not want it? In the light of what the noble Viscount has said, I think that much of the misunderstanding of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will be put at rest. However, will the noble Viscount ask his colleagues not to use the phrase, "The Opposition did not want the Statement here and therefore we did not hear it"?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with his experience in the management of business in this House, the noble

1247
Lord will know that it is always wise to rest one's case on the exact phraseology of the Procedure Committee. With his permission, and the permission of the House, I shall continue to do so.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the value originally attributed to Statements being made in another place and repeated in your Lordships' House has been greatly undermined by the growing practice of putting down planted Questions for Written Answer in another place as a substitute for making a public Statement in the place in which it ought to be made?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, in view of the policies being advocated with regard to your Lordships' House by the noble Lord's party at present, I am constantly gratified, if surprised, by the amount of support that I find for your Lordships' House and its procedures. I leave it to your Lordships to draw conclusions as to the institutions with which those reactors are drawing comparisons.

Education: Selection
3.14 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to extend selection in secondary education.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has recently consulted interested parties on proposals to increase flexibility in school admissions. This will take effect later in the year. We are also considering the options for further extending self-government for schools in the longer term, including in the area of admissions and selection.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, first, why should there be a possible extension of selection when there is overwhelming evidence that it is both unfair and inefficient and it is widely discredited by most educationists? Secondly, when selection is made, by whatever method, what happens to those pupils who are not selected? Thirdly, what becomes of parental choice when selection is made, in particular since the Government place so much emphasis on parental choice?
Lord Henley: My Lords, unlike the party opposite—as we know, it says that it believes in a universal comprehensive system, taking away both choice and selection, but practices the opposite—we believe in extending both choice and selection. We believe in diversity. But that does not mean that we propose to go back to universal selection. What we want to do is to go back to a diversity of different systems, which will allow parents the appropriate choice of schools.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the state system of education in
1248
this country is in the trouble that it is precisely because it has paid too much attention to the views of "most educationists", as promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington? Is it not true that the state system of education delivered a much higher standard of education to all people in this country, including the poorest, when it was more selective?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to extensive reliance on the views of educationists. I remind my noble friend that we rely very much on the views of parents. I draw my noble friend's attention to a recent poll conducted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers which indicated that the majority of people in this country, and the majority of parents, are in favour of a return to a degree of selection.
Baroness David: My Lords, the DFEE proposals for changing admission arrangements were made in a consultative document with the rather dry title, Review of Circular 6/93: Admissions to Maintained Schools, and Grant-Maintained School Admissions Arrangements. That document was published on 8th January. Responses were required by 22nd February 1996. Can the Minister tell us when Her Majesty's Government will respond to their January consultation; or is this all wrapped up in the proposed White Paper?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as we have made clear on a number of occasions, and as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear, we intend to allow grant-maintained and LEA schools to extend their selection from roughly 10 per cent. to something like 15 per cent. without coming to the Secretary of State for approval. Obviously if schools wish to go further, they can seek approval from my right honourable friend for such major changes should they so wish. I welcome applications from all schools, whether LEA or grant maintained.
As regards further steps forward, again as my right honourable friend made quite clear in her speech to the University of London Institute of Education, we shall bring forward further proposals in the White Paper in June; and we would want to introduce a greater degree of selection.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many people feel that the educational policy in this country is inadequate and has been so for a long time? The new theories to avoid selection and various other methods are not popular with the majority of parents.
Is it not high time that the educational policy in this country was governed by the Government and the Department for Education rather than the National Union of Teachers?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can accept a great deal of what the noble Lord says. We believe that education should be governed by the policies of this Government but also by the choices of parents because we believe that parents are the right people to make the right decisions as regards the education of their children.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us were late developers? If an important

1249
selection has to be made at the age of 11, it could be wrong for young people who are late developers but who turn out to be near geniuses. Therefore selection at the early age of 11 is not always right.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I very much accept my noble friend's remark. As I have made quite clear, we do not propose any system involving a return to a universal 11-plus or its equivalent. We say that parents should be able to make the choice. A great many parents want to select schools. Whether that selection is made on the basis of their own specialisms or the ability of their children, they would like to make that choice. We believe, therefore, that schools have a right to select, and to select appropriately. We want to see a diversity of provision that will allow parents to make that appropriate choice.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is not this harking back to the issue of selection a terrible diversion from the real challenges in regard to the provision of high-quality education to pupils of all ability in our schools if they are to face the future successfully and help this country to face the future successfully? When the Minister talks of parental choice, is he aware that those of us with experience of the system would like to have the choice of not having our five and six year-olds educated in classes of over 30, and not having to sell raffle tickets and hold car boot sales to buy textbooks for our 15 year-olds?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the education spokesman for the party opposite himself said that the comprehensive system of the past 30 years had failed, and then seemed to suggest a scheme that would widen it even further. That would serve only to remove all choice from parents. Choice can never be total. We want to extend choice as far as possible to as many parents as possible.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, apart from their own speculations, dreams and opinions, what hard evidence based on what research do the Government have to suggest that the introduction of more selection will improve the quality of education for all children?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the hard evidence is that it will extend parental choice. By extending parental choice one will increase parental involvement. As I believe anyone knows, even the noble Lord, parental involvement improves standards in schools.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that very many teachers find it quite absurd to be told that all children are equal and must be taught together and in the same way? There are teachers who have been crying out for some form of opportunity to teach children according to their innate abilities and talents. They would welcome some form of increased selection based on a range of different characteristics.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Sadly, those who represent a great
1250
many teachers and some of the more extreme teacher unions do not send that message out from their members.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in answering my Question and responding to others, the Minister once again emphasised parental choice. We on these Benches do not disagree with him. What we are saying—a point which he continually refuses to answer—is that thousands of parents do not have parental choice and that to a large extent education is based on selection. Will he answer that point?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have never said that choice can be absolutely total. I have said that we want to make choice as widely available to parents as possible. We want to offer a whole range of schools: grant-maintained schools; local authority schools; comprehensive schools; specialist schools; city technology colleges; and technology colleges, or whatever. By extending that choice and diversity, we increase choice and diversity for parents.

Mr. Portillo: Israel Visit
3.23 p.m.
The Earl of Glasgow The Earl of Glasgow asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the reasons for the recent visit to Israel of the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Michael Portillo; and what have been the results.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, my right honourable friend's visit to Israel was made in response to a long-standing invitation. The visit provided the opportunity for discussions on a range of issues, including bilateral defence relations. My right honourable friend was also able to stress the Government's determination to see a diplomatic solution to the current crisis in Lebanon and a speedy return to the peace process.
The Earl of Glasgow: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for that explanation. I have just returned from a visit to the Lebanon as a member of a parliamentary delegation. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government appreciate how desperately the Lebanese Government want peace at the moment; how much the people there have suffered, more so than any other Arab country, from the Arab-Israeli conflict; and also how very aware that government are of their helplessness against Israeli fire power? Yet they are invited by the Israelis, supported by the Americans, to do something that is impossible; namely, rid their country of Hizbollah while at the same time the Israelis occupy one-tenth of their country. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government still believe that the Israeli action against Lebanon is appropriate?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the noble Earl's horror at what he saw in Lebanon. That is why I authorised the spending of a

1251
quarter of a million pounds to try to ameliorate the situation in the Lebanese camps that were attacked only last week. Lebanon has a desperately difficult situation to face. Hizbollah has been at the root of all that. There is absolutely no doubt that the Israelis faced a substantial terrorist threat from Hizbollah, with a very large number of Katyusha rockets being fired into Israel. While we understand the problem and have discussed the situation with the Lebanese Prime Minister—it was discussed again at the Moscow summit on Friday and Saturday last week—we have to help Mr. Harm and others to find a way towards a diplomatic end to the fighting and a cessation of attacks from both sides of the border.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, would not Mr. Portillo have been better advised, even at that time, to have urged an immediate end to the bombardment of civilians and the removal of occupying forces from southern Lebanon? Will my noble friend now assure the House that the British Government will use their undoubted influence in the area not only to secure peace but to see that, whatever guarantees are to be put in place, Lebanon is quickly re-established as a fully independent sovereign state?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I believe my noble friend knows, not only has the United Kingdom called for an immediate ceasefire. We have also been actively engaged throughout in diplomatic efforts to end the fighting. We remain in close touch with the Lebanese, Syrian and Israeli governments, with the Americans, and with our European partners. We were co-sponsors of Security Council Resolution 1052 last week. We will continue our efforts and use all our influence to bring about an end to the horrific war that is going on in southern Lebanon.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister was perhaps a little reticent in regard to the second part of the noble Earl's Question. What have been the results? Is it not the case that Mr. Portillo—on an official visit, paid for, I assume, by the taxpayer—made certain pronouncements about the Lebanese situation which were perhaps different from those made by the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Rifkind? Will the noble Baroness, and the Government generally, ensure that when Cabinet Ministers make pronouncements on the same issue, they sing from the same songsheet?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is always very easy to be wise after the event. The remarks to which the noble Earl refers were made on 15th April, before the new, and much worse, phase in the fighting. Therefore, I understand why the spokesman for the Labour Party seeks to make fun out of the issue. For me, it is far too serious. The Government have worked, and will continue to work, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to make sure that all is done to bring this issue to a peaceful end through diplomatic efforts as soon as possible.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that by the time Mr. Portillo made the statement
1252
supporting the operation and calling it proportionate retaliation, civilians in Lebanon were being killed as a result of the operation? Would the Minister not have done better, if he had to be in Israel—the visit was not well timed—to warn the Israelis that the operation was unlikely to succeed; that it would be widely condemned in the world and that the British Government opposed it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it would be useful for the House to look at what the Defence Secretary said. He said that the United Kingdom looked to the Israelis to make their response measured and proportionate. But he also said that the problems of the area could not be solved militarily. He made that absolutely clear. He said that the United Kingdom was looking for a diplomatic solution and a return to the peace process and would take whatever steps necessary to achieve that. There is no getting away from the fact that the Israelis were facing a substantial terrorist threat from Hizbollah. I know that two wrongs do not make a right, but Israel does have a right to self-defence. We should not forget that.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I know that this matter is of enormous interest to your Lordships' House. I have no doubt that there will he an opportunity to return to it. There is another equally important Question on the Order Paper and we have only six minutes in which to deal with it. I wonder whether your Lordships feel it right to continue.

Unclaimed Benefits: Campaign
3.31 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they have made to the current week's campaign by Age Concern on unclaimed benefits.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary with responsibility for pensions (Mr. Oliver Heald) recently met Age Concern to discuss (among other things) unclaimed benefits and ways of improving benefit take-up. In 1994–95 the Government spent over —26 million on publication and information about the benefits available.
Information and leaflets about which benefits to claim are widely displayed, not only in local benefit offices, but also in many other locations such as post offices, doctors' surgeries and citizens advice bureaux.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, especially the part about the response in another place, of which I was well aware. However, does the Minister realise that in 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available, up to £1.25 billion was unclaimed by one-third of all pensioners who were eligible to claim the benefits? There is also the question of expenditure on fraud. Can the Minister say whether

1253
the new benefit cards, which will contain an element to try to prevent fraud, will have any information on them that will help people to be identified as eligible for benefit?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is difficult to know how much faith to place in the accuracy of such surveys. They ask about people who do not claim benefit and obviously they do not come forward to say, "I do not claim benefit". One must bear in mind the broad margins of error that they may contain. The noble Lord ought to know, before he goes any further, that an average take-up of around 75 per cent. of income support among pensioners has been reported in surveys over quite a few years, including in the 1970s when the party opposite was in power.
We try to ensure that pensioners realise that they are eligible for benefits; for example, the reverse side of the pension book contains a little entry which asks them if they can manage and whether they are entitled to income support and/or housing benefit. It suggests where they can go to find out more about those benefits. In relation to the card, we are still working on that. It is too early to say how much information one can reasonably put on a plastic card.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that if elderly people fail to claim the income support to which they are entitled, they will be living below income support levels, possibly unable to afford heating and food? Why then has the Benefits Agency cut its benefits advertising budget in real terms from £8.5 million in 1994–95 to £6.9 million in 1995–96? Equally importantly, why are the Government threatening to cut the free benefit helpline used by 3 million people, mainly pensioners? We have cuts in advertising budgets and cuts in helpline advice. Is that how the Government plan to cap social security expenditure—by discouraging the old and the poor from claiming that to which they are entitled?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as usual the noble Baroness goes over the top. It is a pity that she did not listen to my answer when I pointed out that the figures were pretty similar for the three years of the surveys during the government of the party opposite in the late 1970s. The histrionics about the motivation behind what we are doing is totally uncalled for. We are spending £26 million, as I said.
In relation to the helpline, the position is that we are examining the scheme with some care. We sent out questionnaires to individual branches and are looking at who uses it and how it is used. I am afraid that the noble Baroness has no evidence at all that it is largely used by pensioners because I do not have any evidence of that either. We do not break down the inquiries into categories. If I do not know, the noble Baroness certainly does not know. The important point is that pensioners are considerably better off today than they were when the party opposite left power.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can my noble friend give me some figures on the number of claims for child benefit for 16 and 17 year-old children still at school? Is that well claimed? Is it a popular benefit?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, one of the important aspects of child benefit is that the uptake is extremely high. That covers the whole sphere, including the child benefit which we pay to 16 and 17 year-olds. As my noble friend will know, the party opposite intends to remove that benefit from those parents and families who keep their children on at school. It sounds to me very much like taxing the poor for sending their children to school.

Business of the House: Whitsun Recess
3.36 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Whitsun Recess on Thursday 23rd May and return on Monday 3rd June. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 23rd May.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Lucas will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the proposals submitted to the European Union on BSE. Since that Statement has yet to he cleared and we are about to start the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill, I suggest that that convenient moment should take place after the Front Bench speakers and therefore after the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and before the noble Lord, Lord McConnell.
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill
3.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is a means to an end; and that end is the launch of all-party negotiations on 10th June intended to lead to a comprehensive political settlement in relation to Northern Ireland. I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing all stages to be dealt with today. It is an important step on the path to peace; the ballot box instead of bombs and bullets.

1255
The Government acknowledge a duty to all the people of Northern Ireland to defeat terrorism, promote political stability and encourage social and economic development. Those goals are intertwined.
This Bill and this debate focus on the search for political stability. They reflect the analysis that such stability can best emerge from discussion and negotiation involving as wide a spread of political opinion in Northern Ireland as possible. But the sources of tensions within the divided community of Northern Ireland reach out beyond the boundaries of Northern Ireland. The nature of the relationships between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and between the two Governments can fundamentally affect the political situation within Northern Ireland. The search for political stability in Northern Ireland must therefore extend to a consideration of these wider relationships and the way in which they are, or might be, given institutional expression.
Since 1990 the Government have sought to promote political talks in relation to Northern Ireland which would address all the relevant relationships: those internal to Northern Ireland and those I have mentioned which reach out beyond the borders of Northern Ireland. Self-evidently, such discussions must involve—at relevant points—both the British and Irish Governments and representatives of political opinion in Northern Ireland. I believe there is in fact general support, within Northern Ireland, in your Lordships' House and in another place and among the political parties in the Republic of Ireland for the view that the best hope of achieving a comprehensive and lasting political accommodation in relation to Northern Ireland lies in addressing all those relationships as part of the same process of dialogue; and producing a comprehensive package of agreements which balances the varying interests of all the parties to those relationships in a mutually satisfactory way.
The talks which took place in 1991 and in 1992 were based on that analysis. They made considerable progress and certainly illustrated the correctness and utility of the analysis. Unfortunately, it did not prove possible to bring those talks to a conclusion. This Bill signals a new phase of the talks process.
The decision, announced on 28th February, to proceed to the talks by way of an elective process in Northern Ireland provides a means for the Northern Ireland political parties to secure fresh electoral mandates for the talks. The ground rules for the negotiations were published as Command Paper 3232 on 16th April. These are broadly similar to those which applied in 1991–92 and certainly retain all their key features. But we have taken the opportunity to learn from previous experience and the new ground rules should facilitate an effective negotiating process. In discussing the draft ground rules with the parties my right honourable friend was able to incorporate a number of constructive comments and suggestions.
It is also, of course, helpful that the issues to be covered in the negotiations have already received a preliminary airing at the previous talks and in
1256
subsequent exchanges. It may not be possible simply to pick up where the previous talks left off, but the participants in those talks were able to conclude that they had discussed most, if not all, of the elements of a potential accommodation. The frameworks for the future, published by the British and Irish Governments a year ago, pulled those elements together and illustrate the range of issues which the participants in fresh talks are likely to wish to address.
Another significant development since the 1992 talks has been the development of a broad consensus across political opinion in both Britain and Ireland on the constitutional issue. The Downing Street Declaration and the frameworks document both reflected the total commitment of both Governments to the principle that there can be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom without the consent of a majority of the people who live there. That principle was also reflected in the recent report of the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, which was endorsed by the whole spectrum of political opinion in the Republic of Ireland, except Sinn Fein. Such a breadth of common understanding on such a key issue bodes well for the success of further talks.
Another advantage which the talks commencing on 10th June will enjoy is that they will be as inclusive as possible compatible with democratic principles. The election method announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 21st March will ensure that at least the 10 largest political parties in Northern Ireland will be eligible to be represented. Sinn Fein's eligibility will of course be totally dependent on whether or not the IRA ceasefire has been unequivocally restored.
I should make clear to your Lordships that the talks process will not be held hostage by the unrepresentative and faceless figures on the IRA's so-called Army Council. The talks will proceed—with or without Sinn Fein. I hope the IRA leadership will make it possible for Sinn Fein to participate in the talks. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he believes the prospects for a lasting agreement would be immeasurably improved if they were included in the negotiations. But it is a fundamental ground rule for negotiations in a democracy that violence or the threat of violence can play no part in affecting the outcome of the negotiations.
If Sinn Fein secures a sufficient electoral mandate in the forthcoming elections the door will be open to its participation in the negotiations. The choice as to whether it steps through it is for the republican movement to make.
As to the course of the negotiations, concerns have been expressed that they will not be truly comprehensive or that one issue—the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons—will be given such a high priority that it could be used to prevent progress being made on any other issue. Others have expressed the opposite concern, that decommissioning will not be adequately addressed until the very end of the negotiations.
The views of the two Governments were set out clearly in the joint communiqué of 28th February. We believe that at the beginning of discussions the

1257
participants must make clear their total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence and, at the same time, address the Mitchell Report's proposals on arms decommissioning. We also agree that there must be reassurance to all concerned that a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiations is genuinely being offered to address the legitimate concerns of all traditions and to address the need for new political arrangements with which all can identify.
The principles, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister accepted on behalf of the Government on the day that the Mitchell Report was published, are not preconditions. They add up to a statement of the fundamental principles for negotiating in a democracy. Any party which cannot accept them would forfeit the right to join in negotiations with democratic political parties.
As to the Mitchell proposals on decommissioning, these cannot be ducked or left to the end of negotiations. There is a substantial agenda to work through, including the Mitchell Report's proposals on the modalities of decommissioning and the suggestion in paragraph 34 of the report that:
"The parties should consider an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party negotiations, rather than before or after as the parties now urge".
Progress must be achieved in parallel with progress on the substantive political issues covered in the "three strands". There will need to be agreement on a format which can achieve this. When the parties come, at the beginning of the negotiations, to "address" the decommissioning issue there will be no question of "merely" addressing the issue, as one Irish columnist put it. There will need to be a serious engagement on the issue and some indication of good intent on the part of those parties which have influence with paramilitary organisations.
At the same time, all the participants, including both Governments, will need to confirm, in adopting a comprehensive agenda, that they will constructively address, fully and seriously, in good faith, and with every effort being made to reach agreement, all the items on the agenda. This will include, but not exclusively, the difficult issue of decommissioning.
Such commitments, carried through, will be the key to a successful negotiating process. In the nature of things no party will concede its negotiating position in advance of the negotiations, but equally it will not be possible to bring the negotiations to a conclusion unless the participants show themselves genuinely ready to engage on all the issues and to move towards a broadly acceptable outcome.
Ultimately, of course, any outcome from the talks will need to be acceptable to the political parties in Northern Ireland, to the people of Northern Ireland voting in a referendum and to Parliament. That "triple-lock" remains.
Besides the negotiations, the forthcoming elections will lead to the establishment of an elected forum in Northern Ireland, which could provide an important and valuable complement to the negotiations.
1258
The elections themselves will provide an opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to express their views on who they want to represent them in the negotiations. The establishment of a forum will, I hope, provide an ongoing mechanism for securing and channelling the views of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland throughout the life of the forum on the issues which will be under consideration in the negotiations. I have to say that I have yet to meet an ordinary person in Northern Ireland. We envisage that a primary function of the forum will be to conduct hearings at which public submissions could be made by community, voluntary, women's and youth groups, trades unions, business and professional organisations, the Churches, academics and others. These submissions and any subsequent consideration of them within the forum will inform those members of the forum who are their parties' delegates to the negotiations. The experience of the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation suggests that a programme of submissions, public hearings and subsequent deliberations can have a very positive impact on attitudes and analyses.
There will, as I say, inevitably be a relationship between the forum and the negotiations because many delegates will be participating in both. To facilitate that, the Bill provides that the forum will not sit when negotiations are in progress. This might mean, for example, that negotiations would take place largely—as they did in 1992—on the first three days of each week with the forum sitting on a regular day at the end of each week. The discussions of the forum and any studies or reports it may produce would inform the negotiating process. There are concerns about giving the forum an explicit role in relation to the negotiations. The Bill fully addresses these concerns; the forum will be deliberative only. It will not include two of the negotiating participants—the two Governments; and some areas of developing consensus within the negotiations might not benefit from public debate before a conclusion is reached. However, it will be open to the participants in the negotiating process to agree that certain issues should be formally referred to the forum to assist in the process of developing agreement.
I shall now turn to the detail of the Bill. Clause 1 and Schedule 1 make provisions for the holding of elections. They will be for delegates who will be drawn from constituency and regional lists submitted by a nominating representative on behalf of a party. An order to be laid before your Lordships for approval next week will name polling day as 30th May.
Five delegates will be elected from the party lists in each of the 18 new parliamentary constituencies and a further 20 from the regional lists of the 10 parties with the highest aggregate votes in Northern Ireland as a whole.
As a necessary corollary of the constituency list system, the second part of Schedule 1 sets out those parties which may participate. This list has been drawn up following intensive consultation in Northern Ireland. We have taken account of the representations made to us and have sought to achieve as inclusive a system as is practicable.

1259
The nominating representative of each party which wishes to participate in the election will submit to the chief electoral officer a list of between two and five candidates for any or all of the constituencies of Northern Ireland; and they may also, if their party has submitted lists in at least three constituencies, submit a regional list of up to 10 candidates, at least two of whom would be names not on any constituency list. Regional seat allocation will help small parties which secure considerable Province-wide support but which might fail to secure a seat in a constituency to have a chance to be represented. The Secretary of State is required, by Clause 5 of the Bill, to identify these nominating representatives. This will he done with very thorough consultation.
For the voter, the system is very simple: he or she casts a single vote for a single party. Lists of candidates will be on display. Ballot papers will show parties' names.
Various systems are used for apportioning seats in countries that regularly conduct elections by party list. After consultation and research we have decided on the system set out in paragraphs 8 to 13 of the schedule, which is well recognised and has been employed in several European countries over the years.
In addition, the votes of the parties which have submitted regional lists will be aggregated over Northern Ireland. The 10 highest scoring will each receive two additional delegates.
The disqualification provisions for candidates are, in our view, the minimum necessary. Offenders in prison, people detained on account of mental illness and those not of voting age are, by paragraph 17 of Schedule 1, disqualified. The franchise is the same as that for local government elections in Northern Ireland.
Returning to the main provisions of the Bill, Clause 2 provides for the selection, from among delegates returned, of teams to participate in the negotiations. The proposed ground rules for those negotiations are available to your Lordships in Command Paper 3232, The Ground Rules. The Bill defines these by reference to that paper.
In principle we wish to see involved in the negotiations all parties that have shown they have sufficient electoral support. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government, as well as the Irish Government, have consistently made clear that whether Sinn Fein takes its place in the negotiations is for the Republican movement to decide. So that the position is beyond doubt, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall refrain from inviting nominations from any party where he considers the requirements in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the ground rules are not met.
Clause 3 of the Bill, with Schedule 2, provides for the forum. It will be composed of all the delegates elected, and have the purpose of discussing issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland.
The Bill makes very clear that the forum is a deliberative body; it has no legislative, executive or administrative functions. Nor has it power to determine
1260
the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations. But it may, by agreement among the negotiators as determined by their rules of procedures, consider matters referred to it by them.
The forum has potentially a role of great value. It does not threaten and does not favour any particular part of the community. It offers a new opportunity for people from differing political backgrounds to talk and to listen to the views of others whom it may invite to address it, in order to promote dialogue and understanding.
Schedule 2 sets out a number of points about forum procedure. It will meet after the negotiations have begun. We intend that there should not be a long delay. We believe that it should proceed by broad consensus. At the start it will have a set of rules of procedure provided by the Secretary of State. It will later be able to propose its own rules. These must be agreed by at least 75 per cent. of those participating in any vote and they will then require the Secretary of State's approval.
In providing the initial set of rules for the forum, and approving those decided by the members, the Secretary of State is required to make every effort to secure that they facilitate promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus across the communities in Northern Ireland. The forum is also to elect its own chairman. There again, a 75 per cent. majority will be required. Until the forum has made its choice, the chairman will be a member nominated by the Secretary of State.
Clause 4 provides for referenda. Its provisions are broadly cast, sufficiently to permit consultation on any arrangements emerging from the negotiations. Any such proposals for a referendum would need to be approved by Parliament. We have concluded, after the most thorough consideration, that the case has not been made for a referendum to be held at the same time as the elections.
Clause 6 of the Bill provides for payment of allowances to delegates for their participation in the negotiations for the forum.
By Clause 7, the forum is given a life of a year, but may be continued in effect for a further year by order. It may also be suspended and the Bill obliges the Secretary of State to provide for the forum to cease if negotiations are concluded or suspended, although it could be brought back into being if they subsequently resume.
This afternoon we are examining a Bill which brings great hope and new opportunity to Northern Ireland. I hope that your Lordships will be able to give it fair passage. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
4.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her compendious introduction. Our stance is well known and I repeat it. First, we wish to assist, as far as we possibly can, in the process of a negotiated settlement of the areas of dispute in Northern Ireland. Secondly, we have adopted, and we shall continue to adopt, a bipartisan approach. It is not

1261
slavish adherence to the Government's line—no one could sensibly expect that—but it is a determined refusal to take any party or partisan advantage from any area of disagreement or shade of emphasis, between the Government and us.
The voting system proposed is unusual, but that is because the purpose of the election is unusual. The forum is to have no legislative, executive or administrative functions and, most important of all, the forum can never acquire them. So election to the forum is simply the passport to the negotiating place. The purpose is to provide the opportunity for significant areas of opinion to be represented. Therefore, the process, in a sense, works backwards to produce the desired consequences.
We entirely support the Government in their view that it is essential that the smaller groups—for instance, those on the loyalist political side—be represented. The negotiations would utterly fail without their presence. Therefore, the mechanism, though rather crude and strange, is in our judgment likely to produce, by and large, what is wanted in terms of who is to be at the negotiating place. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that there will be resources by way of publicity and advertising to encourage all those in Northern Ireland to vote in these elections.
I have to sound a note of caution, which derives from the 18th Report from the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Shepherd, as always, for his guidance on this. The report is dated 24th April. It sets out this principle which is worth reflection:
"As a general principle we believe that primary legislation and not secondary legislation is the appropriate tool by which to establish electoral rights… The House may therefore wish to seek an explanation from the Minister as to why the bill deals with entitlement to vote by way of secondary rather than primary legislation".
I hope that that is not a lawyer's cavil. Before we broke at Easter, I asked the Leader of the House, bearing in mind that constitutional issues are involved, whether we might have the legislation as soon as possible. Unfortunately—I make no criticism—the Bill was published rather late for informed reflection.
I now turn to the forum. I would welcome from the Minister an assurance, which I believe that she may well be able to give, that the forum will not meet before negotiations begin and to confirm that it cannot lawfully take to itself anything other than deliberative functions.
Perhaps I may now deal with one or two specifics which have caused a degree of unhappiness in another place. Why, in Schedule 1 (Part II), are the names of the parties set out as they are? I believe that there are 29 in all, including such parties as the Natural Law Party and No Going Back. Is it not the case that the Secretary of State in another place undertook to review the party nomenclature? For instance, the Reverend Paisley may well be reasonably aggrieved—from a study of what was said in another place I believe that he is—that his party is nominated as the "Democratic Unionist—DUP", without his surname, but when one comes to the UK Unionist Party, it is specified as "UK Unionist Party—Robert McCartney". Ought there not to be some
1262
consistency of approach because lack of consistency brings about mistrust which itself tends to militate against successful negotiations?
I want to deal with the negotiations themselves. They are required to begin without the prior decommissioning of a single stick, stone or weapon. There must be no doubt about that at all. What is required is set out in Paragraph 13 of Command Paper 3232 to which the noble Baroness referred and which states:
"All participants would need to make clear at the beginning of the discussions their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the International Body"—
that is, therefore, the six Mitchell principles.
"They would also need to address, at that stage, its proposals on decommissioning".
There is no doubt at all, therefore, that negotiations are to begin without prior decommissioning. I believe that we need to distinguish between the six principles and the Mitchell proposals for parallel decommissioning. Our belief is that this matter is one of the utmost urgency. Sinn Fein's purpose, announced yesterday, is to stand in the elections. The SDLP has indicated that that is its view also. But we need to recall that that is the first step. The second is participation in the forum and the third is the negotiating table. In our view, it is vital that the Government should have some alternative mechanisms concerning the decommissioning of weapons to offer at the negotiations on 10th June. Failure to do that may well abort the negotiations. I entirely agree with the Minister that it is preferable for Sinn Fein to be present at the negotiating table.
Is Mitchell to be reconvened as Mitchell 2? Have the Government other alternatives to offer? Has Senator Mitchell been asked whether he can serve further? Has any alternative avenue been explored? If 10th June approaches without the most diligent consideration of alternatives, there may be a catastrophe. If alternatives are available, my best information, which I believe on past experience to be reliable, is that such a step will be of enormous assistance in getting the parties to the negotiating table in order to negotiate with a serious moral purpose.
I turn next to the position of Patrick Kelly. No one can doubt that he is seriously ill. He has applied for transfer to a prison in the Republic. He is presently held in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government and Her Majesty's Government have both ratified the relevant convention for the transfer of prisoners. I appreciate that Her Majesty's Government would not wish to run the risk of an inappropriate early release of a convicted criminal who is not, and never has been, a prisoner of any war. However, if his condition further weakened or he died in prison, it would be a severe blow to the prospects of successful negotiations. I understand that this is a matter of real concern to the Dublin Government and to large sections of nationalist opinion in Northern Ireland.

1263
Sometimes we forget the importance of perception and disregard as relatively minor questions that have a significance in Northern Ireland beyond what some may regard as their appropriate position in thought and political approach.
I have not tabled any amendments—although I dare say that there is scope for them, as there always is in a Bill of this kind—because I do not believe that it is responsible to do so. The critical theme that I put forward in a spirit of bipartisanship is that Her Majesty's Government must seek to shape events, not simply drift upon the tide of circumstance: 10th June is very close and 30th May is closer. This is an opportunity for a new beginning. If it is lost there may be little scope for further opportunity. Therefore, the more preparation there is as to the detail and the alternatives for decommissioning, the better the prospects of an ultimately successful outcome.
Therefore, on this side of your Lordships' House we shall support the Bill, although we recognise, first, that there may be blemishes in it and, secondly, that other things being equal, it would have been better if your Lordships had had more time to consider various aspects of it than has presently been agreed.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her customary clarity in presenting a very complex Bill. I dare say that many Members of your Lordships' House, considering the interrelationship of talks, fora and elections, are somewhat bemused. As someone who closely follows Northern Ireland matters from these Benches, in my mind there are great lacunae and matters of confusion to be resolved. Perhaps that is always the way in Northern Irish affairs; perhaps a degree of ambiguity is essential on the long and tortuous road forward.
I put the noble Baroness out of the suspense in which she no doubt finds herself as to whether or not she will receive support from these Benches. We shall support the Bill. We intend to support it in much the same spirit as that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. That is not to say that we are uncritical. I believe that at Second Reading it is as well if I voice some of our reservations.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the way in which the Bill has been brought before your Lordships' House. On Tuesday my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich took up that matter with the Government. That we should deal with all three stages in one day is an extraordinarily accelerated process. I am by no means convinced that your Lordships' House needs to be treated in this fashion. It creates a most undesirable precedent, and it should be considered in conjunction with the speed at which the terrorism legislation was recently pushed through your Lordships' House. This is a complicated matter that deserves careful consideration. To put it no higher, it is a shame that we are presented with a collapsed and condensed schedule.
1264
I refer next to a constitutional point. Clause 4 of the Bill, which provides for referenda, is the most extraordinary constitutional innovation in a parliamentary democracy that I have ever seen. Subsection (1) recites:
"The Secretary of State may from time to time by order direct the holding of a referendum for the purpose of obtaining … views".
Subsection (3) goes on to say that an order under subsection (1) may include provision for such trivial details as what question is to be put, who is entitled to vote and so on. Why must there be this kind of blank cheque? Why should there be a referendum by order whenever the Secretary of State thinks there might be one? I understand well the reality. The Government know that on 30th May they may want to have a referendum, although I understand that opinion is moving away from that. I also understand that the framework document envisages that there will be a referendum in Northern Ireland at the end of what we all hope will be a successful process and the people of Northern Ireland will say whether or not they like what has been arrived at. But why does it have to be dealt with in such an extraordinary way—by orders to which Parliament can either assent or dissent, rather than the referenda being the subject of normal parliamentary legislation?
The key issue is that many people are dubious that elections are the way to produce negotiating teams at talks. However, the Government have set their hand to this plough. It is with very great pleasure that I hear that the SDLP has decided to contest the elections. We also hear that Sinn Fein (about whom I will say a word or two in a moment) will also contest the elections. All of the horses are at the starting gate. The crucial task is to make sure that the elections, whatever the reservations expressed on the way to them, are a resounding success.
I refer to one matter that I have taken up with the noble Baroness, her right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Leader of this House. I should like to hear an explicit commitment from the Government that they will do everything in their power, including use of television advertising, to rekindle the spirit that surrounded the framework document. One recalls that people queued outside post offices for copies of the document. There was the spirit that attended the visit of President Clinton; tens of thousands of people turned out. The Government must recognise that this is not an ordinary election. If we are to have one it must be a success. Every resource of government communication must be put behind it to make sure that people know about it, that there is a high turnout, and that people see the connection between their votes and a successful peace process.
On a slightly less happy but related topic, I should be interested to hear from the noble Baroness what the Government propose to do—perhaps we shall see it in the election order—about the endemic evils of Northern Irish politics, including electoral fraud, personation and even intimidation. If these elections are to be popular it is extremely important that they are seen to be fair and that it is worthwhile people participating in them.

1265
I hope that there will be no mistaken meanness on the question of popularising the election. For instance, the drink-drive campaign on television in Northern Ireland at Christmas cost £328,000. I believe that it had a considerable effect. It is a powerful medium. The Government must not penny-pinch on making a success of the elections to which they have set their hands.
When we come to the election system, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that it is somehow irresponsible to put down amendments. From these Benches we have put down an amendment on the electoral system. It is an amendment to which we shall come in Committee. Its purpose is to substitute in the 18 five-member constituencies the single transferable vote—the system used in Northern Ireland with which people are familiar—for the rather complicated list system that the Government have spent page after page of the schedule trying to describe. I believe that it is a thoroughly responsible amendment. I believe that system to be a great deal more popular in Northern Ireland as well, but we shall return to that issue later.
I wish to address the question of the participation of Sinn Fein in this whole process. I do not know how many noble Lords saw the Channel 4 programme "Dispatches" last night. I thought that it was an extraordinarily one-sided programme. It clearly had heroes and villains. Mr. Peter Brooke, who, I believe, laid the foundations for a great deal of the progress we are now making, was rightly singled out; otherwise it appeared that the British Government had played an entirely negative role. I do not accept that. There was a great deal of disingenuousness in the programme about the representations made on behalf of Sinn Fein.
Even had there not been the programme, the fact that there was a large quantity of semtex in Hammersmith last night—it is only by the greatest good fortune that the detonator went off rather than that a major explosion occurred—means that that was not some, as it were, low-key event, meant merely to demonstrate that Sinn Fein and its friends in the IRA could damage us in London. It was potentially much more dangerous. We have to couple that with the statement made by Mr. Martin McGuinness that Sinn Fein does not propose to have a ceasefire. The Minister has been clear about this, and I thoroughly support what the Government are saying. There can be no question of Sinn Fein's participation in the talks unless there is a prior ceasefire. The more often and the more clearly that is understood, the better.
As I understand it, in the earlier stages of the talks there will have to be a commitment to the Mitchell principles by those participating in them. The Mitchell principles include non-violence. If, in the first day or two of talks, Sinn Fein, in the context of an IRA ceasefire, makes it plain that it does not agree with the Mitchell principles, can we hear from the Minister, in unambiguous terms, that it will then no longer be part of the talks? There can be no misunderstanding about this. Sinn Fein and the IRA do stand together. That came out clearly in the "Dispatches" programme last night. Although Mr. McGuinness now talks about making representations to the IRA, in that programme he was
1266
happy to speak for the IRA. If he is in that position, he and Mr. Adams must be clear that they cannot have their cake and eat it; that they either commit unambiguously to the Mitchell principles or they do not remain part of the talks.
I am one of those who thinks that perhaps in this difficult process—it is easy to be critical—there were many over-elaborate conditions early in the process. But now, after the horror of the Docklands bomb and the clear bad faith that that represented, there can be no ambiguity about the next stage. I am relieved to read in this morning's newspapers that the White House, the American Administration and President Clinton himself are making it plain to Sinn Fein that if the IRA persists in this course it will be, and should be, an international pariah. Let us hope that the good sense that attended the original ceasefire comes back into its deliberations.
Finally, whatever reservations we on these Benches have, it is extremely important that the Bill goes through and that the elections are a success. In that sense, we wish the Government well.

BSE (Agriculture)
4.25 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said as follows:
"Madam Speaker, right honourable and honourable Members will recall that I made a Statement in this House on 16th April in which I made it plain that the Government's purpose was to achieve, as speedily as we could, a rapid and complete lifting of the ban on exports of British beef and beef products.
"In that and previous Statements, I set out a wide range of measures, including a buy-up scheme for all cattle over 30 months, further tightening of SBO controls and of the rules governing animal feed. I discussed the details of those measures with Commissioner Fischler on Tuesday. As I stated on 16th April, we were looking at the possibility of a scheme of selective culling to accelerate the decline in the incidents of BSE at an acceptable cost.
"Since that time, I have developed the idea yet further, and I have incorporated a more flexible approach to the targeting of animals identified as being most at risk of developing BSE. That concept involves giving farmers the choice between slaughtering them or placing them under a restriction order.
"As was made plain in my previous Statement, the scheme thus outlined would involve only limited numbers of animals, amounting to tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands. It would not involve the slaughter of whole herds.
"I have now sent an outline of my ideas to the European Agriculture Commissioner who is considering them ahead of next week's Agriculture Council. I have made it clear to Commissioner

1267
Fischler that the Government would only consider implementing such a scheme in the context of plans for a lifting of the EU ban on British beef. I shall report to the House on the outcome of those delicate and sensitive negotiations.
"I am discussing my proposals with representatives of the British beef industry. I and my officials will be having further discussions with them and with others in due course".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer to a Private Notice Question in the other place. As always, I declare an interest in that the farming company with which I am involved has dairy cattle.
I should explain that as it is a Private Notice Question I do not have the benefit of a written Statement to which to respond, so this is very much a preliminary response. If what we hear beyond the Answer—that animals born after September 1990 may be those included in the proposal—is right, that seems to admit implicitly that the feed ban was broken in the early 1990s. We presume that the scheme will deal with animals born after the feed ban on the basis that they risked eating infected food. That can come only through cross-infection in the feed mills or transgression of the ban by feed companies.
I believe that I am entitled to point out that it was six years ago that we suggested the banning of the inclusion of meat and bonemeal in all forms of animal feed. If that had been accepted at the time, it would have prevented the situation with which we are now dealing.
Have the Government the information to trace all the animals that they wish to trace in this selective slaughter scheme? There were proposals in 1989 and 1990 to improve the traceability of cattle. If it is to be the cohorts—animals born in the same year as the infected cattle—which are to be traced back, they could be spread over a large number of farms. Not all dairy herds are self-contained or have the good recording systems which are required. Are the Government confident that they have the systems necessary to trace all the animals that will be involved?
Let me take the example of what I might describe as a clean farm—a farm which has never had a case of BSE. It purchases perhaps an in-calf heifer which it does not realise is a cohort at another farm. Eventually the animal purchased is traced and removed because its sister animal, as it were, has gone down with BSE. That farmer, who has never had a case of BSE on his farm, will presumably lose his BSE-free status. What about the flying herds—that is, the herds which purchase their replacement heifers every year? We will have to trace back to heifer rearing farms and then trace all the cohorts over a large number of farms. Therefore, technically, this will be a fairly hard system to impose.
As I understand it, our negotiating position is that we will not introduce the system unless the export ban is lifted. However, the European Union has made it clear
1268
that it will not lift the ban until we introduce the system. That does not seem to me to be a particularly brilliant negotiating position to be in. It will be interesting to know how the Government propose to deal with it. As regards compensation, there will obviously be a cost to farmers over and above the cull value of animals in terms of lost milk production, the loss of profit, and so on. Can the Minister say whether that will be included in any compensation which is to be provided?
Can the Minister also tell the House what proposals the Government are putting to the Commission in the case of exemptions for beef animals over 30 months for human consumption where they are from BSE-free sources? I have already referred to the problem of the cohort animals which could mean a farmer losing his BSE-free status, even though he has never had such a case on his farm. Is the Minister absolutely confident that the proposed restriction order will not be open to fraud?
I also understand that there is a possibility that calves from cows which are subject to a restriction order will not be used for human consumption. Can the Minister say whether that reflects a change of thinking from the ministry on risk, or the possibility of the vertical transmission of BSE? As regards the hope that we have for funding from the European Union, can the Minister explain how much of the cost of the scheme it is intended will be met?
I should like to reiterate to the Minister the obvious point; namely, the concern of all of us that the ministry and all those involved recognise the potential welfare problems for animals under the new measures. We hope that they will ensure that full consideration is given to that aspect.
I am extremely glad that the Government have rapidly retreated from the sabre rattling we heard on Monday. Can the Minister say what the Government will do if the Council of Ministers rejects the proposals? What are the "other options" that the Prime Minister has mentioned? I believe that we are entering into a numbers game. We have produced the minimum number that we think we can introduce on the negotiating table. However, if that is refused, it seems to me that the number can only be negotiated upwards. That is a very serious position for the dairy and beef industry as regards the uncertainty that we all know currently exists.
From this side of the House I should like to say that, in our view, it is important that a negotiated settlement is presented and agreed on the basis of sensible measures rather than relying on empty threats and, as I said, on sabre rattling. We want to see a clear programme of measures that will help the beef sector at all levels and measures to protect and reassure consumers so as to restore stability to the beef market. We support any move that will put us on course for that objective.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I should also like to thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question given in another place. I presume that I am right in assuming that the response clearly sets out the negotiating position, or part of it, for discussions with the Agriculture

1269
Commissioner with a view to having the European world ban on our exports lifted. I should say immediately that it is my view—which I have always expressed from these Benches and, indeed, which has been expressed by my party—that it is very much better to go down this pathway rather than the other one; in other words, to go for selective slaughtering.
I should declare an interest as, indeed, I have before. I am the owner of a pedigree suckler herd which, over the 30 years of its existence, has never had a case of BSE. I believe that I am representative of the majority of suckler herd owners and probably of the majority of other herd owners in the country. I do not understand why on earth one should embark upon the needless expenditure of getting rid of millions of animals which are perfectly healthy in a kind of panic reaction. That has always seemed to me to lack proper justification.
I believe that the Government should have announced such a measure immediately. I say that because what consumers, our compatriots and, indeed, members of the European Community are concerned about is that we should ensure that we take effective action. The most effective action is to get rid of all those animals which are most likely to have BSE; in other words, those which have been in contact with other animals which have had the disease.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, there are many problems as regards tracing some of those animals. Am I right in thinking that, in putting forward the scheme, the Government have worked out, at least broadly, that they can carry out the operation pretty swiftly? Although drastic action is needed, it must, as I said, be effective action. That is what people are looking for in this country and elsewhere. After all, two or three months have now gone by since the outbreak and it is only now that we are getting close to something like effective action.
There has been a knock-on effect in the rural community. Indeed, I witness it every time I return home. It is not just farmers and slaughterers who are affected. All the ancillary industries in the rural areas have been enormously affected by the crisis. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the need to compensate some of them. Otherwise the whole of the rural economy could be badly damaged by the announcement originally made about BSE in cattle and the serious possibilities of it affecting human beings.
I shall not probe any further into the question because I believe that the Minister of Agriculture is now in a negotiating position and, obviously, he wants to present the scheme as a very effective alternative. I assume that it will be an alternative to the slaughter of 10 or 11 million animals. However, if it is to be part of it, I think that the matter should be reviewed after the initial slaughter of 45,000 animals, or whatever the number is. The progress that has been made could then be assessed. I make that suggestion because there has been a very sharp decline in BSE in this country over the past year or two. If this is an effective measure, we can look back on it afterwards with a view to reprieving all those very
1270
safe herds and animals which are really the pride of the country. It seems to me that there is no real justification for slaughtering them.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me a large number of questions. I shall do my best to reply to them reasonably briefly. He asked why we had decided on September 1990. I should tell the noble Lord that that is the date from which we can run traceability. That is when we started to keep the records required by the European Union. Animals older than that which became infected as calves are likely to have developed the clinical disease already, so we do not anticipate there being any problem as regards that being the starting date. Traceability looks like being pretty good. It is not perhaps perfect and we have obviously not got into the nitty-gritty of the process. However, we have investigated it to the point where we are sure that we are offering the European Union a real and effective programme.
The noble Lord made the point about age cohorts being spread over several farms. Indeed, they may be. It is no more fair, as it were, that a farm loses its BSE-free status because it imports an animal which turns out to have the disease than that a farm keeps a BSE-free status because it happens to have exported all the animals which go down with BSE. That is clearly a matter which will need to be taken into account when we deal with the question of exemptions to which I shall turn in a moment. The noble Lord asked about flying herds. It seems to me that the noble Lord always knows something I do not. I thought that they only occurred in nursery rhymes.
So far as the question of lifting the ban is concerned, that is obviously a question of a quid pro quo. The proposed cull is not something which is, in scientific terms, strictly and absolutely necessary. In many ways it is arguably desirable in order to get BSE out of the herds more quickly but it is not essential for human health. It is therefore something which we are offering the European Union as a quid pro quo for its lifting of the ban and is something to enable it to have the necessary confidence in lifting the ban. It is a matter which we shall be discussing with an open heart and, I must say, after recent discussions with Commissioner Fischler, with great optimism. We have had some very constructive discussions with Commissioner Fischler and we go into the negotiations next week with no feeling that we need to spend time considering what happens if they fail, any more than we need to spend time considering what would happen if the ban were lifted tomorrow, before formal negotiations. We go in to achieve the object we wish to achieve. We are not allowing ourselves to be sidetracked by other thoughts.
Of course, compensation will be required for slaughtering animals under the cull, and it should be full and fair compensation. Exemptions are something we have been discussing with the Commission. This will be a matter to be set out in the negotiations. It may not emerge at absolutely the first stage, but it is clearly at least the second item that we should deal with—those parts of the United Kingdom, those herds in particular, which are free of BSE and demonstrably free of BSE.

1271
Fraud is clearly something we will guard against but since the system is not up and running I cannot point to why it will be fraud-free. We put a very high premium on making sure that we are not cheated in this country.
The noble Lord asked whether the calves from culled cows will be included. That is entirely a matter of speculation at the moment. There is no question of evidence of vertical transmission and, therefore, no reason why they should be included in a scientific sense. As to the percentage of the costs which the European Union would meet, that is entirely a matter for negotiation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also asked about welfare. Of course, that is very high on our list of priorities and must be something we keep in mind at all times. I believe that I have replied to most of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I shall however read Hansard to see whether I need to write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that it was important to get rid of animals which have been in contact with animals that have gone down with the disease. That is not the right way of putting it. As far as we know—and we know pretty well—there is no risk of picking up BSE from the neighbouring cow which has it. It is a feed-transmitted disease. It is not therefore a question of contact with another animal; it is a question of whether you have eaten another animal and is entirely to do with whether the animals were sharing rations at that point rather than who their neighbours were.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I referred to contact because an article which appeared this week talked about the possible transference of BSE by hay. There was a photograph of what we all know is the kind of shipment where hay is taken along from one cow to another. It was suggested that such contact could be relevant.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there are all sorts of speculations in science and in the newspapers concerning this disease, about which we do not have perfect knowledge. But what we do have is a great deal of epidemiological evidence from this epidemic which gives us a very clear picture of the fact that it is a feed-borne epidemic and is not spread by other agencies.
Clearly, the cull will be done with all possible expedition, if and when it is agreed upon. Again, I cannot say how fast, but there would no reason to delay it or to slow it down. The noble Lord says that only now are effective measures being proposed. Effective measures were put in place immediately. These are additional measures which are necessary to restore consumer confidence. That is something which can only be established now when we are a decent distance from the panic and can look at things in a stable and rational manner and when consumers have had time to get used to the new information they have been presented with.
As to compensation, we are not in the business of compensation; we are in the business of keeping the industry running. We have put a lot of money into that.
1272
Compensation for losses is not something we are contemplating. There are all sorts of people who have endured, and are enduring, hardship as a result of this epidemic. Our interest is in making sure that the industry gets through it rather than seeking to compensate anyone who might stick his hand up and say that he has been hurt by it.
As to whether we will review matters, I do not believe that the science or information is moving fast enough for us usefully to review things in short order. I am sure that we shall do so in due course, but we do not know enough about the disease and there is not information which is developing fast enough to enable us to believe that an early review would serve any useful purpose.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate when the negotiations on the lifting of the ban are due to take place? On which day will they start, because each day, for obvious economic reasons, is a serious consideration. Secondly, will my noble friend indicate whether if, unhappily, the negotiations for raising the ban are a failure, it will mean rather fewer of the measures that he outlined would be undertaken by the British Government?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the negotiations, in the sense of discussions with the Commission, are well under way. The Council meets on Monday and the matter will be discussed then. As to the question of which measures would or would not happen if there was not agreement in Council, the measure which would not happen is the cull. The cull is proposed as part of an agreement with the European Union and is not something we would undertake for the protection of our own citizens.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, representations have been made concerning animals between two-and-a-half and three years old, coming either from organic herds or from certain late maturing beef breeds. I would be grateful if the noble Lord can say what consideration has been given to these arguments and whether the Government have made up their mind or when they will make up their mind about them. The noble Lord will appreciate, I am sure, that these animals come from long, intensive systems—extensive systems, as they are called. It would be a great pity if animals in this six months age range were not allowed to be used for human food when, in fact, they are perfectly healthy and perfectly edible. It would possibly save the Government a small sum in compensation.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the question of exemptions is very high on our list of priorities. It is something we have been actively discussing with the Commission. We would like to see early movement from the Council. Clearly, there are a number of specialist breeds and a number of particular areas of the country where BSE has had a very low incidence, where there is every reason to expect it should continue to have a very low incidence and where we should be able to put in place a scheme to allow beef from animals over 30 months old to be sold. That is a matter which will require discussion with

1273
the Commission and in Council. I cannot give the noble Lord any assurances other than to say that this is very high on our list of priorities.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is only 14 days since the Leader of the House, in notifying the position so far as the Commission is concerned, said that the Government would examine as a matter of urgency the legality of the steps taken by the Commission in bringing forward the decision it had made? Is he further aware that since that time it has emerged most certainly that the Commission's decision under which the various orders were made is in itself illegal, according to legal opinion? I refer the noble Lord to the recital of the Commission's decision of 27th March in the official journal No. L78, page 47.
I refer also to Article 1 of the same decision which indicates clearly that the Commission has exceeded its powers. Will the noble Lord explain how bringing forward proposals by Her Majesty's Government on this whole matter does anything other than weaken their position legally in the whole affair? Why is it that the Government did not initially decline to accept the decision of the Commission, which is quite illegal?
Nobody wishes to defend any action taken by the Government that would worsen the health position, even though the Commissioner concerned has long since abandoned the health grounds of the original decision. Can the Government explain those matters and say why they cannot adopt such action under their own powers at home to take what steps they like rather than obey cravenly a Commission decision which is illegal in the first instance?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in general, we stay within the law in order that we may encourage other people to do so. At root, laws are all matters of consent, and we are in the European Union as a matter of consent. Therefore, the right way to challenge a decision which we believe to be illegal is to challenge it in the European Court of Justice; and that we are doing.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I declare an interest as a dairy farmer. In his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, my noble friend made it clear that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the new cull policy will make British beef safer. Indeed, I believe that he made it clear that it is intended to re-establish British and European confidence in British beef. Does he really feel that it is justified to spend hundreds of millions of pounds of public money fighting irrational fears which are due primarily to press hysteria in this country and European schadenfreude? Would it not be better and cheaper to conduct a good PR exercise to show people that British beef is safe? We are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds. Will the Government consider that course of action before offering this Danegeld?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that we have looked extremely carefully at the cost of this
1274
measure. I am sorry to say that we do not have my noble friend's faith in a PR campaign by the British Government in Europe.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, answering my noble friend Lord Carter, the Government said that the cause of BSE-infected cattle is due to problems with feed. Only recently a Member of your Lordships' House reported that he had had a case of BSE in his herd in a calf which was born in 1991. That is almost two years after the feed ban was introduced. Are the Government now admitting that the feed ban was not successful and that there was cross-contamination or malpractice in the feed industry which caused a continuing risk of BSE infection after the ban was implemented by the Government?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should not refer to it as malpractice. There were certainly imperfections in the feed industry ranging from cross-contamination happening in the feed mills, which is perhaps a matter of sloppy practice, to farmers feeding the wrong sort of feed to the wrong animals.
Clearly, infectious feed existed after the ban. That is why animals have continued to contract the disease. That is the only source we can find for the disease from which the cattle are suffering. Nothing else matches. But since there is no test, it is not possible to pick up a sample of feed and say that the feed is infectious.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of a meat exporting company. If the result of the negotiations is a withdrawal of the ban, how will that affect or change the status of that meat which is now in the hands of exporters and importers in non-third world countries which has been stuck in cold storage since the ban was imposed?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I can only answer that question after agreement has been reached.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I declare my interest as a retired farmer. Last night I met a delegation of auctioneers from west Wales. They are truly worried. The Government intend to introduce a new scheme on Monday to kill barren cows. Those auctioneers told me that if the markets are to open next Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, more than 2,000 cattle from that part of the world will go to those auction markets. They have received no information from the Welsh Office or from any department as to how to dispose of the stock once it is taken to market.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that distresses me. I shall talk to my colleagues in the Welsh Office to make sure that information is being circulated with all possible speed. My understanding is that the arrangements for the purchase of culled cows will come into effect next week. That is none too soon from the point of view of those farmers who are having to feed the animals.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify how much of the cost of this operation is to be borne by the European Community and how much by this country on a net basis? I ask because it would

1275
appear that the British media, who did so much to stoke up this problem in the first place, have got it into their heads and are constantly saying that the European Community is going to be so generous as to pay some 70 per cent. of the costs of the exercise. My understanding is that an accurate analysis is that it will pay all of 15 per cent. Therefore we shall be left with 85 per cent. of the cost; furthermore, we will be left with 100 per cent. of the cost of any disposal that is involved. Will my noble friend clarify this matter for the House and perhaps for the British media?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the European Union is indeed meeting 70 per cent. of the cost of the programme which has been agreed to date. But we meet 71 per cent. of that 70 per cent. Therefore, the net position is that we are paying 80 per cent. and our partners from the European Union are paying 20 per cent.

Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.58 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, first, I should like to deal with the fact that this Bill is going through all its stages today in this House. Comment was made on Tuesday and we should be wary of a precedent of this nature.
We are told that there is a great rush, but why is that so? It is because the Government have already announced when the elections are to be held. That seems to me to be putting things completely the wrong way round. The Government should allow both Houses to fulfil their proper function by considering the legislation before they embark on an election as a result of it. I feel that we are being treated in a very off-hand way in being asked to take all stages of the Bill today. That reflects on the duty and precedent of this House to act as a revising Chamber. But that has been done and I suppose we must go ahead and accept it.
The suggestion for an election came from the Ulster Unionists, but we have in mind a proper election based on normal British democratic principles and not the peculiarity which, as far as I know, has no constitutional precedent and which I believe has many flaws. I gather that that view is shared by other parties.
The Bill tries to influence the result of the election. There is a list system. That has been tried in other places. Perhaps we can let that pass. However, to state that the 10 parties which gain the highest number of votes should each be given two extra seats is a somewhat peculiar method of conducting what is meant to be a democratic election. That means, of course, that a party which receives I per cent., or .01 per cent. of the vote, will get two seats if that party is in the tenth highest position. That might be quite easy to attain when one considers the list of parties which are being admitted to this election. I must say that I have never
1276
heard of the No Going Back party before. I do not know whether other noble Lords are familiar with it. I shall not weary the House by reading out the list but it contains all sorts of names of parties which have not seen the light of day previously.
I particularly object to the second party on the list, the British Ulster Unionist Party, which has suddenly sprung up. It may well be inspired by what happened to the Liberal Democrats a while back in an election when a candidate stood as a Literal Democrat and managed to split the vote. I consider that the object of this party being included in the list is to confuse electors in the hope that the unionist vote will be split by some electors voting for this party thinking that it is the normal Ulster Unionist Party. For that reason I have tabled an amendment to delete that party's name.
Another party in the list is the UK Unionist Party. The name of that party's leader is also included in the list. That is not the case with any of the other parties. There should be consistency; either the names of the parties alone are included, or the parties' leaders are included also. However, one should not include the name of a party's leader in some cases but not in others.
As far as I am aware, there is no provision for deposits. Anyone can stand for election without even putting down a £5 note. It has been a long upheld principle of our electoral system that one excludes frivolous candidates by obliging them to put down a deposit. However, that principle seems to have been completely ignored. Nor indeed do I know how many assentors a party or candidate must have to be able to stand for election. It certainly would be a prudent measure to have a substantial number of assentors—say 20 or 30—to sign the nomination paper before the party was considered to have sufficient backing to stand as a legitimate party.
Command Paper 3232 states in its final paragraph,
"Both Governments respectively reaffirm their intention that the outcome of negotiations will be submitted for public approval by referendums in Ireland—North and South—before being submitted to their respective Parliaments for ratification and the earliest possible implementation".
I take it that the proper names of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are not used because the Government of the Republic do not recognise the existence of Northern Ireland, and that is why this peculiar terminology of "Ireland North and South" is included. I know that the Republic of Ireland does not recognise the existence of Northern Ireland but it is being asked to take part in deciding how that part of the United Kingdom will be governed in the future. The Republic of Ireland has, of course, recognised Northern Ireland's existence several times in the past. I refer to the tripartite agreement of 1925, of which it was so proud that it registered it with the League of Nations. I refer also to Sunningdale. Nevertheless the Republic still does not make any move to change Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution. One might well ask whether the referendum in the Irish Republic will include asking for consent from the voters for the deletion of Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution, which in any event is contrary

1277
to the principles of its membership of the European Union. One member of that Union is not entitled to make territorial claims on another member.
There has been talk about the reinstatement of the ceasefire. It is important that there should be a permanent cessation of violence and that weapons should be handed over. However, one must be careful about terminology and not talk about going back to the recent ceasefire during which, although there were fewer explosions and fewer murders—although there were some—there were still punishment beatings, intimidation and all the Mafia-type organisations. We have to be clear that we shall not just go back to a ceasefire of that nature which is only a partial one, and, if weapons are still kept, it is presumably only a temporary one.
The final paragraph of Command Paper 3232 states that the agreement will be submitted to a referendum in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Does that mean that if an agreement is reached in Northern Ireland between the parties in Northern Ireland the Republican electorate will have a veto? Will it have to be approved by the electorate of the Irish Republic before it is put to this Parliament? Perhaps the noble Baroness can help me on that. Paragraph 4 of the command paper refers to the possibility of a new Anglo-Irish agreement. The previous one has been bad enough and has resulted in enough difficulty of various kinds. We must ensure that if there is a new agreement it is a better and more democratic one than the one we have.
Nevertheless, whatever the imperfections and flaws of this Bill, the Ulster Unionist Party will fight this election. We wish the Government every success in bringing about a situation in which there will be genuine agreement despite all the imperfections of the Bill. I hope that if we get together in the spirit of good will we might be able to achieve that.
5.10 p.m.
The Duke of Abercorn: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, for despite the breakdown of the ceasefire, and the widespread reservations of the political parties towards the proposed negotiations and forum, I remain confident that there is now a real opportunity—possibly the best in a generation—to reach a stable settlement in Northern Ireland and among the people of these islands. Thus, the proposed negotiations and forum could indeed prove both opportune and an important juncture on the journey towards a final settlement.
There is an inevitable feeling of uncertainty, indeed despondence, following the breakdown of the ceasefire. However, there are many internal and external factors which would suggest that Northern Ireland politicians have a real opportunity to reach a stable settlement. Thus, I hope and trust that those who are elected will regard the proceedings as an opportunity and not as a threat.
My guarded optimism lies in the growing realism of the Northern Ireland situation that is being generated both internally and externally. The vast majority of the population in Northern Ireland regardless of cultural
1278
background desire, indeed demand, three criteria: a permanent ceasefire; realistic political dialogue; and a stable settlement. In the context of the western world, those aspirations are both rational and realistic.
Externally, there is a sea change of opinion towards Northern Ireland. I believe that the Irish Republic is now firmly living in the post-Haughey era, for the Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, has time and again demonstrated real sensitivity and understanding of the problems of Northern Ireland. I should like to quote from his Washington speech made last month at an Irish-American dinner. He said:
"Recent opinion polls in Ireland indicate a profound and historic shift in how Irish people approach the problem of Northern Ireland. No longer do they see it as a simple contest between Irish Nationalism and British Imperialism. There are 900,000 Unionists living in Ireland for 12 generations who regard themselves as British, and all the Semtex in the world will not change their minds. Those 900,000 people are the British presence in Ireland. They have been in Ireland for 12 generations".
I believe that this House endorses those sentiments.
Moreover, I believe that the events of the past two years may have altered fundamentally the Irish-American perspective on Northern Ireland and brought an understanding of the hope and aspirations of both communities.
Again, at this critical time, Northern Ireland is extremely fortunate in the total commitment, patience, endurance and competence of the Prime Minister, Sir Patrick Mayhew and Mr. Ancram, in their constant quest for a stable settlement, and by placing Northern Ireland firmly at the top of the political agenda, while my noble friend Lady Denton is for ever travelling the world in her endeavours to bring employment, and thus hope, to our country, with very tangible results.
With this background of growing realism and goodwill towards the Province, those elected on 30th May can approach their task with neither the same degree of threat nor of suspicion as in the past.
There are, of course, two fundamental principles which must be accepted as a pre-requisite for a successful settlement when negotiations finally take place: first, that the future of the Union with Great Britain is in no way undermined or eroded; and, secondly, that the Catholic community is no longer perceived to be on the periphery of society in Northern Ireland but has the full opportunity of belonging to, and being, an integral part of society. I am not advocating integration of the two cultures, but integration of opportunity and involvement—nothing more, nothing less.
During the past 25 years, real progress has been achieved in this direction, and I have witnessed numerous incidents of the by-product of equality of treatment.
My concern for the retention of the Union is not based on a selfish, cultural or traditional basis, but on the conviction that it is in the best interests of the great majority of the population. Indeed, recent surveys and polls have shown time and again that that strong desire has received growing support in all parts of the community. In fact unionism (with a small "u") is year by year finding broader and more concrete support.

1279
While there will never be a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland unless the long-standing fears and suspicions of the unionists are treated seriously, sensitively and with understanding, I must remind those, like myself, who support the Union that British citizenship is not only a birthright, but also involves responsibility. It is similar to any other form of inheritance. It can be preserved for future generations or only too easily squandered.
Again, we in Northern Ireland are not the only part of the United Kingdom where it is the clear responsibility of the majority to accommodate the feelings and aspirations of the minority. Moreover, one or two analysts indicate that by the year 2040 approximately, the two communities will be of the same population. Thus the future of the Province will not be determined on crude cultural arithmetic, but on the quality of life, tolerance, opportunity and, above all, on political maturity.
Therefore, there is a real danger of squandering our future if we persist with the politics of division which are totally redundant in today's climate and which will undoubtedly alienate the next generation, and again play directly into the hands of terrorism and its equally evil propaganda.
This community, which has suffered so much for so long through the futility of gun politics, now desperately needs political vision and courage from the two communities which have already demonstrated so effectively their remarkable physical and moral courage during the past 25 years. Thus, despite the complexity of this Bill, I fully support its aspirations and objectives.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I wish the Bill well in the tradition of bipartisanship which was first developed by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, a quarter of a century ago. He played a major part in bringing in all the political parties and involving us in information which would not normally be readily available. I do so with all the qualifications given by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. If there are issues about which we disagree, it is our job to make them clear.
Unlike the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, I hold no great hope for the immediate future. I hope that I am wrong. The negotiations may not begin. The talks may break down. There is no easy road. I sometimes think that we do harm to ourselves by wishing for too much instead of taking matters slowly. When something occurs which looks like a breakdown, we feel that all is lost. It is not lost. It is that we have hoped for too much. All the emotion that is expressed for peace in Northern Ireland sometimes seems to augur well for the future, but such emotion rarely translates itself into new political movement.
There is much criticism of the politicians in Northern Ireland, in which I play no part. They are much closer to their electorate than Members of Parliament are on this side of the water, and certainly
1280
closer than are most noble Lords. Northern Ireland is a divided society—although I have no doubt that that is changing. So would a united Ireland be a divided society, born out of a civil war? All the time that I was engaged with Northern Ireland affairs, I was concerned to make sure that another real civil war did not break out in Northern Ireland. If the British Army were not there, there is the danger that a civil war would occur very quickly. The British Army has played a pivotal role in Northern Ireland in keeping the peace in those areas where the RUC, in those days at any rate, was unable to go.
My aim is to raise some of the issues that concern me. I was about to say, very pitifully, "To what effect? Who would take any notice?" Then I saw the former Secretary of State sitting on the Bench opposite and the Minister of State. You could not wish for two better people to listen to whatever arguments are put forward. I take this opportunity to say that in the past two or three years (as Secretaries of State have done before with their Ministers) they have played a major role in bringing the process along in the hope all the time that something would come out of the discussions taking place. It has been done very well. I do not say that in any patronising fashion.
I have met the IRA twice. I can remember only one thing about the meeting in England. One chap said he was the "Attorney-General" of the IRA. When we had finished talking he said: "You are worse than Whitelaw", so I did not get very far. The next time, we met in Phoenix Park, Dublin. I had read enough history to know that being in Phoenix Park at night did not augur very well. My officials held running talks with the IRA during a ceasefire. I presume that my papers on those talks, which are locked up somewhere, ought to be available to the existing Government. I do not suggest that they will contribute to any success, but at least we have been through the rounds before and the account is there.
To turn to the mode of elections, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Holme, I am not worried that they are not based on STV. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, introduced STV, and I played a marginal part in Opposition. The noble Lord was right. For obvious reasons, we need a different system now for a situation that is temporary, to enable small parties to take part and, mainly, to bring the Protestant paramilitaries into the game, as they do not do well in elections. If the process succeeds, a great deal of legislation will be required in the other place and in this Chamber. We shall then have to put our minds to achieving legislation that will stand the test of time.
I note that "delegates" are to be elected. I have pondered what that means. Members of Parliament and ourselves are certainly not delegates. They will not be Members of Parliament or members of a legislative assembly which is what, technically, the old Stormont was. Do the nominating representatives of the parties need to be members of the forum? Can anybody be a nominating representative? On the long list of parties that have been thrown up, there is a "Labour" party. It has nothing to do with the Labour Party. The "Conservative Party" does have something to do with

1281
the Conservative Party, whatever it is. But does the nominating representative of a party have to be a member of the forum?
I should like to spend a few minutes on the forum itself. In 1975, I set up a convention, which met twice. I had the good sense—often I did not have good sense—to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, to be the chairman, with the permission of the Lord Chancellor. He played a major part in keeping that convention on the right road for the greater part of a year. Very few others could have done that. I am sure that he is not offering to do it again! "Any old chairman" would not be able to do it. When the time comes to choose a chairman, it cannot be anybody. The matter will have to be given very careful thought.
Clause 3(3) states:
"the forum shall not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions, or any power to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations mentioned in section 1".
I understand that sometimes the representatives will not be meeting. I suggest it will be very difficult to keep them out of Castle Buildings. They may not be meeting formally, but they will be there. Radio and television will be there. It will make Palace Green across the way (as was until a few weeks ago) look like a tea party compared to what will happen. They will all be there. The press lobby will be there on the steps of Castle Buildings or Stormont. There will be chit-chat on chat shows on BBC and ITV and Radio Telefís Éireann. Everybody will be talking. They will all claim that they know what is going on. I look forward to that forum. I shall set aside time every night to watch what goes on.
I am glad that a forum is being set up; but it will not be like the appointed forum in Dublin. It will be something on its own. It will be interesting to watch. No responsibilities, and no administrative functions! People can say what they like. In my time, and that of the noble Viscount, a list was held by the Press Association in the other place called the "BF list". It was a list of Members who would quote on anything. They would stand up on any subject at all. It did not matter whether they knew anything about it. You could ring them up in the middle of the night and they would give a quote on any matter from Abyssinia to Croatia—on any matter at all. Nothing was too much for them. I suggest that the forum that we are to have will be rather similar. I wish the Government the very best of luck in dealing with it. It will need a very good chairman to keep the forum in hand.
To turn to the matter of salary, I note that it will be in the form of an "allowance". In other words, it will be rather like the allowance paid to Members of this place: it will be paid when members turn up. For the convention, we paid a salary. When the first convention was ended—it was later recalled—there were grumbles that the pay had stopped. Although they were not Members of Parliament, they claimed travelling allowances as if they were Members of Parliament. When we decided to end it, because the end had come, the Irish Government made representations. They said, "Keep them going. Pay them. It is better to have them talking up at Stormont than wandering around Northern Ireland". So, for a matter of weeks, until the Treasury
1282
got rather cross, we paid people for doing precious little. It was in a good cause: it was to keep people both quiet and talking! I wish the Government well with the forum.
As for the referendum, I have just one question: who will draw up the question? That will present a real difficulty. I offer a paper, a few pages in a recent issue of The House Magazine, by Professor Norton, of Hull. He examined the arguments for and against a referendum. He made the point that there is a difference between a referendum and a plebiscite. I note that he gives the result of the plebiscite, the Border poll, in which my noble friend played a part in 1971, which was set up by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. I seem to remember that my noble friend abstained. The SDLP did not play any part. The result was quite clear: "Yes", 600,000; "No", 6,000; and the rest did not turn up. So you never know what will happen in a referendum.
As to the negotiations, I do not know. All I can say is that when the discussions were taking place in the ceasefire of 1975, everybody in Belfast seemed to think that they had been at the negotiations. All sorts of comments appeared in the local papers. People stated that they had said this, that and the other when they were nowhere near the discussions. The imagination runs riot. There will be difficulty in regard to the negotiations. Indeed, those negotiations were with officials, who were under strict control as to what they should say. Sometimes in negotiations one has to think the impossible.
I did not like the TV programme last night to which the noble Lord referred. It was one-sided. What I did not like was that two Ministers who left the Irish Government a year ago revealed what had taken place in the discussions. They revealed what the Prime Minister had said and his attitude of mind. There is a warning there for those who take part in the negotiations: they should be careful what they say, since within a year or two it will all be out in the open. One dare not say, "Perhaps we could go in this direction", because in 18 months' time the story will be that that is the direction in which one wanted to go. True negotiations mean thinking the impossible. The British Government will have to watch the situation very carefully.
I want to make only one point on the decommissioning of weapons. At Hammersmith Bridge last night 30 lbs of Semtex were found. That was a far bigger bomb than the one in Docklands. If it had gone off, it would have blown the bridge to smithereens. What does the IRA have to do to put itself out of the democratic process? We have not reached the 30th yet. That question applies to other groups in Northern Ireland as well. The decommissioning will be extremely difficult and we will need all the help we can get from the American Government.
I am concerned about the party list—for one reason: in 1968 the Government of the time, of which I was a junior Minister, decided that prospective candidates in elections could put the names of their parties on the ballot paper. When we came to translate it into action, the chairman of the Conservative Party, Dick Sharples, came to see me. He said, "I have a problem. The

1283
Conservative Party does not exist. There is no such thing as the Conservative Party. There is the National Union; there is this, that and the other and there are the constituency parties". In the end, we had to stop our idea of registration and let all parties use their own nomenclature because if it had gone wrong we would have had to go to the courts. That is the reason we went in that direction and not in the direction of registration.
When I look at the list available now, I see all sorts of trouble ahead. I hope our lawyers are looking carefully at what will happen after the elections. There have been a number of cases, one of which affected the Liberals recently, and there could be a good many more. However, I hope all goes well.
My extract from the documents also states that the,
"Taoiseach confirmed that all-party negotiations will be convened on Monday 10 June 1996 following intensive consultations with the relevant political parties and the completion of a broadly acceptable elective process. Following consultation with the political parties this paper sets out the best judgement of the two Governments on the most suitable and broadly acceptable ground rules for the basis, participation, structure, format and agenda of all-party negotiations".
I wish them well. But it is not going to be easy and it is better to fear that they all might fail than to pretend that there is a great chance of success; there is not.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I listened with care to what the noble Baroness had to say in her introduction of the Bill. She added important information that was new to us.
I welcome this Bill in that it is the necessary and important introduction to all-party talks which are to commence on 10th June, which is not far away. After many years of talking about talks it is very good news that they will commence at last and I earnestly hope that the talks will lead to growing confidence and mutual trust, which in turn can lead to an understanding of how the communities in Northern Ireland can live together in peace and reasonable harmony.
As to the Bill itself, I do not want to say very much. The procedures and rules for the election to the forum are confused and complicated. They have been described as a dog's breakfast but I would hesitate before offering the canine equivalent to my dog.
New rules never before used in an election have been devised. We have to vote for a party whereas we are accustomed to voting for people whom we know. The major parties will have no name attached and yet the smallest, which few people have ever heard of, will have a name attached. I heard on the way into the Chamber that an amendment was accepted in the other place which will allow Mr. Hume's name to be attached to the SDLP, but that Dr. Paisley's name was not to be attached to his party. I hope that that is untrue. If it is so, it will cause unnecessary trouble and much alarm.
The smallest parties will be entitled to submit candidates in each of the 18 constituencies without even being asked for a deposit. Apart from complicating the voting paper, the postage and printing will be a substantial cost to government. I hope that all the
1284
complexity and confusion will not deter people from voting. A low poll would fail to indicate the true measure of support for the leading parties and that, after all, is the object of the exercise.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in what he had to say in encouraging the Government to publicise this election and do their utmost to see that there is a high percentage poll. That is extremely important.
There is universal agreement in all parties that the forum should not have any statutory or legislative powers. But why try to write it off as a body of no significance? Much could come from their deliberations if carefully handled. And to delay even a meeting until after the negotiations have commenced is presumably a sop to Sinn Fein which has said that it will not sit in the forum because there will be a unionist majority.
In the passage of this Bill in another place it was made clear by the Government that amendments of significance would not be accepted. That is doubtless possible because of the bipartisan approach, which is to be welcomed. There is not much we can do about the Bill in this House as we have undertaken to complete all stages today. This unseemly speed is required to meet the set date of 10th June. That date was set by the Government, no doubt pressurised by Dublin in the vain hope that it would encourage another ceasefire and avoid the threat of further bombing. We should recognise that the haste with this Bill is due to the threat of terrorism.
I find myself more alarmed and more concerned after reading Command Paper 3232, which sets out the ground rules for substantive all-party negotiations. It shows how far the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have gone to accept what is, in effect, partnership with the Government of the Republic of Ireland to decide on the future arrangements for Northern Ireland. For the majority who support the Union that is not acceptable. We would expect our Government to do whatever is necessary in support of their sovereign territory.
I believe it is worthwhile to consider for a moment what shape the talks might take. The Government, quite properly, have done their utmost to ensure that all parties with a significant backing will take part in the talks. Special efforts have been made to persuade Sinn Fein to take part and concession after concession has been made in an effort to bring it in. I regret to say that it is the view of almost everyone in Northern Ireland who takes an interest in these affairs that violence has been proved to pay. That is most unfortunate. I hope that no more concessions are made that will give that appearance.
I had thought to spend a few moments considering the possible ways in which the talks might develop. But the bomb under Hammersmith Bridge last night set the scene. Thirty pounds of Semtex in the capital of the United Kingdom: how can the IRA declare an acceptable ceasefire before the talks and let Sinn Fein in on them? I fear that that is that as regards Sinn Fein and the IRA making any acceptable moves. The enormity of such an attempt is quite mind boggling.

1285
It will make it extremely difficult, if we have continuing violence on this scale, for the participants and negotiators in the talks to settle down in the atmosphere which will be necessary to look seriously at the future of Northern Ireland. We require some peace in the community and with high tension it will be difficult. Nevertheless, I trust that the negotiations will be a success. However, if the IRA carries on with the scale of violence of which we had an example last night, I trust that the Government, together with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, will seriously and in a determined manner set about dealing with the IRA. We cannot permit, and no community should have to suffer, the effects of terrorism as we have done in Northern Ireland for 25 years. Serious and determined efforts must be made to take them out if they should carry on.
Nothing I have said in this Bill prevents me from wishing it well and also wishing all those involved a successful outcome from the talks which will follow.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is axiomatic that noble Lords who do not live in Northern Ireland cannot speak with the same authority in Northern Ireland debates as those who do. Nonetheless, as a Northern Ireland layman, as perhaps I can describe myself, I welcome this Bill, strange—to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn,—though I find certain parts of it. It can hardly be called an example of the Government's step-by-step approach to policy in Northern Ireland. Rather, it is micron by micron—and thank heavens, say I.
The history of the relationship between governments in London and the politicians in Northern Ireland over the first 17 years or so of direct rule has been damned by both rush and imposition. Not so over the last few years. This Government have done something that is totally praiseworthy in my book. They have learnt from the mistakes of their predecessors that unless you get the Province's population on side there will be anger and resentment, foot dragging and non-co-operation. This Bill, though, is just the opposite. It is all about getting people on to the same side. It provides, first, for elections to a body whose sole role, as I understand it, is to enter into negotiations for a political settlement in Northern Ireland—the end of which my noble friend Lady Denton spoke.
Secondly, it provides for those who are elected to that body to go on into a forum with wider drawing power—I believe it will, for example, meet in public—which is to be a deliberative body considering anything that the negotiating body asks it to consider. Presumably it is also permitted to consider items on its own initiative. I hope my noble friend will tell us the kind of subjects the Government expect it to cover in its stated objective of promoting dialogue and mutual understanding within Northern Ireland. It is clear that it is to debate and disseminate messages. What will they be, I wonder? I am also disposed to ponder the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, of keeping the parties both quiet and talking.
1286
I find this a politically brave Bill. Although as a result of their talks with the individual parties so far the Government probably know what cannot happen, I do not believe that the Government can possibly know what will happen—either as a result of discussions in the negotiating body or in the deliberations of the forum.
Much has been heard both in this House today and in another place of the method of election to the negotiating body. I too, as I said, find it strange. Of course it is not ideal. It is peculiar to Northern Ireland, decided upon as a result of two factors. The first is the Government's desire for the electorate to have the opportunity to vote for all the recognisable political parties involved, however small they may be. The second is that in discussions the Government have had to settle for second best—the highest common factor of the wishes of the parties in the Province. At one point it looked as though the fledgling Conservative Party in Northern Ireland was not to be on the list. We now find it in Part II of Schedule 1. That omission would have been a glaring error. Of course there was a reason—not a very good one, but a reason nonetheless—for excluding it, and that was that the Government which, of course, at this juncture are a Conservative government and are a party to the negotiations, could represent their views. My short time in the Province taught me some time ago that the people of Northern Ireland just would not believe it, however true it was. There is a history of lack of confidence and a depth of mistrust of governments in Whitehall however much the work of individual Ministers in the Province is appreciated. This appreciation, by the way, is very rarely shown while they are in office. It only becomes apparent after they have left Northern Ireland.
That said, I am delighted that the Government have come to the right decision. But it is not that which has excited so much comment. It is the method of election. Just now we heard it described as a dog's breakfast by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke; and the noble Lord, Lord Holme, thought the method chosen inadequate. No one in this Chamber would disagree with them. In a perfect world we would all have a totally different form of PR. But alas, we do not live in a perfect world. All we can hope for is what I have called the highest common factor, and that is precisely what we have in the Bill.
I described this Bill as politically brave. There is another reason why it is so. There is a history in the island of Ireland of something that I do not recall ever happening this side of the water, though no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong. It is this. It is not unknown for people to be elected to a political body with the express intention of never appearing, never taking their seat. Although the Bill minimises the likelihood of this happening, simply because of proportional representation, it does not, it cannot, rule it out completely. If that happens there will be views left unstated at the negotiating table and any form of final agreement at that table would be very difficult indeed to sell to the people of Northern Ireland. Of course, you must try, and the only way that has a chance is a

1287
referendum—a long-standing promise of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—the legislative appearance of which I welcome unreservedly.
Lastly, there is, I am afraid, a much more likely, a much more real reason for people being elected and then not turning up at this particular negotiating table. The Bill states quite clearly that any party on the list, and therefore any individual on the slate, presumably proposed for the elections by the party leaders—whom the Bill, for some obscure reason, calls nominating representatives—can be elected. As of this moment, however, it is by no means clear that they will automatically go on from there to the negotiating table. That is because Clause 3 provides, in essence, that the Secretary of State will veto their attendance if they do not sign up to democratic principles and the renunciation of violence. We all know what this means. Sinn Fein in particular, and the loyalist parties with links to paramilitaries cannot be at the negotiations unless they sign up to those very basic tenets.
Recent history has shown us that they are all capable of doing so. The IRA's 17 month ceasefire proved to the world that that was so. The tragedy of the Canary Wharf bombing that brought it to an end was not only that two people were killed and millions of pounds' worth of damage done to property, horrific though that undoubtedly is, but that Sinn Fein,—the IRA—have not learnt the political lessons that I referred to too long ago: namely, that you cannot rush things in Northern Ireland, especially political development.
The negotiations will take place with or without Sinn Fein. Unless that party signs up at the very beginning, the outcome shows very little sign of being acceptable in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein must know that. I read Martin McGuinness's comments rather differently from the noble Lord, Lord Holme. It is my view that if a ceasefire comes it will come with very little, if any, forewarning. I hope and pray that Sinn Fein really wants a political settlement in the Province and that it will declare a new and unequivocal ceasefire, notwithstanding last night's bomb.
The Government are bravely pursuing a course which is beset with uncertainty. I am sure in my own mind that this is the right way forward in the circumstances. I wish both the Bill and them God speed.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I think I must be constitutionally distrustful of authority and leaders. One of the purposes of my contribution today is to try and play a positive role and be supportive where I think it is warranted. I would like to say at this Second Reading debate a few words on the timing, the bipartisanship and the broad thrust of the Bill.
On the timing, we are, in fact, considering this Bill at a great rush. Those of your Lordships who, I am sure, are assiduous with your paperwork will have struggled to read through Hansard of the other place to get a flavour of the debate and the detail considered there in preparation for today. To have less than 24 hours to consider that, formulate amendments and so on is not
1288
easy. Some of us have done our best. However, in considering the debates of the other place, I was reassured on two counts. First, there was considerable debate; and, secondly, a number of amendments were accepted by the Government.
I now turn to the bipartisan approach adopted by the Official Opposition with regard to the Government's handling of what is generally termed the Northern Ireland peace process. On the one hand, it provides great strength in terms of the ability of the Government to say there is no strong body of opinion with a different attitude to theirs and therefore there is no point in waiting for a change of government. However, it also carries risks in the sense that the normal procedures operating in Parliament of the Official Opposition challenging the Government and requiring the Government to argue their position strongly and to win those arguments are not apparent. As a result, the responsibility on Back-Benchers becomes more important. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and myself fall into the category of those wanting to look closely at the Government's proposals and wishing to put forward sensible amendments which are of positive support to the Government rather than being unfriendly.
It would appear that we are asked to engage in two contradictory operations. On the one hand, we are setting up an electoral system designed to ensure that small political parties achieve some electoral legitimacy. On the other hand, a hurdle is thrown up in Clause 2(3), which refers to the Command Paper. The one saving grace is that the responsibility for determining whether that hurdle has been surmounted is in the hands of the Secretary of State. We can only trust in his good judgment to ensure that all the players at the negotiating table who need to be there are allowed to be there.
There are a number of matters of detail to which I have tabled amendments. It is probably better to leave those for the Committee stage. However, I would raise one specific issue with of the Minister. Can the Government confirm that they will be receptive to amendments if the case is made for them and that they will ensure there is adequate time for scrutiny in this place so that, if necessary, should the wording need to be changed, amendments can be brought forward at Report stage or Third Reading? Will there be a window of opportunity in which to take the Bill back to the other place should it be amended in this place without running into the constraints of time required to get the Bill through to ensure that the electoral process can be undertaken? I am confident that the Government will be able to give that assurance.
5.54 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I had thought that I was rising to speak as an ordinary person from Northern Ireland. As my noble friend said that she has never found an ordinary person and failed to elaborate on that point, I think that we in Northern Ireland must think that we are extraordinary and probably of above average intelligence and ability. I shall leave that for now. Perhaps my noble friend would like to explain her point later.

1289
In rising to support the Bill, I, too, would add my thanks to my noble friend the Minister for her explanation of it, justifying the system which will be used to elect the forum. I accept that the reasons for the Government choosing this system are as equally justified as they would have been for any other biased and weighted system. Because of the required result of returning a forum that does not reflect accurately the voting pattern of the electorate, any system—be it a list or otherwise—incorporating a bias would be open to criticism. Therefore, the Government have achieved something in that everyone is equally unhappy. Perhaps that is the best way under the circumstances. I mean that sincerely.
I shall not go over all the comments that have been made about the number of parties and so on, but I should like to add just a couple of points. The party list is very confusing, as we have heard. When the list is drawn up on the ballot paper, perhaps the existing recognised parties should be listed in alphabetical order at the top of it so that people can more easily find the party for which they would normally vote and then, should they decide that they do not wish to do that, they can see whether they can find some other configuration on the following sheet or in the file presented. That would be helpful even though our intelligence is not in doubt.
I support the feelings about deposits. Deposits ensure serious commitment. If there is any worry about the parties not having enough money—the parties we are concerned about are the pro-terrorist parties—noble Lords should rest assured that the IRA has raised plenty of money in America. As I understand it, that money can be used for that kind of thing. It may not have escaped your Lordships' notice that the loyalists produced a quick £1 million the other day. So perhaps it would not be wrong to demand a considerable deposit.
I am inclined to support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in respect of decommissioning. However, looking a little closer at it and taking it one stage further, if it is agreed in the early stages that there should be decommissioning, where is the legislation to enable it to occur? Even if it were to be done by order, it would take some time. I suggest that if, in the negotiations, we get to the point of decommissioning, it should happen immediately. Even an order would take some time to prepare. It could be done by an Act with everything left out except for the date that it starts. It is not frivolous to say that at the moment we are not allowed on main roads with a loaded shotgun. We are going to have to look at allowing people to drive down the main road with everything from machine guns to rocket launchers. Legislation must be there or else people will be committing a criminal act against the firearms legislation as it currently stands. That is an important point.
I am not quite sure what is happening about forensic testing. I know that terrorists do not want it. It is generally accepted that forensic testing should not go as far as linking an individual with a weapon. Forensic testing is now such that that can be done a very long time after someone has handled a weapon. However, in the verification of decommissioning, can we not have forensic testing to reassure ourselves which weapons
1290
were used in shootings? We would then know the proportion that has been handed in. We shall not know whether we have all the weapons that were in store and had never been used, but at least someone can sit down and say, "Listen, you have told us that you handed them in, but you have not handed in the weapon for this and that". That is perfectly feasible. We are not talking about linking a weapon to an individual. I would like to see a move on that or at least some reassurance.
The aim of the election to the forum is to get responsible people to stand. We are not electing MPs, county councillors, leading Orangemen or, for that matter, leading members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. We are trying to elect negotiators whom I hope will be intelligent, working people. But the Government have not yet said what the commitment is for the forum or, indeed, for the negotiators. When will the forum sit? We have some idea when the negotiating team will sit, but how often will it sit and where, and how much will its members be paid? We have already heard something about that from the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. Will they get holidays?
The people of Northern Ireland have no idea what the Government will be asking the delegates to do, so how can we ask people who are doing responsible jobs to be prepared to sign up to be elected to something that might require one day in a month, five days a week or whatever? I simply do not understand why the Government will not come clean and tell us what is required of that forum once it first sits. I understand that it may be for some time. People must know—and they have a right to know. I am quite sure that noble Lords will agree that they cannot give a commitment without knowing more. Incidentally, on that score, there are now a couple of groups of people who have never been interested in politics until now. They are younger, business people who realise that—although they may not want to be actively involved—politics and decisions taken in Westminster and elsewhere do affect their businesses, not from the point of view of the border with the south of Ireland, but on the world stage. They are becoming more interested. Unless the Government move on this, they are not going to gain any advantage whatsoever from that.
I do not want to labour the point as regards a ceasefire, but I must support those who say that it must be absolute and so on. Turning to that and to the six principles of the Mitchell Report, I know that many people in Northern Ireland want to know at what stage and at what minute that should take place. Is it when they are going through the door that they have to hold up their hand and swear to those principles? Are they to sign a sheet of paper? Do they sit down and someone asks them questions, or do they just mumble "Yes", which I suggest would not be enough? I cannot remember which noble Lord mentioned the first two days for decommissioning to be addressed. There will not be two days. That matter should be addressed at a given point and then everybody will be aware of it. The Government must tell the average person in Northern Ireland who would like to know that.

1291
This Bill will work. It will produce a forum. There is no doubt about it. But the next stage of the negotiations may be a little more difficult. We have heard about some of the possible results, but I want to refer to one of them: let us say that Sinn Fein and the IRA call a permanent ceasefire. That would perhaps be a miracle, but it would be a most amazing and wonderful thing if they did, and that would be a complete success. However, there may be no ceasefire and then Sinn Fein and the IRA will not be included. Sadly, we shall then be open to continued terrorism.
The last alternative about which I wish to warn the Government is the worst scenario of all. It is that Sinn Fein and the IRA achieve what they are now running around to achieve like chickens trying to get out of a hutch. They are trying to find a way of ensuring that the unionists will be right. Many people here will accept that they will be right. They hope that the unionists will find that they cannot go to the talks because something has been given by the Government. I am not asking for reassurance because they have already said it.
Sinn Fein and the IRA are trying to find a way in which the Government will either dilute the Mitchell principles or say that the ceasefire is fine if they wake up at eight o'clock on the morning of the 10th and it is there. If they can do that, the only people at the gates for those talks will be the IRA and Sinn Fein. They will then have a PR coup like the one they had immediately after the ceasefire had broken down when they turned up at the gates of Stormont with television cameras everywhere. But no one in the Government or in the NIO had the wit to realise that that was one of the options open to the IRA. To be honest, the matter was very incompetently handled. I should like some reassurance from the Minister that this time they are thinking about that possible scenario because that is the worst of all possibilities. Nobody minds Sinn Fein/IRA being there if they give all the necessary reassurances, but do we want it splashed all over the world's papers that they have got there, but that the unionists and the peaceful people of the SDLP refuse to sit down with them because something has occurred somewhere? The Government should do a bit of lateral thinking beforehand.
Before I sit down, I should like to make a very quick comment about last night's bomb at Hammersmith, which I find rather troubling. This morning I heard on the radio that only the detonator had gone off. I ask my noble friend the Minister why this information is in the public domain. I simply do not understand. Are we providing an instructional-type of debriefing for the terrorists? In Northern Ireland, in similar circumstances, that information is highly confidential, if not secret. Such information must not be announced. I am not suggesting that they have done this, but if people within the police or ATO staff are giving information to the press, they should cease to do so; and if they are not talking, there must be a problem with the operation of the incident control. The cordon is too narrow and the cameras are watching the situation with their big lenses. One should not forget that terrorist sympathisers are
1292
nearly always there. They are watching what is going on so that they can catch the ATO, or whoever, the next time round.
This is very important. Whatever the reason for this, it is thoroughly bad practice and nearing incompetence. It can only lead to a greater chance of death and injury the next time round. Will my noble friend convey this message through the right channels? This is not the first time, because we have heard something similar as regards another bomb. It is absolutely vital. No family which loses a member in a subsequent bombing will thank this lapse of security on someone's part, albeit that it is the Government's responsibility.
I sincerely hope that this Bill will be the enabling legislation for a peaceful conclusion to such issues. I know it may be difficult to perceive, but we all live in hope.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I am very conscious this evening that there are two ex-Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland in your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, fought so fearlessly and valiantly to bring about an executive in Northern Ireland. I shall continue to believe to my dying day that that was the best political hope of my lifetime. He brought the executive into being against a great deal of opposition. My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, unfortunately, had to sign the documents which brought about its demise.
Now we are engaged in another exercise to see if it is possible to bring about political change in Northern Ireland. Again, I am conscious of every election since I first became interested in politics. Even before that, when the Northern Ireland state was set up, the mode of election was the single transferable vote (STV). The Unionist party, which came into being in 1922 at Stormont, was frightened that the Catholic minority was too big—it was 35 per cent.—and that it might become bigger. The electoral system was changed.
As the years passed boundaries were subject to gerrymandering and rigging. Local government votes were denied to people on the ground that they did not pay rates or have property in certain areas. That was the one big factor that led to the beginning of the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland. Anyone who can remember those days will recall the signs that all of us carried—I carried them—saying "One man, one vote". That became a great rallying cry.
Against the wishes of many in his own party, my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, who was then Home Secretary, introduced another mode of election. We reverted to the single transferable vote for European elections. It was not accepted in the United Kingdom but it was for elections in Northern Ireland.
Over the past 50 years there has been a continual change in modes of election. Without wishing to criticise the Government, the mode that has been thought up for the forum is the most bizarre I have seen in my political life. Anyone who listened to or read the reports of the proceedings in the House of Commons on Monday and Tuesday of this week will be in no doubt

1293
of the massive confusion among Members of Parliament and, consequently, the electors of Northern Ireland. It may be for the best of reasons that the Government have sought to bring a forum into being. However, to bring in a forum and to say that from it will emerge men and women of integrity who will concentrate on bringing about peace in Northern Ireland is totally unrealistic. Those elected to the forum will have been elected on party tickets. The SDLP will have its members, the Official Unionists will have theirs, and so on. The personnel have not changed. I would have thought it better to stick to the STV system in which the names of the candidates are put on the ballot paper.
The people of Northern Ireland are not fools. They are able to detect who is a moderate, who is engaged in the search for peace, who is engaged in the search for party political advantage, and who is engaged in the politics of superiority over political opponents. As it is, people will go in and cast one vote. The leaders of the parties involved in the election, most of whom are in another part of this building, will nominate as their delegates to the negotiating process those who will agree with them. Within every party—the SDLP, the Official Unionist party, the DUP and so on—there are different categories of personnel. Within the ranks of my former party there are very green nationalists who under no circumstances will begin to understand—nor do they want to understand—the views of the Official Unionists or the Protestant population of Northern Ireland. There are others within that party who are more considerate and who, like me, will go out of their way to reach an accommodation with the majority population in Northern Ireland.
In the past two days we have heard an awful lot about the nomenclature of political parties. When the SDLP was formed I had great difficulty arriving at the name, Social Democratic and Labour Party. Two people, myself and Paddy Devlin, wanted it to be a labour party. Others, led by John Hume, did not want any name that contained "labour" or "socialist", but they wanted a socialist democratic party. There were four of them and two of us. That was how the name SDLP was arrived at. I was interested to sit in the Gallery of the other place to hear John Hume and his colleagues demand that SDLP be put on the ballot paper.
This is not the best way for people in Northern Ireland to vote for a party. I believe that there is a big responsibility on the Government to talk to party leaders to ensure that the best people are at the beginning of the search for peace and not those seeking their own party political ends. Elections in Northern Ireland can be lethal. Many people have been killed and injured during the course of elections since 1922. This is not the best way to bring about a forum that can contribute to the search for peace.
My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees has today demonstrated that there can be a good deal of humour in Northern Ireland, allied to all the tragedy. One of the most humorous matters I have come across is the list of parties in Northern Ireland. I do not know whether many of your Lordships have read the list. The political parties seeking seats in the forum are the Communist Party of Ireland, the Conservative Party, the Democratic Left, the
1294
Democratic Partnership, the Democratic Unionist—DUP, the Green Party, Independent Chambers, the Independent Democratic Unionist Party, Independent Kerr, Independent McCaffrey, Independent McGrath, Independent McMullan, Independent Sinclair, Independent Templeton and Labour. I do not know what kind of Labour Party that is. The next one is the Natural Law Party. If your Lordships have 10 minutes to spare I suggest a reading of the Official Report to see what happened in the other place on Tuesday. I refer to the speech of Mr. Peter Robinson, Member of Parliament for East Belfast. I refer to the derisory way in which he was able to take apart the Natural Law Party which was engaged in yogic flying. That is certainly a criterion for getting into the forum in Northern Ireland!
The next party on the list is the No Going Back Party. I understand that that is a misprint; it should be the No Going Forward Party. The remainder are the Northern Ireland Party (NIP)—whatever that is—the Northern Ireland Womens' Coalition, the Progressive Unionist Party (PUP), Sinn Fein, the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), the UK Unionist Party—Robert McCartney, the Ulster Christian Democrat Party, the Ulster Democratic Party (UDP), Ulster Independence, Ulster's Independent Voice, the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) and the Workers' Party. Does anyone seriously believe that that list of parties can contribute in any way to bringing peace to Northern Ireland? I am reminded that there are two others on the list, the Alliance Party and the British Ulster Unionist Party.
I have fought many elections in Northern Ireland. When you fill in your nomination paper and hand it to the returning officer he will query it. If he thinks that there is something wrong with it he will not accept it and you will not be part of the election. I have a quote from a speech by the Secretary of State. He was asked how all of the names of the parties got into the schedule. He said that they had written to him and told him that they were political parties. How naïve is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to believe that. Is he absolutely stupid to accept a list of names of parties which were non-existent before it was announced that they had to be political parties? He is either absolutely stupid or very naïve. I very much hope that it is the latter. If I were living in a constituency in Northern Ireland I would not wish to be represented by the Natural Law Party or any of the other loony tunes which will be involved in the election contest. The Government should have consulted those people who were really intent on bringing about peace rather than accept this list of names.
There is a serious aspect. The DUP, led by Dr. Ian Paisley, has been in existence in Northern Ireland for many years. I totally disagreed for many years, and will continue to disagree, with Dr. Paisley's assessment of what is right for Northern Ireland. But all parties in Northern Ireland—I have quoted some of them—who believe in the link with England have to have "Unionist" in their names.
That is the one thing they have in common. We have the Progressive Unionist Party, the popular Unionists

1295
and the independent Unionists. They have one thing in common. The unionists determine that they give their allegiance to the maintenance of the link with Britain.
What I am about to say to the Minister is very serious. The Protestants in Northern Ireland—the loyalists—do not vote for gunmen. The whole history of Northern Ireland shows that the loyalist population does not vote for murderers or convicted criminals. I am sorry to have to say this, but it is not the same of the nationalist population. Time and time again, the nationalist population has voted for released terrorists, whether or not they have been murderers. It votes for people who have been sentenced for terrorist or criminal acts. The Protestant population does not do that.
Two new political parties have emerged over the past one or two years. They are the Progressive Unionist Party and the Ulster Democratic Party. They have within their ranks men who have been convicted of murder and serious terrorist crimes. One of them is a Mr. John White who is the spokesman for the Progressive Unionist Party. He killed my close friend, Senator Paddy Wilson. He has served his time in prison. He has now made a breakthrough. He has his briefcase and is taken by the hand into the Northern Ireland Office. I bitterly resent that. But the Northern Ireland Office seems to be pulling out every stop in the business to get people like him elected as delegates. It has done everything it can. In fact the Secretary of State said, "Let us see what happens. The purpose of this is to secure that those who will not get a large vote by reason of small but significant support will not be excluded from participation." Those people will not get votes from the loyalist population. But the Secretary of State wants to get them into the negotiating chamber. That is a very dangerous road to travel.
I attended the other place the other day. I have just read out the name of the Social Democratic and Labour Party. We had some trouble getting that name at the inception of the party. That is the way the party was listed. But the SDLP said that that was not enough. It wanted the initials SDLP included on the ballot paper. I listened to what my noble friend Lord Cooke said. I shall explain to him what happened.
The ballot paper was to show the Social Democratic and Labour Party. But the party wanted the initials SDLP added. It fought its corner ferociously at the other end of the building. The Minister of State, Lord Ancram, agreed to accept an amendment and include the initials SDLP on the ballot paper. But the DUP (the Democratic Unionist Party), for quite obvious reasons, wanted the name of its leader on the ballot paper to differentiate it from one of the fringe loyalist parties called the UDP (the Ulster Democratic Paper). There was a danger that votes could be cast the wrong way. But the Minister fiercely resisted putting Ian Paisley's name on the ballot paper. The name of Robert McCartney of the United Kingdom Unionist Party is on the ballot paper. It is only fair, as the Minister agreed to have the SDLP and Robert McCartney on the ballot paper and in order to dissipate the confusion that could exist with UDPs, DUPs and all the other parties with Unionist in the title, to have Ian Paisley's name on the ballot paper. That is only right.
1296
The Secretary of State should have another look at these bogus parties to make sure that they are not included in any election material. It is said that the top 10 parties will have extra delegates. There is a loyalist called David Ervine who may get a seat in a Province-wide vote in Northern Ireland. I have seen him on television. He speaks a great deal of sense. I wish that he had been in politics many years ago.
I disagree with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, about the bomb found at Hammersmith Bridge yesterday. The police and the Government were right to let the public in this country know what would have happened if that 30 pounds of semtex had caught. It would have blown the bridge and everywhere in the vicinity to smithereens. Just think of the carnage that would have brought to that part of London! I believe that it was the IRA and Sinn Fein saying, "We don't want anything to do with your assembly." It is either that or Sinn Fein did not know, once again, that the IRA was going to create such havoc and murder.
The personnel who take part in the forum will be all-important. That has already been alluded to by my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees who knows Northern Ireland. Those elected to the forum must be given something to do. You cannot take them there on one day and say, "We'll come back in a fortnight's time." The very fact that they will be elected on 30th May but will not meet until a month after the negotiations have been taken place is, in a way, pushing them aside and saying, "Well, we have got you here, but we are not going to listen to what you've got to say." My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees was right when he said that those people will not take it lightly. They will not go away; they will be in through the gates of Stormont; they will insist on using the catering facilities in Stormont. For some, whom I know, the catering facilities will include the bar. The phones will be running red hot from the bar in Stormont to all their favourite journalists so that they can leak stories to them. I have experience of that. Some people may remember the famous Northern Ireland journalist, W. D. Flackes. He was famous because everyone leaked stories to him. I used to leak stories to John Wallace of the Belfast Telegraph. If it came to leaking stories here, I would leaked stories to Dessie McCartan. We all have our favourite journalists to whom we can leak stories. That will happen in Northern Ireland unless we are sure what duties will be given to the forum and how they will be handled.
I cannot say that I welcome the Bill. The Minister knows that the Bill will leave this House as it came in. She will not accept any amendments. She can kick it through without the help of the Minister of State, as happened to her colleague in another place. She can do it all herself, because in half an hour we shall have someone making a speech who will apologise for detaining the House at a late hour. It becomes a late hour here at about 10 minutes to seven in the evening. The Bill will go through the House as it is. I can but wish it well. The Government should have consulted more before they thought of this bizarre and disastrous form of elections. I only hope that we emerge from the process an awful lot better than I think we will.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, after that rich dose of realism, I hardly dare proceed, but I regard the Bill as the necessary gateway to the all-party talks as well as to the forum which, as my noble friend the Minister has pointed out, will be flexible, and will allow a wide range of people to say what they think. It is the result of the hard work, courage and unvarying commitment of the Prime Minister and the Ministers concerned, including my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield. We should not, however, attempt to fudge the difficulties.
It is well that Sinn Fein has recognised that it cannot afford, in the US context, to refuse to take part in the elections. It is fortunate also that the hard facts of the ballot box will probably demonstrate that Sinn Fein is, and has always been, a minority party—as it happens, both in North and South—whose power and credibility rest on the support of a small group of unelected and faceless men with guns and semtex. They should not be allowed to speak for those Nationalists in Northern Ireland—and they are the majority in that group—who are prepared, given the experience of the past months, to fight their corner for the democratic process alone, and, as the framework document said,
"enjoy the right to aspire to a sovereign united Ireland achieved by peaceful means and through agreement".
I emphasise that because I believe that we must be ready to stand firm if and when the IRA does make a tactical, not a strategic, decision to declare a ceasefire on the eve of the talks. Sinn Fein/IRA must not then be allowed to enter the talks on that basis alone: it must be required to sign up unequivocally to the renunciation of violence, the acceptance of democratic decisions democratically arrived at, and the discussion of the modalities of decommissioning early in the process. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that we should certainly be ready with some concrete modalities to discuss.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, put the position on the talks admirably. I entirely support everything that he said. Martin McGuinness is quoted in The Times today as saying on the BBC's Northern Ireland "Newsline" on 24th April that the ceasefire of August 1994 had never been permanent. It was, he said,
"a complete cessation which could have been made permanent only through dialogue between the Government and all political parties".
As Sinn Fein/IRA also described the Unionists' majority vote in Northern Ireland as a Unionist veto and will accept no vetoes, no preconditions, it is clear enough that it will be essential for us to insist on the conditions of participation set out in the Ground Rules.
At present it seems that Sinn Fein/IRA's preferred tactic could well be, after sending some of their favourite messages in the form of bombs, to destabilise the talks. They can do that by calling another cessation, followed by Sinn Fein refusing to make the necessary commitments to qualify to join the talks. Both governments will then be blamed for excluding them. On the other hand, if the two governments attempted to admit them anyway on the grounds that the talks would be meaningless without them, the Unionists and, indeed,
1298
all in Northern Ireland, including many Nationalists who are not ready to negotiate with a violent minority, would be justified in boycotting the talks. Then they would be blamed for frustrating the peaceful aspirations of Sinn Fein/IRA.
Meanwhile, the "Dispatches" programme on television last night, to which reference has already been made, has made its own contribution to the destabilisation process. There were always parts of the framework document which could be considered weighted in favour of a united Ireland, or, at the very least, of the weakening of Northern Ireland's links with the UK. It is not reassuring, as the programme claimed with supporting interviews from the ineffable Albert Reynolds—the Willy Claes of Dublin—and other Irish personalities involved, that the key parts of the framework document were written by Gerry Adams, John Hume and Charles Haughey and, of course, Martin McGuinness and that this interesting quartet (and Albert Reynolds) actually negotiated the ceasefire with the IRA.
It is interesting that Albert Reynolds managed to condemn HMG for presuming to have undisclosed talks with the IRA while claiming all the credit for his own equally secret proceedings. It is to say the least unusual for someone purporting to be a responsible statesman to show parts of the text of letters he received from another on very delicate matters of state on television, and can hardly promote a climate of trust for the future. No doubt that was part of the intention.
Fortunately, the present Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton, is a very different man as the unremitting attacks on him by Gerry Adams have confirmed, quite apart from his own recognition that the Unionists, too, are,
"a part of the Irish nation".
That, incidentally, is also a quotation from David O'Connell. It will be vital for Mr. Bruton to be seen to maintain his open-minded approach, as there are serious and disturbing ambiguities in the Ground Rules; for example, paragraphs 23 and 24, which make me uneasy. It is unfortunate that nothing is ever heard now about the original Dublin commitment to propose the abandonment of Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution, which lay claim to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has its own special rich and valuable identity. I deeply deprecate any formula on consensus, for instance, which may open the way to giving Dublin an effective veto in Northern Ireland affairs, and notably on its wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
It may be argued, if and when the IRA moves, that the statesmanlike thing is to be flexible and, therefore, to call Sinn Fein/IRA into the talks on the basis of another cessation of violence alone, without commitment to the Mitchell principles. That way lies danger. Not only will the Unionists and the Loyalist paramilitaries feel betrayed and boycott the talks, so that in the efforts to placate the minority we could have lost the peaceful majority, but we shall also devalue the whole process and people will cease to believe in it. No one respects appeasement.

1299
We are in a position of relative strength if we can keep our nerve, but part of that strength must consist in recognising that Sinn Fein/IRA want something which they know quite well they can never secure by political negotiation—a United Ireland on their terms and the denial of the right of the people of Northern Ireland to decide their own future. Hence their interest, as they are not prepared to compromise and get a little less, is to describe a majority vote as a veto, and to destabilise the political process, whether through a political phase of struggle (the achievement of international respectability which they successfully won in the months after the ceasefire) or through the violence which is their preferred mode of operation.
The IRA sharks have so far swum successfully and comfortably in a warm nationalist sea. Let us hope that they will now be left gasping on the shore as the Nationalists abandon them in favour of using the democratic process. Our policy must be to listen to, and act with, those Nationalists, not Sinn Fein/IRA. I believe too, finally, that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was right to urge that we must be seen to make any reasonable concession, such as a move for Patrick Kelly. But would it not be reasonable to couple that with a public requirement on Sinn Fein/IRA to tell the families of those whom they murdered where their bodies lie? They have obdurately refused to do so thus far. Last of all, I feel that the Government may be in need of a seriously good public relations person.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I have often stood at this Dispatch Box during the past two years and said how grateful I was for the commitment of noble Lords to the progress of peace in Northern Ireland. I repeat that today with great sincerity because I believe that the speeches we have heard this afternoon indicate how much people are concerned that we should go forward. Of course, there has been much emphasis on the difficulties. I can assure the House that the Government do not underestimate them for one minute. However, noble Lords have given us their best wishes in working against possibly impossible odds and having to produce miracles. I thank all speakers in that respect.
It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, a late hour for Northern Ireland business; indeed, it is an exceptionally early hour. I am delighted that, on this occasion, there have been more than the usual number of noble Lords in the Chamber for the discussion of Northern Ireland. That is much appreciated. I shall try to answer all the matters raised. But, obviously, we shall return to some when discussing amendments. As always, I shall ensure that I follow up any points.
I should perhaps explain to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that no amendment or suggestion from this House is ever ignored. I can assure the noble Lord that there is every opportunity on this occasion to send an amended Bill back to the other place. Indeed, it would have been extremely out of order for there to be anything else but that possibility.
1300
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, opened the debate and I should like to thank him, as ever, for his assistance and for the bipartisan approach which helps us in working towards a peaceful process. I hope that the House appreciates that the Government take every possible opportunity to consult with the party opposite, to discuss matters with noble Lords and to inform them on all occasions. I should confirm that the bipartisan approach of the Opposition Benches has never been seen on this side of the House as slavish. We appreciate their commitment to building a future for Northern Ireland.
I should like to confirm loudly and clearly that the forum will not meet before the negotiators meet and it will be entirely deliberative. The noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Williams, are both well versed in the opening stage of negotiations and the role of the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence and the proposals for decommissioning. I should like to take this opportunity to point out that the Mitchell principles also include an end to punishment beatings, and that is something which must always be remembered and honoured.
The noble Lords also mentioned the prior need for a restored ceasefire. The Bill makes clear that the Secretary of State will not invite to the negotiations any party which has been successful in the elections but which does not meet the requirements set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Command Paper. In the case of Sinn Fein, that means that there has to be an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. The two Governments are agreed on this point and will decide on whether the requirement has been met in the light of all the circumstances if and when the IRA makes an announcement.
There is a further agreement between the Governments on the arrangements for the beginning of negotiations. This is also set out in the Command Paper and is vitally important. When negotiations start, every participating party will need to make clear its total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence as set out in paragraph 20 of the Mitchell Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked what would happen if there should be a change of mind. I assure him that, were there to be a change of mind on commitment to Mitchell, whichever party did that would be out and no longer part of the negotiations. It is an absolutely essential commitment.
All parties will also be required at that stage to address the Mitchell proposals for decommissioning. It is quite clear that progress on this issue will be crucial to the success of the negotiations, and there will be consultation with the participants as to how this process will be managed. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned, there are alternatives here and the Government will be considering carefully now how to proceed. What is absolutely clear is that the substantial agenda of work on the Mitchell proposals on decommissioning cannot be ducked or left to the end of the negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also asked whether there will be a new Mitchell Commission. I would remind him that the Government accepted the

1301
recommendation in paragraph 40 of the Mitchell Report that there should be an independent commission acceptable to all the parties to oversee the decommissioning process. The precise arrangements for that will be addressed in the negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also raised the matter of Mr. Kelly. That is a matter for the Home Secretary, but I shall make certain that his attention is drawn to the concerns of the noble Lord. I share wholeheartedly the view of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that if this opportunity now offered in Northern Ireland is missed it may he a very long time before we can bring hope and vision back to the agenda.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for his valued support for the Bill and for all the work he does in Northern Ireland. We believe that the White House helpers he identified are playing a very important part now. The message we were getting in Washington a month ago that there is no place for people who use violence gets stronger and stronger, and we must be very grateful for that friendship, which is obviously going to be of value.
The noble Lord raised the question of fraud in elections. Unfortunately, the Northern Ireland saying "Vote early and vote often" is not always a matter of humour. I assure him that we are aware of the great need for intense scrutiny in this area and we shall ensure that that happens. The questions of identity and the requirement to prove it are already in the hands of the electors.
Both noble Lords drew attention to the report of the scrutiny committee. The Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 is a precedent, and that is understood by the parties and people in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Assembly Act also enables an order to set the franchise for elections. The Bill provides for this part of the exercise by order subject to affirmative resolution. I stress that the power is strictly time limited, ending in May 1999. I doubt that we would disagree that this is not the most desirable way in which to legislate in any circumstances, but there are very special circumstances in Northern Ireland and we try to accelerate the fulfilment of a hope as much as possible.
We were asked about making sure that people vote in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland's electoral registration is the highest in the United Kingdom, running routinely in excess of 90 per cent., according to the Chief Electoral Officer's statistics. This very high figure is probably due to two reasons. First, Northern Ireland's electoral registration process does not depend on a postal return; instead, the completed forms are collected by personal canvassers at each household. Secondly, the Chief Electoral Officer is empowered to undertake a process of continuous registration. As the election in Northern Ireland has been so widely publicised over the last couple of months—sometimes in support, sometimes against—I believe that all those who are eligible and who would wish to vote have had ample opportunity to arrange matters. However, we will most certainly continue to focus resources on making sure that those votes are used.
1302
The Northern Ireland Office has already issued a leaflet to Northern Ireland's 590,000 households, which is to be delivered by the Post Office during this week and next. This alerts the electorate to those who are eligible to vote in the 30th May elections and the possible need to apply for a postal or proxy vote. It also reminds people of the need to produce their identity document. Shortly before election day, we will undertake a second leaflet drop to all households, which will reiterate eligibility to vote, explain how to vote on this occasion, mention how the vote will work and repeat the need for a specified identity document. Additionally, there will be an advertising campaign in the media. Details of that are being worked on at the moment. As both noble Lords are frequent visitors to the Province, they will have noticed, I am sure, that the Northern Ireland Office is not unfamiliar with television as an advertising medium.
The timetable for the publication of the Bill was very compressed. It is important that we keep this process moving. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough, asked about holidays. People take their own holidays; we do not set holiday timetables in many instances. It was important that we moved before the summer and, in the case of Northern Ireland, before certain conspicuous dates in July. Therefore, we introduced the Bill as fast as we could. It was also the result of intense consultation with the Northern Ireland parties. I apologise to the noble Lords who found that the timetable put them under pressure. We published a draft Bill as soon as we were able and we sent it, together with the Command Paper, to all those parties named in the schedule. We appreciate that we sometimes ask more of noble Lords than we should, but we hope that it is recognised that it is in relation to a cause with which we are all concerned.
There has been some discussion, although perhaps not as intense as that in another place, of the form of parties' names on the list. A great deal of consultation took place. A paper published on 1st April set out the form which the Government proposed to adopt. Many parties, including the DUP, responded. The schedule adopts a style which the parties indicated they wanted.
It is true that the DUP suggested that the names of party leaders should also appear. That view was not supported by other parties. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that that included the Ulster Unionist Party; it did not make that request. We are trying to achieve, with some difficulty, a sense of consensus. We shall not be able to please everybody. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough will understand the sense of things being extraordinary in Northern Ireland. He will recognise that sometimes government success depends on upsetting everybody. However, we shall work hard to make progress.
Noble Lords expressed concern about decommissioning. There will be legislation which we are working hard to draft. There are obviously problems on which we wish to consult but we shall bring forward that legislation as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, also gave his good wishes, and I thank him for that. I assure him yet again that there is no intention whatever, and never will be, of

1303
treating this House in an offhand way. I find that totally impossible to accept. But we have had to ask for help and support.
The system of election has been used in many countries. We looked at the case for assentors but that is not really made out. It creates an additional process which would be time-consuming and which would hit hardest the smaller parties which obviously have less-practised party support systems.
I hope the House will recognise that we are trying to create a body which will be as representative as possible. Sometimes it may look as though that is not the case, but I hope that it may prove to be different. It will indeed prove to be different from what has happened in the past, and I hope that that will be the way forward.
I was grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn for his optimistic view, which I share. I do not believe that you can put back in the bottle that which got out in the 18 months of ceasefire. So many people recognised that there is an alternative and more attractive way of life. Messages went out to the world on the economic value of that. I believe that we can build and make progress but it will be difficult. However, it is achievable.
I thank my noble friend for his tribute to my colleagues who have worked tirelessly and who have offered consultation on all occasions. The Taoiseach, John Bruton, has made it absolutely clear that violence has no part in the future. Again, that is extremely helpful in getting across to people for whom the Hammersmith incident would indicate that they have deaf ears that there can be no doubt that that message is sent from all quarters. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough referred to information about that incident. I shall bring my noble friend's comments to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It is important that the message should be conveyed that this was no small calling card but a major tragedy from which we were all extremely fortunate to escape.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I fully appreciate that, but I felt that too much information was revealed as to why it failed.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that clarification. It is extremely sad that those who live in Northern Ireland understand all too well the dangers of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, mentioned the extremely practical issues we face. He knows well the capacity of Northern Ireland politicians to brief on every possible subject. We are well aware that this seems to be the decade of the leak. We shall take great care to ensure that there is confidentiality where such confidentiality is needed to make progress.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, that the names will be displayed clearly for people to see when they are voting. That is extremely important. The need for speed does not demonstrate that we have moved without thinking or caring about particular interests. We have moved quickly in order to keep progress going and to
1304
build on all that has happened. We must try to ensure that the efforts towards progress made by so many people are not wasted.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, queried the regional list. The Government believe that it is vital that the negotiations to begin on 10th June should be as representative as possible. The electorate must be given full opportunity to have its voice heard. The negotiations and provisions for constituency and regional lists recognise the importance that we place on the process being as representative as possible.
Provisions for regional delegates are included in the Bill in order to recognise the fact that some parties may secure a reasonably high degree of support in a small number of constituencies but have insufficient votes to gain a seat at that level. Alternatively, a party may receive a modicum of support across Northern Ireland as a whole and yet may not be rewarded with any constituency seat. The provision enabling the election of regional delegates rewards the fact that support for that party is evident. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that we should not seek to exclude the wishes of the voters, the people out there. The people who will finally choose those who are to take part in the negotiations are the people of Northern Ireland and not the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked about nominated representatives. They do not have to be elected delegates. Their role begins before the election. They could be party officials, if the party wished. In most cases, it will be the party leader but that is a matter of choice for the parties themselves.
The Government will frame a referendum question—a question on the outcome of the negotiations—and it seems sensible to consult with other participants in the process. The question would be included in an order which would be subject to affirmative resolution in your Lordships' House and in another place.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that the two governments have made clear that the outcome of negotiations will be submitted for public approval by a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic before it is submitted to the respective parliaments. We find it inconceivable that an outcome achieving broad agreement in Northern Ireland would be rejected by a referendum in the Republic of Ireland. It is worth reminding the House that in the joint declaration, the Taoiseach referred to Northern Ireland at a number of points. It is wrong to suggest that that is not the case. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough asked about detailed arrangements for the forum. These are set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill. The first meeting of the forum will be at a time decided by the Secretary of State which will be after the start of negotiations and within four weeks from the election date. The Secretary of State has said that he expects the first meeting to occur well within that period. Thereafter the forum will determine its own times for meetings, save that it will not meet when, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, that would not be appropriate because negotiations are intended to take place.
In respect of publicity for the forum, it is certainly the Government's intention that the deliberations of the forum should be accessible to members of the public.

1305
The whole purpose of the forum is to promote dialogue and mutual understanding. We hope that it will serve to promote wider public debate. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that he would support the idea of the forum holding hearings at various centres throughout Northern Ireland to facilitate public access and input. My right honourable friend will be discussing with the parties the practical options for broadcasting.
In respect of pay, my right honourable friend the Minister of State wrote to the parties last week to set out our preliminary thinking. We expect to pay allowances to delegates for attendance at either a forum or for the purpose of the negotiations, and travel and subsistence allowance, including for support staff, and research grants. We have invited comments on what would be the appropriate level of research grant to make available to the parties. This would all be in line with the payments made to the parties in the previous talks in 1991 and 1992.
My noble friend also referred to the need to recognise that much progress has been made in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, as always, brings information—and, for me, education—to any debate in this House. I do not believe that the Government could have consulted more. We have consulted non-stop day and night. He had only to look at the pure weariness of my colleagues on occasions to see that that was so. The noble Lord recognised that it is easy to joke about the list of parties. I assume that that was not a subtle filibuster. I stress again that we wish it to be all-inclusive. I was surprised that the noble Lord did not hesitate when he read out the name of the Northern Ireland Womens Coalition. That was a fairly unique name to come across.
I stress that the people who will elect the parties will be the people of Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lady Park properly drew attention to the rights of the peaceful people of Northern Ireland. I assure the House that the Government recognise that. The Government believe that the elective process can build confidence. If horses had been prepared to come to water before without an election, there would not have been an election. We are trying to find a way forward. Not only does the elective process build confidence; it also provides a clear and direct route to all-party negotiations. It is the gateway to peace and the chance of achieving a lasting settlement. I hope that noble Lords will today send a clear signal of support for this democratic process.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I hope she can assist as regards the specific question I asked about the Reverend Paisley's position. My understanding is that the Secretary of State in another place said that the Government would reconsider the description of Mr. Paisley's party. I do not hold a brief for Mr. Paisley or for his party except that they are entitled to even-handed treatment. Further, is the Minister able to indicate, in response to the question that I asked—the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, asked a question along the same lines—that precise
1306
arrangements relating to parallel decommissioning will be available for consideration by the parties before 10th June? If I may say so without presumption, we share the view that that may be critical to the question of whether Sinn Fein will be in a position—a ceasefire having been called—to join in the negotiations.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place that he would consult on the question of names on the list, in particular at the request of the DUP. I assure the noble Lord that that occurred in another place. It was discovered that there was not a consensus among the parties and that other parties did not wish it. The matter was put to a vote and a decision was made. As I said, the question of bringing forward decommissioning will be discussed with all parties. I do not have precise information as regards the timetable but I shall make sure that the noble Lord receives it as soon as possible.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 23rd April), House resolved into Committee.
[THE VISCOUNT ALLENBY OF MEGIDDO in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The negotiations]:
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 1:

Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill

  Clause 2
  1 Page I, line 23, leave out ("nominated for that party")
  The noble Lord said: Before I launch into this first amendment in the Committee stage I wish to thank the Government or the usual channels—I am not sure who arranges these things—for agreeing to a revision of the list of groupings of amendments. That was helpful and I believe that it will be helpful also to other Members of the Committee who have submitted amendments.
  This first amendment arose from a difficulty that I had—it may be just a personal difficulty of mine which is not shared by anyone else—in understanding Clause 2(4). The subsection contains a three-line sentence with no commas. Perhaps it was because I read it late at night when my mental faculties were not at their highest that it took me a few rereadings of that sentence to understand its meaning. Although most Bills that we consider in this Chamber are probably of interest only to lawyers, we need to recognise the need for Bills to be understandable to the layman also. I should prefer it if the amended version of the subsection were to state, "The nominating representative of a party may, from time to time, substitute, for any member of the team, another delegate returned for that party in accordance with Schedule 1".
  I have introduced the commas in my speech because I had some difficulty with the Clerks in that what I initially sought to do was to insert commas to break up the sentence and give it a greater ease of understanding.

  1307
  However, they seemed disinclined to accede to my wishes in that respect. In my deliberations on this subsection, I discovered that there was a superfluity of words in that the original subsection—if I may so describe it—stated,
  "for any member of the team nominated for that party".
  One of the difficulties is that that provision implies that a nominating representative might have some influence over another team. It is surely the Government's intention that the nominating representative would have an influence only over his or her own team and not some other team. Therefore, the reference to the "nominated for that party" is superfluous.
  By agreeing that the section is tautological, if I may so describe it, I hope that the Government will acknowledge that the subsection is imperfectly drafted. I accept that it is not a life and death issue. This is the first amendment in Committee and it might be useful to have the Government's response. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: Although I would not have put as many commas in the provision as did the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I agree with the general thrust of his amendment. It seems to me that the words to which he objects and are superfluous and that the subsection would be more easily understood without them.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The noble Lord's amendment bears on Clause 2(4) of the Bill. That subsection provides that, after the initial entry to negotiations, a nominating representative may change the members of his party's team in the negotiations. In the words of the Bill, a nominating representative of a party may,
  "substitute for any member of the team nominated for that party another delegate returned for that party".
  The amendment would omit the words, "nominated for that party".
  Having considered the amendment, we take the view that it would make the subsection less clear and possibly ambiguous. It would no longer be clear which team the nominating representative would be entitled to change, and it would therefore accelerate the confusion that concerns the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Logically, there is only one, which is that of his own party, but at best the subsection, as the noble Lord would amend it, would become less easy to understand; and at worst there may be scope for needless dispute. I believe that there will be a large amount of dispute during the negotiations and we would not like to encourage more. We believe that the purpose of the Bill is best accomplished by the drafting as it stands. Having heard our reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for that response. I recognise that it is a matter of interpretation. As I said, it is not a life and death matter. I eventually understood the sense of the subsection. On the basis of the Minister's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Referendums]:
  Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 2:

  Clause 4
  2 Page 2, leave out line 22, and insert—
  ("() that the persons entitled to vote shall be those who would be entitled to vote as electors at a local election in a district electoral area in Northern Ireland.")
  The noble Lord said: This is a rather more substantive amendment. Clause 4 provides the procedures for referendums. In the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State would effectively have the power to determine who would be entitled to vote in that referendum. A number of noble Lords have drawn attention to the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee which identified this section of the Bill as needing to be drawn to the attention of this Chamber on the basis that in other electoral law the definition of those enfranchised for the election was included in primary legislation.
  The amendment seeks to define the franchise for the referendum in exactly the same way as for the election of delegates for parties to the forum, on the basis that we are having an election to determine the forum. From that basis the negotiating teams will be drawn. It seems logical to me, and I hope to the Government, that the persons who were involved in the initial election on 30th May should be those who would vote in a referendum.
  With that explanation, I hope that the Government will regard the amendment as a useful improvement to the Bill and one which satisfies the concerns of Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: I may have misunderstood. However, if the amendment were to be accepted, might it not give the right to vote to citizens of the Republic of Ireland who are temporarily resident in the North, and to citizens of other European Union countries because they are allowed to vote in local elections throughout the EU? I do not know whether that is one of the purposes of the amendment. It seems a possibility. I may have got it wrong. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister, and from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, on that point.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, rightly points out, there are dangers in this matter. The noble Lord's amendment raises a point which was discussed fully in another place, following which a similar amendment was withdrawn. Apart from the general desire for consistency with the 1973 Act, it is possible that referendums held under Clause 4 arising from negotiations could affect different groups of people in Northern Ireland or different parts of the Province in different ways. In those circumstances, it is conceivable that it might be thought desirable to seek the views of

  1309
  those groups of people resident in those areas rather than the views of all the people of Northern Ireland. If the amendment were accepted, the measure would lose that element of potential flexibility.
  We are working for much of the time in uncharted waters. In all the circumstances, I stress that the Committee can be confident that the delegated power will not be abused. I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to accept that assurance.
  Lord Monkswell: I am a little concerned. From what the Minister says, it appears that there could be referendums in parts of Northern Ireland rather than a referendum for the whole of Northern Ireland. I believe that this is the first time that that has been suggested. I may not be familiar with all the ins and outs of the negotiating stances that have taken place as regards Northern Ireland. However, I gather from the debates in another place that there has been no such reference. I understand, too, that a similar amendment to my amendment was not tabled there, but I may be mistaken.
  In response to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, one of the problems is that we have a number of different franchises for different circumstances. There are local elections, parliamentary elections and European elections. It is not always easy to determine who is enfranchised for which. In parliamentary elections Members of your Lordships' House, Anglican clergy, and a range of other individuals are disenfranchised. One of the difficulties is that there is no consolidation of all the various electoral Acts and Representation of the People Acts so we cannot easily examine all the various and different options that are extant and the different disqualifications.
  Apart from the sense of having a continuity of electorate—that is, the same electorate for the referendum as for the forum delegates—it is my understanding that the electorate for local elections is the most widely drawn of all the electorates that could be constructed under the various electoral laws, and that therefore lends it an enhanced legitimacy.
  I am placed in a rather difficult position. The Minister effectively introduced a new angle to the whole situation by suggesting that there might be discrete referendums encompassing only a part of Northern Ireland. I think the only way—
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may be able to help him. It was not my intention to confuse the matter. I confirm that there was fairly extensive discussion on the issue in another place, although that is not the answer in regard to any examination that might be undertaken in this Chamber. I stress that the clause was drafted to ensure the maximum amount of flexibility. If there are to be negotiations and people are to be elected by those in Northern Ireland, it is important that their views should be taken into account and, where at all possible, acted upon. Flexibility was built in to allow for that. There was no intention of any abuse of power.
  I hope that my earlier remarks assured the noble Lord that not only do we have a very high registration of voters in Northern Ireland, but we also make every
  1310
  possible effort to ensure that those involved and who have a right to vote know about an election and are encouraged to vote in it. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept those assurances.
  Lord Monkswell: I accept the Minister's assurance that there is no attempt to frustrate the will of the people of Northern Ireland, if I may put it like that.
  As I said, I find myself in some difficulty. I hesitated to think in these terms when I was asked earlier whether I should bring forward any amendments on Report. I said that I would not since I did not think it would be necessary. I shall have to consider the Minister's remarks. However, on the basis of the assurances that she has given, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 3:
  3 Page 2, leave out lines 23 to 25
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment perhaps I may also consider Amendment No. 6, which is virtually identical and merely relates to a different part of the Bill.
  The amendment seeks to delete sub-paragraph (c) of Clause 4(3) relating to the conduct of the referendum; namely, that the Secretary of State, if it appears to him to be expedient, should apply,
  "with or without modifications, any enactment (and in particular any enactment relating to elections) or any provision made under an enactment".
  That power, which the Secretary of State may use in determining an election, is fairly widely drawn. It is another curious situation. As I said, the same power is tied to the conduct of elections for the Forum.
  I recognise that the power would be used subject to an order coming before both Houses of Parliament and therefore be subject to affirmative procedure. However, given that we do not normally have the ability to amend such orders, I seek reassurance from the Minister that in the event it will be used circumspectly by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord for explaining his amendment and also the relevance of Amendment No. 6 to his discussion. I assure him that my answers to him on this amendment are not given casually. In the Northern Ireland Office we have lived with this Bill for many weeks. We have indulged in a comprehensive period of analysis.
  I assure him, first, that any affirmative order, although it cannot be amended, can be rejected by this House. It is very usual practice in Northern Ireland to publish orders in draft form so that everybody can have their views well and truly considered. I also give him an absolute commitment that the Secretary of State would not contemplate abusing the situation at all. We are trying to move a process forward. If these amendments were accepted, considerable duplication would be necessary in terms of cost and complexity. I hope that the noble Lord will not ask me for that.
  Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for that reassurance. One thing I would request; namely, that an

  1311
  early draft should be circulated to interested parties as soon as possible. Obviously, the time constraints are very short. With the Minister's reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 4:
  4 Page 2, line 25, at end insert—
  ("() The Secretary of State shall invite Members of the House of Commons, returned for Parliamentary constituencies in Great Britain, to signify their answers to the question put in the referendum on the same day as the referendum is put to the people in Northern Ireland.")
  The noble Lord said: While in relation to this Bill we are considering only the question of referendums in Northern Ireland—and, as we now know, referendums in possibly only part of Northern Ireland—we are also aware, although it could never appear in United Kingdom legislation, that there are likely to be referendums in the Republic of Ireland as well. They may be linked or separate. However, if they are linked, that is a mechanism for determining the attitude and views of the people in both the North and the South of the island of Ireland on the question that will be put in the referendum.
  The population of Great Britain (that is, the United Kingdom less Northern Ireland) would also be interested in, and have an interest in, the determination of what happens in Northern Ireland and the relationship between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. It would be politic to enable them to make their views known on the question of the referendum.
  One way of doing that would be to have a referendum in Great Britain. That might hold some attractions. The problem is that it would be quite costly and I am not sure it would find favour with the population of Great Britain. One way in which we can determine the views of the population of Great Britain is by asking their duly elected Members of Parliament. The Secretary of State would send the Members of Parliament a referendum ballot paper with a stamped return envelope asking them to respond to the text of the referendum: "Vote yes, no or abstain", in the same way as the citizens of Northern Ireland.
  I tabled the amendment as a suggestion that may be useful, not only in involving the people of Great Britain in the affairs of the whole of these islands, but also in ensuring that there would not be a politically partisan view. Each Member of Parliament would be expected to represent his constituents and not to vote on a party basis. I beg to move.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The noble Lord's amendment raises an interesting point. However, I doubt that another place would welcome this Chamber telling its Members how they should register their views on any question put to the people of Northern Ireland under this clause.
  I must stress that Members will have an opportunity to debate the order directing any referendum. Any implementation of agreement reached in the talks and endorsed in a referendum would almost certainly require
  1312
  primary legislation at Westminster. That would give Members of both this House and another place an opportunity to make their views known. I must stress that it is the determination of this Government to ensure that the future of the people of Northern Ireland is chosen by the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that, in considering the opportunities for debate in another place in due process of the negotiations, the noble Lord will feel that that is sufficient and withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Monkswell: I recognised that this amendment was a bit of a flyer. I felt that it would be useful to run it up the flagpole and see if it waved. It has waved. I leave it there and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 ["Nominating representative" of a party]:
  Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 5:

  Clause 5
  5 Page 2, line 32, leave out from ("time") to second ("the") in line 33 and insert ("has been notified by the party to be")
  The noble Lord said: The result of agreeing Amendment No. 5 would be that Clause 5(1) would read, "In this Act 'nominating representative' in relation to a party means the person who at any time has been notified by the party to be the most appropriate person to act on behalf of the party for the purposes of this Act".
  During its passage through the other place the Secretary of State advised the House of Commons that the reason for the use of the words "nominating representative" was to accommodate the fact that some parties may have a leader who would be the natural person to be the nominating representative, while other parties may not and may wish to ensure that somebody else was in the category of a nominating representative. The other provision that appears in the original Clause 5(1) is that the Secretary of State has to choose who he thinks the leader of the party is, or otherwise.
  The amendment seeks to make it a decision for the parties to determine who would be the nominating representative rather than for the Secretary of State to decide. At the same time, it would ensure that the nominating representative was not considered to be the leader of the party, although he could be. The amendment therefore effectively enshrines two factors. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: I find myself supporting the amendment. It seems to me that subsection (1) of Clause 5 as drafted gives extraordinary powers to the Secretary of State. It is a little exaggeration to say that the formula as drafted is more evocative of the powers wielded by a 19th century colonial governor than one would expect to find in a democracy at the tail end of the 20th century. There may be a good reason for that and perhaps I have misinterpreted the position. No doubt the noble Baroness will explain why the formula is as it is.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: We have not seen any controversy in this element. We are not intending

  1313
  that that choice should be made entirely by the Northern Ireland Office or Her Majesty's Government. We shall be guided in identifying nominating representatives by the wishes of the party. We have already consulted on the question in the consultation paper of 1st April. A list of those we propose to identify appears in the Notes on Clauses which is available in the Printed Paper Office. If the parties wish to propose different names, they are welcome to do so.
  I fear that the amendment is defective because it lacks certainty and may well lead to delay in the preparation of lists and nominations of teams. It may not readily be possible to pinpoint the legal entity corresponding to a party nor a person to speak with authority on its behalf. That is why the Secretary of State is involved: to permit the quick and unambiguous identification of such a person.
  As we are acting in maximum consultation with the parties, we do not see that the problems that are feared will arise. I must therefore reject the amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw it. As I explained, consultation has already taken place and the parties involved are not unhappy.
  Lord Monkswell: The Minister gives a certain amount of reassurance. But the main reason for my not pushing the amendment is again the time factor and the fact that these matters must be up and running fairly quickly.
  There is a risk of letters getting lost in the post and being passed from one party member to another until they finally arrive on somebody's desk and are replied to. I suspect that initially the Secretary of State must pick the person he contacts and writes to. However, that raises a problem in the sense that, historically, we have not tended to recognise parties in legislative form or registration form. Parties may be constituted in various different ways.
  Bearing in mind that this is the first electoral process that has occurred in this country that requires the election of parties rather than individuals, it may be something that the powers that be need to consider for the future. There may be a need for some mechanism for identifying parties and their structures and the responsible person to deal with them. However, that is a bit of a digression, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [The elections]:
  [Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 7:
  7 Page 5, line 4, leave out ("ten") and insert ("twenty")
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 9 because they both bear on the same problem. I am sorry to come crashing in to the otherwise unbroken sequence of
  1314
  amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I shall try to be brief and return to his sequence as soon as possible.
  The object of the amendment is very simple. At present, the Bill requires the regional list to contain between two and 10 names with at least two not on a constituency list. Of course, this creates problems for those parties, the larger parties on that long and improbable list which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, read out at Second Reading. It creates problems for the larger parties who hope to gain significant constituency representation, especially, if I may say so, those parties which have democratic procedures for selecting their candidates. Here, I want to draw particular attention to the plight of the Alliance Party, which, I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, has played a notable role so far and will do so in the future, because all the five largest parties will hope to obtain 10 or more constituency delegates. How then are they to determine which to include on the regional list but not on the constituency list? The two overlap. All the parties will want to field their best candidates in a constituency in order to maximise their vote. I fear there is a danger of two second-rate candidates on the regional list, which is not what any of us want.
  These amendments taken together allow the nominated representative—which, of course, we all know, means the party leader, as recognised by the Secretary of State—to put forward a larger but still restricted list of names at nomination time and then to decide which to appoint after seeing who is directly elected.
  This is not in any way meant—and I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate this—to be a partisan amendment. I know it is a point, if not the amendment, on which there is some sympathy in the Northern Ireland office. I do hope she will able to respond to it in that spirit. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: I have no comments to make about Amendment No. 7 but I should just like to say something about Amendment No. 9.
  On the face of it, it would seem to give too much power to the party bosses at the expense of the freedom of choice of the individual voter. I fully concede that I am absolutely no expert on PR but, as I understand it, one of the advantages of the list system is that the voter can pick and choose between individuals, and, if you are a Conservative, you can opt for a Eurosceptic or a Euroenthusiast candidate if you feel so inclined. If you are a Liberal Democrat, you can choose between Liberal Democrat candidates and so on and so forth. If Amendment No. 9 were to be accepted that choice could not be exercised.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I would, first of all, endorse the noble Lord, Lord Holme's, view that the Alliance Party has played a very significant role in the peace process in Northern Ireland, and I am sure will continue to do so.
  I have some nervousness in accepting his view that there might not be sufficiently talented and good people in the party for it to be able to nominate names not

  1315
  on the election list. I believe that there are times and opportunities when people who would not wish to participate in elections but have value to bring to the process would come forward.
  I am not sure how leaving out 10 and adding a possible further 10 names to a regional list works on this matter. We have to ensure that all material is displayed at the polling station. I know that this has been looked at carefully on previous occasions and I understand in part the reasons for which it is advocated. But we do believe that the matters are well aired. I hope the noble Lord will accept that assurance and feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for his intervention. If he will bear with me, the next amendment speaks very precisely to his anxiety to create the maximum voter choice. I thank the noble Baroness for her assurances and for her kind words about the Alliance Party. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.45 p.m.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 8:
  8 Page 5, line 10, leave out from ("cast") to end of line 43 and insert ("preferentially among the candidates named on the party list to produce five delegates per constituency.
  (2) Counting shall be conducted by the single transferable vote system to produce five delegates for each constituency.")
  The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to use the single transferable vote instead of the list system in the 18 five-member constituencies that have been drawn up in the schedule to the Bill. I think the affection of these Benches for the single transferable vote system is so widely known that I need not embarrass the Committee by rehearsing it all over again.
  I should like to give three very straightforward reasons why this would have been a very much better system for the Government to have chosen. The first is, as was said earlier in the Second Reading debate, that the single transferable vote system is now the normative system for voting in Northern Ireland. It is only Westminster elections that are not conducted by the single transferable vote. Local elections, European elections are conducted in this way and, when there was the assembly, that was the way in which the elections were conducted. It is extremely familiar to the people of Northern Ireland. They can see the connection between their vote preferentially cast and the outcome. It gives a greater degree of ownership and participation. I think the onus is on the Government to show why they want to deviate from that well-established and practical norm.
  Secondly, at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, talked about a highest common factor choice of electoral system. I wonder whether we have not ended up with a lowest common denominator system rather than an HCF, because, as I understand it, the mere fact that Northern Ireland has been divided into
  1316
  18 five-member constituencies for the basic election is because it was originally intended to have the single transferable vote. Five members is the right number for an STV system, whereas a list system can have a very much larger constituency.
  I think I am right in saying that it was relatively late in the process, as part of the horse-trading between the parties, that the decision was made to abandon the normal STV system for this list system. The reason it was abandoned was because it was thought that it would be more favoured by the SDLP. I personally find that extremely curious, because the electoral system of the Republic of Ireland, to which the SDLP is anxious, with all possible speed, to affiliate itself, is STV and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the SDLP, which wants to be part of the Irish Republic, where for many years people have voted by STV, would be the party that did not want to have STV for these elections. And, in the event, of course, the production of this compromise electoral system, which has been fairly generally condemned, did not meet with any enthusiasm from the SDLP.
  Much as I admire what the Government have done in terms of persistence, I defy the noble Baroness to tell me that the reason the SDLP has now decided to join in the elections is that it got its favourite electoral system, so in fact the Government, if they had stuck to their guns, could have had STV all along.
  The third reason why it would have been better—I put it in the past tense because we all know the Government are not going to change now—to have STV is the very reason so eloquently given by the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Fitt, at Second Reading.
  The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, put it extremely well. STV allows the voters to take control—a point the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has just made. The voters can look down the list within the constituency and say, "That person is an obdurate, obstinate hawk who is never going to contribute to the peace process, and therefore I do not choose to vote for such a person. I choose to vote for a member of the same party who is actually going to move the peace process forward". You get the connection between the voting and the movement forward of the peace process. As it is, it is a donkey vote. You have to vote for the party and the party itself is more likely to be guided by like-minded people than it is to put forward a balanced ticket of hawks and doves in order to give the electorate a choice. I say with all respect to the noble Baroness that the Government have missed an opportunity to ensure greater levels of voter participation and a greater push forward for the peace process. I beg to move.
  Lord McConnell: I support the amendment. I do not intend to go into detail, but it is much more satisfactory

  1317
  to vote for people and not just for lists. It is a much more human thing to do. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
  Viscount Brookeborough: I would favour this system more as it is much more voter-friendly. The voter himself or herself feels that he or she will achieve something.
  Lord Monkswell: I rise to suggest a different interpretation of what might happen from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. The individuals selected might be the strongest hawks and be elected on a ticket of, "I shall defend your particular community". The risk of that is that one might end up with negotiating teams that would be completely intransigent. The only advantage of having the party elected rather than electing individuals is that it enables the parties to be flexible after the election. We recognise from our knowledge of history in Northern Ireland that individuals tend to be very inflexible when it comes to negotiations. However, if the negotiating body is the party rather than the individual, it is possible for some flexibility to come into the situation.
  Lord Hylton: I wish to support the amendment and to indicate my personal preference for a strong connection between voting and the names of individual candidates.
  Baroness Seear: The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said that he favoured the list system, but he gave as his reason for favouring it that it would apply to STV. If he meant the list system, would he care to correct it because it was so nice to have his support?
  Viscount Brookeborough: If we were to be given the option, which we are not, I would perhaps have favoured a transferable vote.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holme, on the eloquence with which he put his case. I would suggest that he has had many years of practice. Under more normal circumstances, Northern Ireland must be a joy to him and to his party.
  I can assure the noble Lord that it is not the Government's intention to stick to their guns in any circumstances whatever. I can assure Members of the Committee that there was immense consideration of the options and that options such as the single transferable vote were not rejected lightly. That was taken very seriously as an option and the views of the parties were listened to. I hope that the noble Lord is not seriously looking for me to express the reasons for the SDLP's feelings in this area. After the comprehensive consultation process with parties, in which we were looking to build consensus, we had to establish an election process which we believed would allow matters to be move forward. There was no consensus. In the absence of that, Her Majesty's Government devised an electoral system that took into account the representations made by some parties for a new type of election based on party lists while retaining elements of constituency politics as requested by others whom we consulted.
  1318
  I can assure the noble Lord that the method was chosen to try to ensure that the forum represents the views of a broad spectrum of the electorate. I understand his feelings. I appreciate the way it was put, but I wish to assure him that for the voter it is important that the election is simple.
  I hope the noble Lord appreciates that in this instance the Government had a very difficult task. We hope we have a process which will at least allow things to move forward. I cannot invite the Committee to support the amendment.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thank the noble Baroness for her warm sympathy, which I very much appreciate, and I thank those noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Hylton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough—who supported the amendment. The noble Baroness will have found herself slightly lonely in the company of the noble Lord. Lord Monkswell, who seemed not to like the amendment on the rather curious grounds that it would give individuals all too much power and that they were rather unreliable. There we are; that's democracy, isn't it? I thank the Minister for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
  Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 10:
  10 Page 6, line 15, leave out ("(however formulated)")
  The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: Rested from the fray, I come back. Paragraph 17(b) of the schedule refers to disqualifications. The Bill suggests that a person may be disqualified if,
  "he is authorised to be detained on the ground (however formulated) that he is suffering from mental illness".
  My amendment seeks to delete the words "however formulated". It struck me that it is a very wide definition. I am fairly confident that the Minister will be able to reassure me that that is a mechanism for enabling disqualification for mental illness to be derived from a number of different health Acts or representation of the people Acts which may have different definitions and different criteria. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: I have nothing to say on this amendment except that it seems to be quite a reasonable one. I rise because my Amendment No. 11 has been grouped with Amendment No. 10. I am not happy about that and I wish to indicate that I want to decouple my amendment from Amendment No. 10.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for clarifying that point, but I had assumed that that would be the case.
  I wish to assure the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that he has the answer to his amendment. It is a drafting point. We intend the disqualification to catch all those who may in various ways possibly be detained on grounds of mental illness. It covers a whole range because the question can cover many legislative processes. We think that the alternative formulation may lead to uncertainties which we so very much wish to

  1319
  avoid. The provision is drafted in this way because of the range of legislation which the schedule needs to cover. I hope that clarifies that the noble Lord was right in the first place.
  Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for that very reassuring answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8 p.m.
  Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 11:
  11 Page 6, line 22, leave out from ("person") to end of line 23
  The noble Lord said: A few moments ago I opposed Amendment No. 9 moved from the Liberal Democrat Benches because I had interpreted it as giving too much power to party bosses at the expense of the individual voter. It seems that I misinterpreted the purposes of the amendment and for that I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Holme. However, the words that this amendment seeks to delete decidedly give too much power to party bosses at the expense not of individual voters but this time at the expense of individual delegates. Apart from anything else, it may well have undemocratic consequences.
  Perhaps I may explain. I must tread carefully, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has re-entered the Chamber, and I am very glad that he has done so. I am not in full possession of the facts, but I was told only yesterday—I have not had a chance to go into the matter in great depth—that at the time of the Hume-Adams negotiations rather more than three years ago, the—how shall I put it?—less green members of the SDLP, Dr. Joe Hendron and Mr. Seamus Mallon, had reached a surprising degree of agreement with the moderate unionists. But that agreement was vetoed by the SDLP leader, Mr. John Hume, even though it is possible—and one cannot be certain—that the views of Mr. Mallon and Dr. Hendron at that time represented the views of the majority of the SDLP members.
  Another way of looking at it is this: if elections to the Westminster Parliament were governed by the same rules as this Bill provides, neither the honourable Member for Stratford-Upon-Avon, Mr. Alan Howarth nor the honourable Member for West Devon, Emma Nicholson, would still be in the House of Commons. There could be no by-elections to fill their places and both would have had to resign. That shows up the rather extreme nature of the way in which this part of the Bill is drafted. I beg to move.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for explaining the purpose of his amendment and for the example he gave to prove, in his view, that this is not the right way to proceed. I remind the noble Lord that this is an election of parties and not of individuals. The rules that he associates with individuals do not necessarily apply in this instance. It does not seem unreasonable that someone who has sought to be elected under a party banner should be aware of the consequences of acting in a manner which is perceived to threaten party discipline. When electing
  1320
  a party voters should have the right to expect the views for which they voted to be represented on their behalf. If a candidate from a party list decided unilaterally that he or she would not, after all, follow the views of the people who elected him or her, it seems only right and proper that the nominating representative should retain the ability to remove that individual from the party's list of delegates.
  I am sure that your Lordships would have some sympathy for the party leaders who found, to their dismay, that the candidates they chose decided unilaterally to adopt a point of view at odds with the rest of the party. It is not a view that can be unknown in many places. We do not envisage that there will ever be a need for nominating representatives to exercise this right, but we believe it is right that it should be there in the Bill. I hope that, with that explanation the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Monson: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the reasoning behind the rather unique formula contained in the Bill. I am partly convinced, but not wholly so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 12:
  12 Page 6, leave out lines 37 and 38
  The noble Lord said: This is my final probing amendment. It is to remove paragraph 20 from Schedule 1. That states,
  "Where a party ceases to exist, any persons on its lists who are delegates or members of a team nominated under section 2(2) or (4) shall cease to be so".
  That sounds fairly logical except when one asks how to define, "party ceases to exist". One of the difficulties of this sort of ad hoc legislative situation is that we are basing a whole edifice on parties, elections to parties, taking negotiating teams from parties and all the rest of it. But we have no basis of definitions or structures nor the legal framework as to how a party starts or what its entity is during its lifetime. We do not know how its members are related to each other. How does one define when a party dies? It is one of those curious anomalies. I do not know whether the Minister has an answer or whether the parliamentary draftsman threw this in as a sort of longstop in case it was needed. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: I once again find myself in some sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. He may be interested to know that this amendment is identical to one tabled in another place by the honourable Member for North Down, Robert McCartney. I am sure he will agree that he finds himself in good company. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: This is a unique system. There were many amendments in another place and there are quite a few here. I doubt whether the noble Lord's amendment is compatible with the concept of the party list system of election. That is what we have brought forward and what the Bill is about. The voters will have made a choice for a party. If it ceases to exist

  1321
  I believe it is wholly appropriate that those elected as its delegates cease to play a part in the negotiations and the forum. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Monkswell: I find that response not entirely satisfactory. My own understanding and the explanations given during the Second Reading debate by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and my noble friend Lord Fitt about how the previous assemblies worked, give me some confidence that perhaps the Government have got it right, but I am not sure. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, can contribute?
  Lord Fitt: I feel compelled to support the noble Lord on this matter. It goes back again to my questioning of the list system. I am only taking what I say from Hansard and what the Secretary of State said and what the noble Baroness has said here. The Secretary of State called for parties to fight the election for the forum. He received letters and representations were made by certain parties saying "We are a political party". Many of them no one had ever heard of. I am certain that the noble Baroness did not refer to it in her Second Reading speech, but I have serious doubts about the Women's Co-Operation Party, or something like that. That would certainly cause problems in Northern Ireland.
  On what basis did the Secretary of State and his officials in the Northern Ireland Office accept the bona fides that these were actually parties? If we knew that then we would know what criteria were used to accept them and what criteria were going to be used to reject them.
  There was the case in Northern Ireland of the now deceased Jim Kilfedder who was the MP for North Down for many years. He had his disagreements with the Official Unionist Party. He then left that party and for about three or four weeks he called himself the Progressive Unionist Party in North Down, which he represented. Then someone said, "There is already a Progressive Unionist Party on the Shankill Road". So there was a quick turnabout and he then called himself the Popular Unionist Party in North Down. So it became known as the Popular Unionist Party in North Down. Subsequently, local elections took place and two of Jim Kilfedder's friends fought the election on a Popular Unionist Party ticket. They were elected. When Jim Kilfedder died he took his party with him. However, there are still two Popular Unionist Party members sitting on Bangor or Newtonards Borough Council. How can the Secretary of State say that that party no longer exists when there are two members of the Popular Unionist Party nominated by Jim Kilfedder? I believe that some kind of understandable criterion should be used.
  I know that the noble Baroness cannot answer all the questions that are posed here today. However, how did the Secretary of State accept all those parties in the first place? If somebody can say how he accepted them, we may know how to reject them.
  Lord Monkswell: The contribution of my noble friend Lord Fitt is revealing. It raises some of the difficulties that the Secretary of State will no doubt face,
  1322
  on the basis that some people may be elected against one of the parties listed in the Bill, turn up, but make virtually no contribution to any discussion or negotiations. They will simply take advantage of the allowances, the free telephones that have been mentioned and various other matters. It is quite reasonable that the Secretary of State should have power to say to such a person that he believes that the party has ceased to exist and therefore he will not receive his allowances, and so forth. On the basis of that understanding as to the way it may work, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.15 p.m.
  Lord McConnell Lord McConnell moved Amendment No. 13:
  13 Page 6, leave out line 42
  The noble Lord said: I can best illustrate the purpose of the amendment by referring to an experience suffered by the Liberal Democratic Party. In an election a candidate called himself a literal democrat and succeeded in splitting the vote. In the list of parties a new creature called the British Ulster Unionist Party has sprung up. That is second on the list. The normal Ulster Unionist Party is near the bottom of the list. The purpose of the amendment is to omit reference to "British Ulster Unionist Party". I submit that it is just put in as a method of splitting the proper Unionist vote. It copies Mr. Literal Democrat, who did the same thing to our friends in the other place. I beg to move.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: As a member of the Front Bench of a party that has one less MEP than it should have, I feel bound to support the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment.
  Lord Monson: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, has made out a powerful case for some alteration. The trouble is that if his amendment is accepted as it stands it would mean that the individuals who wish to stand as British Ulster Unionists would be disfranchised. As I understand the rather peculiar rules that govern all the stages of a Bill being taken on the same day, theoretically the noble Lord is entitled to table a manuscript amendment at Report stage. If that is so, I suggest that a possible remedy for the almost certain deception which he fears is that the word "Independent" should be inserted either before or after the word "British". That would get round all of the problems, while not disfranchising individuals who wished to stand under this party banner.
  Lord Fitt: It is quite possible that on nomination day all of the names that I have read out this afternoon will disappear. They will probably have sobered up in the meantime and will not be putting in nomination papers. Referring to the case put by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, if nobody turns up to put in a nomination paper under the heading British Ulster Unionist party it will perhaps avoid that particular difficulty. It would then become the Ulster Unionist Party. One would simply be doing away with the British

  1323
  Ulster Unionist Party, which does not exist now and will hardly exist on nomination day. It is almost certain that on nomination day half or perhaps three-quarters of those parties mentioned today will no longer exist.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for explaining the reason for moving this amendment. It seeks to remove from the schedule of participating parties one of those parties which seeks inclusion in the elective process.
  There may be a perception among noble Lords that people who wish to join the political process and who have not participated in the political process before, or who have participated in earlier days and have been away from it for some time, may now wish to return. I believe it is wrong to assume that some of those people do not have a serious wish to take part in shaping the future of Northern Ireland. We have always sought an inclusive process in this election. The party concerned responded to the consultation paper sent out by my right honourable friend on 1st April within the timescale set out in that paper. Therefore, there are no grounds to seek the removal of that party's name from the schedule. I believe that it would be contrary to our desire for an inclusive process to do so. Should no one materialise on the day, obviously it would be impossible—even in Northern Ireland—to vote for no one. But I believe that, if new people wish to participate in the political process of shaping the future, that is something the Government wish to see. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment having heard the reason why it is not possible for the Government to accept it.
  Lord Monson: I have no idea what the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, wishes to do. I ask the noble Baroness whether it is theoretically possible to table a manuscript amendment at the next stage, should the noble Lord wish to do so. If so, is it possible to insert the word "Independent" without the consent of the leaders, such as they are, of the party concerned? That may not be possible, in which case there is no point in trying to table such an amendment.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: It is possible to table a manuscript amendment at Report stage. The party is nominated with its title, and that is the title of the party. I should have to consult on whether or not that was possible. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, would receive advice as to that.
  Lord McConnell: If I were to do that, would the Minister accept an amendment to the effect that the word "Independent" should be included?
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: As the Member on the Front Bench on this occasion, if an amendment brought forward at Report stage were acceptable from the point of view of drafting—
  Baroness Seear: Surely, the only way to deal with this matter is to move that the whole name of the party should be removed. We cannot interfere with the name
  1324
  that the party has given itself. We can move that that party be eliminated from the list, but we cannot play around with the name that the party has chosen to have.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Baroness who has just spoken is right; otherwise, it is possible for me to put down a manuscript amendment in respect of any of these parties that inserts the word "obnoxious" or indeed "admirable". It simply is not suitable.
  Lord Monkswell: Curiously, we can do this.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: No.
  Lord Monkswell: We are referring here to a list of names which has at the top the heading "The Parties". We have before us a public Bill. We in Parliament can change any of the words of that Bill however we like. We do not have any prior legislation that defines a party and the legitimacy of a party name being sacrosanct. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is entirely in order. It is possible for us to do it. That should be the logical reason why the Government should resist the amendment. We must accept that, were we to do such a thing, it would be in order.
  I wonder whether I might ask the Minister a technical question about the consultation process relating to the advice of the Secretary of State with regard to parties within Northern Ireland. Would I be right in thinking that only one signature was required on the response? Presumably there was a standard form: "This is the name of the party. This is the address of the party. I am a responsible officer of the party", and then a signature. Or was more than one signature required, or no signature at all? If we had that information, we might be able to move forward more quickly.
  Obviously, if two or three signatures were required, that would suggest that the party was bona fide even though it might be small. If only one signature was required, that would suggest that an individual could have described himself as a party, filled in the form and sent it back. That would alter the Committee's view about the legislation, and its integrity or otherwise.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: We seem to be dealing with difficulties which are more perceived than real. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The party about which we are talking has its own name which it is not for this place to amend. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, it is possible for the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, to bring forward a manuscript amendment on Report. However, I suggest, as I did earlier, that he take advice on the formulation of an amendment which will achieve what he wishes. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that the party has a serious intention of participating in the Northern Ireland political scene. The Government accept that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord McConnell: In view of the speed with which these proceedings are going through this place, there is little time for me or anyone else to seek advice before

  1325
  the next stage which will be in a few minutes' time. I am left with no alternative but to withdraw the amendment, particularly at this late hour.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule I agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [The forum]:
  Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 14:

  Schedule 2
  14 Page 7, line 37, after ("time") insert ("and place")
  The noble Lord said: I trust that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 15 and manuscript Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, may find it inappropriate for there to be amendments to the Bill today. I suspect that he finds manuscript amendments even more inappropriate. That is one of the reasons why I am wrapping them altogether. Be that as it may, I have to disagree with him. It is the duty of Members of this place to probe the Government, and to do all in their power to guard against the dangers that they see in their proposed legislative action.
  I turn now to the amendments. It is clear from Schedule 2 that meetings of the forum will be at a time to be decided by the Secretary of State. However, we know little about the place. My amendments are designed, first, to probe where that place might be. It must be somewhere big enough to hold the delegates, the public and the press, because we have heard that this is a widely representative body. I should be unhappy about Castle Buildings or the Parliament Buildings at Stormont. They are not merely too small; they have unhappy memories for many of the people of Northern Ireland. It is also likely that the forum will want to move from place to place to disseminate the negotiating body's views to the widest possible audience. Indeed, we had intimations of that earlier today. It may also wish to have sub-committees meeting in various parts of the Province.
  It is clear that the Secretary of State will have to provide those venues in the same way as he provides the staff and other facilities. It is equally clear that the members of the forum will have ideas of their own about where they wish to meet. So Amendment No. 15 provides for agreement between the forum and the Secretary of State as to where that should be.
  In his role as facilitator, the Secretary of State should bend over backwards to accede to the wishes of the chairman of the forum in that respect. If I can persuade my noble friend to give a commitment that that will happen, I shall not need to pursue any of these amendments. I do not have to remind the Committee that although we all hope that meetings of the forum will be held in safe and secure surroundings, we must guard against the opposite. It is not unknown for meetings in Northern Ireland to have to be moved at short notice. They are cancelled only as a last resort.
  I thought originally that there was a lacuna in the Bill, and that the Secretary of State was not empowered to choose the place of the meetings. However, it was pointed out to me that the last paragraph of Schedule 2 did just what I feared it did not; namely, allow the Secretary of
  1326
  State to provide the place or places. However, nowhere in the schedule does it say that he must consult the chairman of the forum. It is that assurance that I am seeking from my noble friend. I beg to move.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward these amendments. We are at one with the spirit of them. We agree that the place where the forum meets should not be fixed once and for all. But, as my noble friend has identified, paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 provides for that situation. It clearly gives authority for the forum's main base to move.
  As was made clear by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place, final decisions are still to be reached on where that base should be. Because of the unfortunate fire in Parliament Buildings they are not a possibility. Castle Buildings in Belfast is a strong contender, but the Secretary of State has undertaken that there will be consultation.
  The Secretary of State indicated also that he was ready to contemplate the possibility of the forum, or, perhaps more probably, its committees, venturing away from that base; for example, to conduct hearings. It would be his duty to see that premises were provided elsewhere.
  Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 would delete references to the Secretary of State providing the facilities, but we believe it appropriate that the responsibility should rest with him. There is a question of accountability for resources here, which I am sure my noble friend well understands. I repeat that we shall consult fully on these matters. I hope that that reassures my noble friend about the concerns that his amendments raise.
  Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to my noble friend. At this late hour I shall not argue with her about what my final manuscript amendment means, but I am afraid that she and her advisers have it slightly wrong, because the Secretary of State would continue to have the authority to provide and pay for all those things that she has just described. Be that as it may, I am grateful for the assurance on consultation for which I asked. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 16:
  16 Page 8, line 27, leave out ("75 per cent. of those voting") and insert ("80 per cent. of those voting or 80 representatives, whichever is the lower")
  The noble Lord said: In view of the lateness of the hour I shall be brief, but this is an important point. The memorandum circulated by the Government on 21st March in association with the Prime Minister's Statement in the other place stated that decision-making in
  "the Forum will be required to proceed by broad consensus".
  It is commonly accepted by Members of this place, most commentators, and certainly most unionist politicians that there can be no return to majority rule.

  1327
  The ground rules for the all-party negotiations provide for decision making on the grounds of consensus:
  "Unanimity [will be] within minimal limits and will, in all cases, ensure that any decision taken will be supported by a clear majority in both the Unionist and Nationalist communities in Northern Ireland".
  Surely that reason should apply a fortiori in the forum. In a nutshell, the problem is that the forum will reflect the status of the parties. We must assume that the majority, as has been the case for a long time in Northern Ireland, will tend to belong to the unionist community and the minority to the nationalist community. In the case of this body, that would be somewhat compounded by the additional 20 seats for the 10 largest parties of which only two can properly be described as nationalist. Therefore, the proportion of seats gained by the SDLP and Sinn Fein will fall somewhere short of the proportion of the electorate who vote for them. We could have a situation where 30 per cent. or less of the seats in the forum go to nationalist parties.
  If Sinn Fein boycotts, as at present seems likely, or walks out of the forum, is it not possible that the SDLP will have too few seats as enunciated in the Bill at present to form the sort of blocking minority which is essential to maintain the consensus between the two communities? Therefore, although this may seem a rather narrow matter of marginal adjustment of numbers, it bears on the whole essential basis of progress in Northern Ireland, for which the forum surely must be symbolic, that the two communities themselves must be in a state of consensual agreement on something as important as the election of the chairman. I believe that it is an important concern if the process is to commend itself to the Government of Ireland and to the nationalist community. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the amendment when she replies. I beg to move.
  8.30 p.m.
  Lord Skelmersdale: If we were talking about any more than a deliberative body, I would be forced to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme. However, looking at paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, it is clear that what we are talking about is either,
  "the election or removal of a chairman or the adoption or alteration of rules of procedure".
  We are not actually talking about any substantive discussions which may or may not lead to a vote. If we were talking about that, then, yes, I would most certainly agree with the noble Lord.
  Lord Fitt: We have been told both here and in the other place that the forum will be a gathering of people which is predestined to bring about a sort of consensus. I did not interrupt the Minister earlier when she was being very laudatory about the forum in Dublin. Any attempt to equate that forum in Dublin and the one in Northern Ireland is totally innocuous. I say that because the Dublin forum was not elected; its members were appointed. It was a nationalist forum because very few
  1328
  unionists attended and they did not have votes. However, when they eventually came to a conclusion, Sinn Fein was unable to agree in that atmosphere.
  As regard the situation just outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, it is highly likely that Sinn Fein will not attend the forum. In fact, I believe that the bomb under Hammersmith Bridge will determine that it will not be there. Again, that may bring about a situation where the SDLP may also not be present. Indeed, we may have a re-run of the 1982 rolling assembly of Jim Prior when Sinn Finn was first elected in the aftermath of the death of the 10 hunger strikers. Sinn Fein said then, "We are not going there", and, then, the SDLP said the same.
  It is possible, should Sinn Fein determine not to go, that the SDLP may not feel inclined to do so on its own. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme. It is only right that some criteria should be brought about to ensure that the deliberations of the forum are truly representative of a body that is determined to bring about consensus in Northern Ireland.
  Lord Monkswell: This is probably the last debate in today's deliberations. I must admit that I am rather concerned about the tenor of it in the sense that the formulation of the amendment seems to pre-suppose that there will be an antagonism between the unionists and the republican communities in Northern Ireland for ever and ever, and that we must find some mechanism to ensure that the majority does not oppress the minority. Surely we should be aiming our sights a little higher. If that is the basis on which the last debate on this Bill is conducted, I really despair.
  When she responds to the amendment, I hope that the Minister will be able to engender some hope, enthusiasm and belief that the situation that has pertained in Northern Ireland—namely, the schism between the two groups in the community—should be ended. It is to be hoped that we can build a better future where everyone, not just within Northern Ireland but also those living north and south of the border and in Ireland and Great Britain, can live in peace together and work together to secure a better future for all of us.
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord for explaining the amendment. I also thank other noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. We are talking about a matter of considerable importance in the Bill. Indeed, the arrangements were extensively debated in another place. I believe that the Bill, especially as amended in the other place, represents a proper balance in a very sensitive area. Perhaps I may explain why.
  The amendment would substitute a threshold of the lower of 80 per cent., or 80 members. Eighty members would equate to a little under 73 per cent. if all 110 voted, but the smaller numbers would quickly become a higher threshold than the Bill at present requires. Of course, we hope that people will participate, but the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is right to say that we must always recognise the fact that that is their choice, not our rule.
  We have said that we see the forum operating by broad consensus. That was made very clear in the debates in another place. It is particularly crucial as

  1329
  respects the rules of procedure. The voting threshold set in the Bill is important here. A numerical threshold cannot of itself, however, be a guarantee of such broad consensus in all circumstances unless it is set at a very high level. In that case a reasonable measure of consensus across representatives of the two communities might fail to meet the threshold. We have to legislate for realism.
  Because such a numerical threshold is not a guarantee of broad consensus we have added other safeguards. The Secretary of State must, under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2, approve rules of procedure that the forum puts forward. By an amendment put forward in another place by the Official Opposition, which became paragraph 3(4) of the schedule, in exercising his function of approving such rules as well as putting forward the set by which the forum is to operate at the start, the Secretary of State is required to make every effort to secure that the rules facilitate the promotion of dialogue, understanding and consensus across the communities in Northern Ireland.
  I hope that that explanation illustrates to the noble Lord that we are not unaware of the difficulties in this area. We have tried to take every possible means to ensure that the forum will operate to the benefit of all. I cannot agree with my noble friend that it is not important, because the election of the chairman is important. As the provisions were amended in another place, I do not believe, with enormous respect, that the noble Lord's amendment would necessarily be an improvement.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his qualified support. I agree with the noble Baroness. In a closely contested and potentially difficult atmosphere the appointment of a chairman is really quite important. As one very often finds in all sorts of spheres—not just in Northern Ireland—it is potentially significant. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who is a voice for what is the minority community in Northern Ireland, which will be particularly sensitive to the need to get the consensus to which the noble Baroness referred. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, of course all of us want a Northern Ireland in which there is no antagonism, but we would not be here and we would not be spending this time and taking this care if there were not antagonism there. There is antagonism; there is a history of antagonism. That is what we all have to deal with as intelligently as we can.
  I shall withdraw the amendment in a moment. I know that the Government are sensitive to what I have been talking about. They will have to be— will have to continue to be so all the way through this process on this particular point. For the nationalist community, North and South, it is of desperate importance that the balance should be right. Before I withdraw the amendment, as the Report stage may prove to be relatively short and formal, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness very much for her care and courtesy throughout the past five hours. It is always a pleasure to be working with her and never more so than today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
  House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
  Bill read a third time, and passed.

Anglo Caribbean Relations
8.44 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present state of their relations with the countries of the Caribbean.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I begin this debate by offering my very warm thanks to my noble friend Lady Chalker for coming here this evening and agreeing to reply to the debate. May I say, too, that there is one person on this occasion whom we shall all miss, and that is the late Lord Pitt, who was such an authority on the Caribbean.
There is always a danger that the Caribbean will be forgotten in the midst of huge world problems. Indeed, I fear that there are some in Whitehall who regard Britain's involvement in the Caribbean as a matter of diminishing importance. I do not believe this is the case, and I feel sure that my noble friend Baroness Chalker shares this view. After all, the islands were once called "the jewel in the crown". The Caribbean has a population of 35 million. British exports amount to £1 billion per year. British investments total at least £12 billion per year. There are five dependent territories. There is great concern about drug trafficking and money laundering. There is the role of the Commonwealth in much of the region. There is the slow emergence of a significant new economic opportunity in Cuba and, of course, there are a substantial number of people of Caribbean descent living in this country.
Finally, I am bound to say from my own experience in government that it is the problems of small states, particularly islands, which, if not addressed, come back to haunt governments. I think of the Falklands conflict, I think of Grenada and, more recently I think of Montserrat.
This evening I should like to touch upon two issues which illustrate those problems. The first is trade and the second is Cuba. The Caribbean is no stranger to trade wars. Much of its history has been dominated by battles for supremacy between European countries or between Europe and the United States.
We find today that the prospect of a serious confrontation between the European Union and the United States is looming in respect of the Caribbean over the issue of bananas. Those of us who know this part of the world know that bananas are vital to the economies of the small Caribbean states.
The fact is that Caribbean bananas make up 5 per cent. of the European market and it seems contrary to the interests of all that there should be a dispute over this percentage. The latest development in the seemingly endless dispute is that the United States is likely to

1331
demand a full GATT panel under World Trade Organisations rules to challenge the EU's 1993 single European regime for bananas. Any decision reached will be by majority vote and will be mandatory. At the heart of the argument are major US corporations which trade the bananas of the appellants, Ecuador, Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras, plus Costa Rica.
For the Caribbean banana producers, this is the worst of all possible worlds. It raises serious questions about what the Eastern Caribbean in particular may expect in the future. If the United States and some European states appear determined to end prematurely the small advantages these islands have in the European market, what hope have they of negotiating transitional arrangements in the proposed free trade area of the Americas or when Lomé IV ends?
Some years ago, that very remarkable Prime Minister of Dominica, Dame Eugenia Charles, was reported to have asked Sir Leon Brittan, then the EC External Trade Commissioner, and Mr. Peter Sutherland, then the GATT Director General, why they were trying to destroy her country. "If we cannot export bananas", she is alleged to have told them, "then we will export drugs". Both were said to have been quite shocked by her directness.
It takes little imagination to see that, without bananas and until tourism is properly integrated with agriculture, the obvious alternative cash crop is marijuana, soon followed by the trans-shipment of hard drugs. Experience has shown that this is usually followed by a rise in local crime as those involved are paid off in narcotics. This of course leads to the general disintegration and total destabilisation of the country as a whole.
I find it quite extraordinary that some member states of the EU and the US are not prepared to recognise this. It will be one of the direct consequences of their present approach to the banana and other problems in the Caribbean. It is odder still as France, Britain and other European nations have responded positively to requests from the US to develop closer co-operation in the Caribbean on narcotics interdiction and money laundering. These are all issues which, I am pleased to say, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was able to raise during his recent visit to the Caribbean and Latin America.
Just to underline that particular point, only yesterday I received a letter from Mr. Myers on behalf of the Caribbean Banana Exporters Association and I should like to read briefly two paragraphs from it. He says:
"As you may know, on 24 April, the day preceding your question, the USA and its co-complainants will be asking the Disputes Settlement Board at Geneva to appoint a panel into their complaint against the EU banana regime. Even if this request is successfully opposed on that day, they will obtain a panel, as of right, at the second time of asking, probably in early May.
You may not be aware, however, of the breach of faith involved in this request. The then USTR, Mickey Kantor, in response to pressure from Congressional members of the Black Caucus and pressure from the Caribbean embassies in Washington, offered to hold informal talks with all interested parties to see if an amicable solution could be found. He said that so long as those talks
1332
continued, the US would not request a panel, provided that the EU participated and a schedule of meetings was established and progress made.
In the event these talks were held, at Kantor's insistence, on 9 April in Miami. All interested parties attended, including the EU. There was a very good exchange on the problems, but when the complainants were invited to suggest possible changes to meet their concerns, they refused to do so. They simply announced that they would be requesting a panel. It later transpired that this had been their intention all along, in order to meet the deadline for requests to be tabled for the April meeting of the Disputes Board".
That is a very dispiriting saga.
If, under US pressure, the European banana regime collapses precipitately and fully reciprocal trade is forced on small and fragile economies, then the cost to the Caribbean, to the US and to Europe will be far greater than US officials, allowing policy to be driven by banana multinationals in an election year, can imagine. Small gains in a trade war might seem attractive in the short term, but free trade at any price in these particular circumstances cannot be right.
I turn now to the whole question of open markets. That issue is one of the most taxing problems facing those at the European Commission, the WTO and the US Administration—how to design policies which recognise the difficulties that free trade will cause for some of the world's smallest states.
Different institutions have taken different approaches but in general terms, the debate in Brussels, Geneva and Washington centres on how and when full trade reciprocity can be achieved in any new European, Caribbean or hemispheric trade arrangement. In other words, how can all barriers and tariffs that currently regulate and restrict trade between larger and smaller and richer and poorer nations be removed?
In the case of Brazil or Chile or even Jamaica or Trinidad, those questions are complex but can be resolved through technical concepts known as phasing or variable geometry that recognise that small Caribbean nations in particular need different treatment from those of South America. But even those ideas cannot deal with the fundamental problem of whether small nations in the Eastern Caribbean, like Dominica, can ever have the ability to compete and survive in a fully free trade environment.
I turn now to Cuba. That is a country in which I have taken a special and continuing interest and it is a country which I hope very much that I shall be able to visit again later this year. In March, President Clinton signed legislation that seeks to create a secondary boycott on third nations that trade legally with Cuba. That legislation—Helms/Burton—seeks to impose US law on British and other companies and individuals investing in or trading with Cuba through creating wholly new offences recognised only in US law. It attempts to do so through the denial of visas, through information gathering on the activities of UK companies operating in Cuba and through other actions that are contrary to international law. The Bill, which is extra-territorial in effect, sets a dangerous precedent for similar actions in future by the United States and other parts of the world.
I am aware that Her Majesty's Government are engaged bilaterally and with our partners in the EU and with the NAFTA partners to attempt to have the United

1333
States Administration exercise what little room it has for discretion in this matter. But last Monday I held a meeting of the steering group for the Cuba initiative. Our two-hour meeting, which brought together officials and senior company representatives involved in Cuba, concentrated solely on the threat posed by the Helms/Burton legislation to British interests and the nature of the British Government's response.
By the end of the meeting, it is fair to say that almost all the companies present remained concerned that the British Government were still not making known their concerns to the US in a public and robust way. I am sorry to say that members were left with a number of questions to which there are still no answers. It would be helpful to be quite clear which Minister at the DTI is responsible for co-ordinating the political response and what public steps, apart from engaging in quiet diplomacy by officials, Ministers are proposing to take to make known to the US Administration Britain's very real concerns.
I do not believe that it is enough to suggest that, because companies have invested in Cuba and in the US, they must choose which investment is more important because US law suggests that. As was made clear to officials, prosecution for alleged traffic and/or visa denial under that law goes well beyond the hundreds of millions of dollars which companies stand to lose. For example, it will challenge British companies' ability to continue to participate in eastern Europe reconstruction or their ability to maintain significant influence in global commodity markets. In short, there are serious political ramifications which should be of much greater concern than they are. British business deserves to see the strongest possible political response.
Before concluding, I should like to touch briefly on two points. The first is the debate beginning in Brussels within the European Commission about what will follow Lomé IV. It is clear already that member states and the Commission are developing radically new ideas based on special support for particular ACP regions such as the Caribbean on advanced forms of partnership and in all probability, the attenuation of most preferences once Lomé IV expires.
I should like to mention also the increasing importance that the British private sector is placing on developing with the ODA partnership schemes in the Caribbean region. The particularly difficult situation that has arisen in Montserrat as a result of the volcanic activity offers companies with a long-term interest in the Caribbean and the British Government the opportunity to develop creative new ideas aimed at assisting the reconstruction of the island.
There are other issues which time does not allow me to discuss this evening. I conclude by saying again how grateful I am to my noble friend for coming here this evening to respond to the debate. I have introduced it because I still believe that Britain has a great interest in the Caribbean and whose interests should not be forgotten in the course of everything else.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Glenconner: My Lords, I thank heartily the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and congratulate her on
1334
her fine sense of timing in calling this debate. Not having the width of the noble Baroness's knowledge, I can speak only about those small territories in the eastern Caribbean—the Windward Islands. I begin by reminding your Lordships of some of the more pleasing aspects of that relationship. Those small, sturdy, sunny island nations have long remained loyal, courteous, cheerful and optimistic. Everyone will agree that to meet and do business with them is always a pleasure. If they have a fault, I think they are too trusting and too reliant on those very agreeable characteristics. In the changing and chilling economic situation in the world, they have found themselves confronted by people who do not share that nature and who are ready to take advantage of them.
Such a meeting, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned, took place in Miami on 9th April this year. Miami is a beautiful city and full of excellent qualities, but it is also subject to vice and scams. I do not know whether the West Indian delegates were wise to venture there, although they would have appreciated the warm climate and their hotel rooms. What came as a rude shock to them was that at the meeting—which had been convened by a US trade representative and was chaired by a US trade representative—they were immediately asked what suggestions they had to alter the preferential system that presently protects them. Of course they had no such suggestions to make. They were then told, "As you have no suggestions to make, there is nothing further to be said and we shall apply immediately to the WTO in Geneva for a panel." That, we believe, took place yesterday.
The Americans have been successful in downsizing their economy. I suppose, like many people, they want everyone else to share that experience; so downsizing it is to be. However, when the blanket shrinks and father says, "Turn" and we all turn but the blanket is smaller the little ones get left out and are not so much downsized as downcast and, ultimately, down and out. The consequences are alarming. The Americans were able, in the process of downsizing, to find 8 million jobs but no one will find a job for anyone in the West Indies when they are downsized because there are for them no alternatives.
Arising out of that is the whole question of drugs. Everyone is aware that the Caribbean is awash with drugs. However, I am pleased to tell your Lordships that the vast majority of people, certainly in the Windward Islands, are sensible about drugs. There are two streams of drugs. There are the international drugs which pass through and of which few people are aware, and where the Americans can be of help with the DEA, and there are the local drugs which are mostly in the hands of the riff and the raff. Most people are not affected by those either. However, that would not be the case if their main livelihood was denied them.
A local policeman of my acquaintance owns a share in a motorised canoe. This is a typical story. He went out to sea with others and they came upon many floating packages. They brought them back to shore and of course they contained millions of dollars worth of crack. I believe that the policeman showed a great deal of constraint. He told me that he only took 100,000 dollars

1335
worth. When I asked him why he had only taken that amount, he said it was because he was a policeman. He realised that he should only take the amount that he believed was due to him. Although he could have taken much more, he did not. I believe there is still an attitude of some responsibility which would disappear completely if there was no alternative livelihood for the people there.
The only alternatives that are practical at this stage will come as a result of education because the higher the level of education that the youth there can attain, the less likely they are to be vulnerable to the drugs trade. It is difficult to achieve educational goals among a population many of whom are still illiterate. It occurred to me that an avenue worth following might be to provide education through videos because people who cannot read or write cannot be taught from books. That is relevant to adult education. One must remember that it is the mothers in the West Indies who educate.
The public libraries throughout the Caribbean have been of great assistance in the past but I wonder whether they could also provide videos. People will watch a video. A tremendous amount of work needs to be done to educate the older people, and consequently the younger people, not only as regards reading and writing but in educating them about the different forms of tourist activity and hospitality they can offer. One should remember that tourism will not replace the banana trade. The only people who really benefit from tourists are those who are young and attractive with a good set of teeth; they can smile at the tourists. The older people will merely be fodder for the tourists' cameras, as will the small children. They will not benefit substantially from the tourist business.
It is all very well to say, "We'll rely on tourism". Tourism will not reach the people in the valleys and the hills and those who sell bananas every week. It will not reach those who cannot grow products to be sold outside the country.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I urge Her Majesty's Government to do whatever they can to delay or to postpone this threat from America. Governments in the Caribbean have recently invested £20 million of their precious money in the distribution of bananas to England. If those people have until the year 2002, I believe they will survive and, with Her Majesty's Government's help, which has been much appreciated and for which they are very grateful, I believe that that survival can be achieved.
9.8 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, how sad it is that Lord Pitt is not with us this evening. He would be the first to acknowledge, however, that the mantle of the Caribbean, with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, could not be in safer hands.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister might be encouraged to consider another Peer with Caribbean antecedents, and the stature and commitment of Lord Pitt, joining us. I also ask the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to make certain that Lady Pitt receives a copy of Hansard on this debate.
1336
The other regret I have is that this Question is being asked in this Chamber. It is the American political scene, in failing to understand the issues of the Caribbean even though next door neighbours, with whom we should be debating. Cuba—the noble Baroness rightly addressed the issue—is a case in point. Why cannot the United States even listen to its NAFTA partners? Canada has taken a strong and principled stance against the extra-territorial provisions of the Helms-Burton Bill. I understand that there is taking place in Washington today NAFTA consultations on its implementation. Although speaking for myself, I believe that all those who have supported the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, on his various Questions on Cuba, would appreciate the Minister writing to tell us more about today's meeting if she feels able.
The Caribbean is facing a precarious future. For example, debt burden is the pressing need of the developing world, but the gravity is as well illustrated in the Caribbean as elsewhere. Overall debt in the anglophone Caribbean stands at 10 billion US dollars. Jamaica owes 4 billion dollars, with Guyana and Trinidad owing 2 billion dollars each. A staggering 70 per cent. of government revenues in Guyana is currently required to service repayments—a seemingly bottomless pit of despair.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stressed the need for the debt quagmire to be turned from talk into action. Mere rescheduling is not a solution but a postponement of the critical problem. The Naples criteria highlighted the problem of multilateral debt; and what can and must be done with the multilateral agencies.
The IMF and the World Bank have the resources. Their constitutions should be changed and those bodies instructed to use those resources. However, relief should come only with structural adjustment conditionality. Can the Minister give us the latest news from the finance ministers meeting in Washington? For example, what will be the criteria for the selection of candidates; and which countries will be eligible from the Caribbean? It would be useful to hear something about those matters this evening although I do not wish to usurp the Question on these matters by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, which is set down for next week.
Sustainable solutions will come only from economic development by competing. But competitiveness thrives only on a level playing field. The bedrock of future regional economic prosperity is tourism, data and financial services, with agricultural diversification. The Caribbean wants to, and eventually must, diversify. But despite best efforts there are as yet no products which have been found to provide the level of income and employment needed to sustain further economic development.
The governments of the Caribbean have been implementing, short, medium and long-term socio-economic development programmes based on the reasonable assumption that their exports, and the revenue and jobs derived, would have access to the European market and preferential access through the Lomé Convention until at least 2002.

1337
It is unfortunate that the United States is prepared to place the economies of the Caribbean in jeopardy just to satisfy the market ambitions of one of its companies, albeit a politically powerful one—Chiquita. I wish to add my voice to the powerful arguments put by the noble Baroness. It is determined to undermine the Lomé Convention, after which the United States then expects the European Union to pick up the aid tab that is the result of its cavalier approach. No bananas are grown by Chiquita within the United States. Chiquita offers no trade benefits to the United States, and does not protect one job.
Sir Leon Brittan, our Commissioner in Brussels, has stood firm in the past. The United States should reconsider and withdraw its proposal for a WTO panel to undertake a judicial review of the regime. I note that the Commission refused the request yesterday, but the next meeting of the Disputes Settlement Body will be on 8th May, and without doubt it will consider the request at that time. An affirmation this evening of continued support by the Government would be helpful. I hope the Minister will feel able to give such an affirmation.
The United States might do well to remember that it they constantly warn the Caribbean to toe the line on international issues and support it in voting strategy at the United Nations. I sometimes wonder whether a development arm of the WTO, performing with authority as it does in relation to trade, might consider and implement development solutions with equal authority.
But what of development assistance? Future emphasis in the Caribbean should be on regional infrastructure, even at the cost of diminishing bilateral assistance. Sea and air transport links are badly needed. Without them, regional intra-trade is severely hampered.
Time does not permit me to comment in depth on such issues as Haiti. I believe that the United States and others are withdrawing too quickly. The World Bank and the IMF are calling for the immediate privatisation of utilities. That is right as a long-term policy, but impractical in the short term.
Additionally, the need for the Caribbean to form closer links with Central and South America is important. I see an important role for Belize in this regard; but the outstanding territorial claim by Guatemala should not be allowed to stand in the way.
More needs to be done to increase surveillance to halt the distribution of drugs, including greater access to satellite and AWACS. The coastguards in many of the islands do not have the sophisticated equipment to respond with the speed necessary to apprehend drug smugglers.
I end, however, on a positive note. There is no reason why the Caribbean region as a whole should not continue its development as one of the most stable regions in the world, with the steadfast help of the United Kingdom and the European Union, and, it is to be hoped, with a more proactive interest on the part of the United States.
1338
I should feel uncomfortable if I did not specifically mention Canada. It does so much in the region, as it does within the Commonwealth. Caribbean countries welcome close ties with Canada, as a possible counterweight to their own ties with the United States. In that context, Canada is helping to transform the Organisation of American States into a hemispheric rather than a US-dominated institution.
But more importantly, Britain can be justly proud of the part that it has played in that progress, not only in terms of economics and trade, but also because of the political and social institutions that have been established and nurtured.
9.17 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Young has raised this subject again. It is an important one. Both she and my noble friend Lady Chalker will be delighted to hear that I propose to resist the temptation to speak about bananas—a subject on which I have spoken on a number of occasions. With great self-discipline, I have decided to take a different line.
I want to follow up one important point made by my noble friend Lady Young. It concerns Cuba. On 13th March this year I asked a Starred Question concerning the Helms-Burton Act. It resulted in a number of supplementaries which produced almost unanimous support from all parties for the idea that Her Majesty's Government should be making the strongest possible representations in Washington. In replying, will my noble friend say what representations have been made, and whether they have had any tangible effect?
There is a tendency, which has emerged quite clearly this evening, to equate the Caribbean with the anglophone islands. That is quite understandable, as the islands have very serious problems, as was illustrated by all who spoke. But the Caribbean embraces more than the islands. The area is a sea of importance surrounded by a landmass, much of which is part of Latin America.
I want to extend the debate to mention one specific area of that region; namely, Central America, which we discuss very little but which has important Caribbean ramifications. By "Central America" I mean the Republics of Guatemala, Honduras, E1 Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and now particularly Belize, which is very much part of the area and is playing a crucial part.
That area comprises seven countries and 30 million people. It occupies a landmass around double that of the United Kingdom. During the decades of the 1960s and 1970s it experienced a turbulent time. Now they all enjoy democratic elected governments, relative peace and stability. They are all pursuing policies of economic liberalisation, tariff reduction and modernisation of both state and infrastructure. As a whole the region has a GDP which is growing at around 4 per cent. annually. There are stable currencies and inflation is only around 10 per cent. Those are impressive figures.
During the decade of the 1960s there was an ambitious project to create a common market. However, it failed and the process of integration is now restarting

1339
on much more practical lines. The intention is to try to create a Central American community of states. I am glad to say that that is already beginning to happen and Belize already has observer status in the group. Obviously the region, like many other parts of Latin America, would like to join NAFTA. A more likely first stage will be involvement in the new Association of Caribbean States.
Trade is not quite so significant as the figures mentioned by my noble friend Lady Young. But UK exports, which are a low percentage regrettably, have risen in the past six years from £100 million to £180 million. Central American countries represent the fifth largest trading partner within Latin America. Over and above the trade aspect we have considerable investment there. There are many major UK companies and corporations which have been established in the region for a long time. In passing perhaps I might mention that in 1960 I was the manager in the start-up of Shell in E1 Salvador, to give an example of a company which is now operating in all the countries. It is therefore a vigorous area which is growing in prosperity.
The area has a good solid track record with the IADB and the World Bank, and indeed the CDC operates in all the countries except in Panama. It has investments in agro-industry, tourism and utilities. There are tremendous opportunities in those countries.
It is particularly gratifying that in all the countries we now have British embassies. They are small and they are trade oriented. I thank my noble friend for ensuring that we recently reopened the embassy in the Dominican Republic. It was a sad day when we closed it—my noble friend Lady Young will remember that day. In my view it should never have happened, but it did; it is now open again. Those small embassies, however small they may be, provide an official British presence. That is extremely important in the creation of the good relations which exist everywhere. Foreign Office representatives in those countries do a marvellous job.
Finally, my noble friend may be aware that next month the London-based Central American-British Chamber of Commerce will be inaugurated. It is a totally private initiative, designed to provide a one-stop shop in London for both the UK and Central American traders and investors. It is therefore a two-way endeavour which will create an even closer mutual understanding between this country and the countries of Central America. It has been formed with encouragement from the DTI, FCO, the Latin American Trade Advisory Group, CBI and indeed the Central American ambassadors here in London. It will have sponsorship from the very same firms and organisations which have investment in the area.
I feel sure that my noble friend will wish this endeavour God speed and every success. It does seem to me to be a very important initiative, and I hope she will be able to mention it at the end of the debate.
9.25 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am aware of trespassing on the relatively short time available to your
1340
Lordships in this timed debate. I wish to speak in the gap briefly to raise the question of Montserrat.
I should make it clear why I do so. My secretary, whom I count a good friend, comes from Montserrat and has family there. I am aware, from her recent dealings with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the issue of a British dependent territory and what that might mean at a period of crisis. In fact, in the case of Montserrat, it is a crisis which has been bubbling along for months. The volcano which has been threatening to erupt has caused the evacuation of a number of the residents of Montserrat on more than one occasion.
In raising the issue perhaps I may take the opportunity to ask the Minister some brief questions. The hurricane season will soon draw near. What information will be given to the people of Montserrat who are now in temporary accommodation in the north of the island—many of whom are living in shelters—about their future in those shelters. I am concerned not only about their living conditions but also the general circumstances. As it has been put to me, how are they to be occupied?
I include the question of schooling. I understand now that as the schools are being used for accommodation, only fifth and sixth formers are being educated—those who have imminent exams.
Secondly, given that the north of the island is overcrowded with people living in temporary shelters, can the Minister give an assurance that the shelters will be made reasonably comfortable and sufficiently robust to withstand the onslaught of the hurricane season?
Thirdly, what views do Her Majesty's Government have and what plans do they have for assisting with evacuation, if that proves to be necessary, as there is increasing concern that it may—and to where?
Can the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to lift immigration and work permit restrictions, but only in the case, as I understand it, of those who have the means to come to this country and who are sponsored so that they have accommodation here? I raise this issue knowing that those people are the very people whose presence on the island, as leaders of their community, may be the most necessary.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for initiating this far-ranging debate. However, I feel it is important that I start my speech by drawing attention to legislation that is yet to pass through this House, the Asylum and Immigration Bill. The Bill could have an extremely detrimental impact on Britain's relations with the Caribbean.
Clause 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill introduces a new criminal offence of employing someone with no legal right to work. This will undoubtedly increase the discrimination in employment against black and ethnic minority workers as employers will not want the burden of checking immigration status and risking potential penalties if they make a mistake.
Black workers already face discrimination in the labour market. TUC research, based on the Labour Force Survey published in October 1995, shows that

1341
more than half of all Afro-Caribbean men aged 16 to 24 were unemployed in the spring of 1994. Sixty per cent. of Afro-Caribbean workers classified as unemployed by the spring of 1994 had been unemployed for over one year compared to 44 per cent. of white workers. I urge the Government to reconsider that clause of the Bill as it will have a direct impact on those of Afro-Caribbean origin.
I turn to an issue raised by all noble Lords except the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, who showed rare self-discipline. That is the issue of bananas. The banana trade has been covered by a number of debates in the past and is still the subject of an increasingly bitter transatlantic dispute. The banana regime came into effect in January 1993 and is designed to assist producers of bananas and to ensure that the Community honours its obligations to African, Caribbean and Pacific states embodied in the Lomé Convention.
One must realise the importance of the banana trade to the Caribbean and the lack of viable alternative economic activities. Unlike many alternative crops, bananas can recover to full productive capacity after just nine months if hit by one of the region's frequent hurricanes. The banana industry provides employment for approximately half of the working population; it is suited to family production and accounts for more than half of export earnings. Moreover, production is largely under conditions which guarantee employees minimum social standards.
Efforts are being made to diversify agriculture in the Windward Islands to reduce the reliance on bananas. However, alternatives are not easy to find and it is essential that the region's banana industry is supported and made more efficient. The EU is trying to ensure the long-term economic stability of the Caribbean. I urge the British Government to support it in its attempt to do that.
The regime is facing complaints from Latin American banana producing countries and American multinationals which wish to export bananas from those countries to the EU. At the Uruguay Round of GATT talks a framework agreement was reached with Latin American countries reducing the tariff and increasing the annual quota from those countries from 2 million to 2.2 million tonnes. In September 1994 Chiquita, an American company with interests in Latin America, petitioned the US trade representative to seek redress for its trade interests affected by the banana regime. That led to consultations at the World Trade Organisation with the EU.
In February 1996, the US, together with a number of Latin American countries, made a fresh request to the World Trade Organisation. In addition to statements of position by either side, a series of questions were exchanged. If no resolution is reached after 60 days, as seems likely, the complainant is entitled to ask that the matter be referred to the World Trade Organisation disputes settlement body. The European Union is likely to oppose that on the ground that the questions asked during the consultation period have not yet been answered by the parties involved.
1342
Greater access to Europe for Latin American bananas would destroy an industry. The preoccupation of the US with expanding the European Union market share of certain US firms could be damaging to the region's economic survival. Furthermore, official statistics show that imports of dollar bananas, primarily by US companies, have actually maintained and even increased their share of the European Union market since the new banana regime was introduced. One way that the British Government could help is by assisting the EU in giving a robust defence of the regime at the World Trade Organisation. I assume that this is the course of action the Government will take.
The other issue I should like to discuss is Cuba, which has been raised by many noble Lords. I know the situation in Cuba is very close to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am grateful for the work she does in promoting better trading relations between Britain and Cuba. That is good for Britain and should in the long-term promote greater openness in Cuba.
The signing of the Helms-Burton Bill by President Clinton on 12th March has rightly been condemned by much of the international community, including Britain, Canada and Mexico, the United States' two partners in NAFTA, the European Union, Russia, China, the Caribbean community and the Rio group of Latin American countries. Of particular concern are the extra-territorial provisions of the Bill which extend US law to third countries. Such legislation is surely not compatible with the United States' international obligations. It certainly does not comply with the spirit of international free trade. What representations are the Government making individually, and with its EU partners, to the World Trade Organisation concerning this matter?
The potential implications of this legislation for British companies, which have a substantial and increasing interest in Cuba, are grave. I hope the Minister will assure us that the Government will do everything in their power to protect the legitimate rights of British businesss to trade with, and invest in, Cuba. I hope that in August the American president will exercise his right of veto over the provisions which give US nationals a right of action against third parties in the US courts. Unfortunately, it is doubtful that this will happen, this being an election year with the presidential race distinctly under way.
I would also like to ask why Britain has repeatedly failed to join with most of its European partners, and indeed with the vast majority of the international community, in condemning the United States' embargo of Cuba in the United Nations General Assembly. If, as the Government claim, they oppose the blockade, why will they not stand with the rest of the world in sending a clear message to the United States Government that their position on Cuba is not acceptable? Will the Government resolve to make such a stand when the resolution comes before the UN in November? The experience of many countries in Africa which have undergone transition to the democratic process was significantly eased by economic liberalisation, especially in the area of trade. It would be unfortunate

1343
if the American actions weakened Cuba significantly at a time when there is much agreement that political change cannot be far away.
A worrying development, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Glenconner, which affects not only the Caribbean region but other areas of the world, but especially that region at the moment, has been the increase in drug-trafficking, drug-use and drug-related violence. This threatens political and social stability in the Caribbean and increases the flow of drugs to Britain. We welcome the co-operation that is taking place on the issue. In May, a conference is to be held in Barbados sponsored by the European Union and the UN drugs control programme. In addition to such multilateral efforts, I particularly welcome the initiative launched by the ODA to provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies and to support health and education programmes to reduce drug use in the region.
An area of particular imminent plight in the region is the issue of Montserrat. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has already discussed the issue in considerable detail, I shall not cover it, but I would like to commend the work done by people on the ground at the centre of the crisis who can be at particular risk. I echo the questions asked about what action the British Government are taking, and the delayed action that seems to have been taken, over the situation there.
I would like to conclude on two points. The first is to ask the Government what action they are taking on the edge of the Caribbean in Guyana. It is a small country, one of the most indebted nations in South America. Can the Minister give any indication of special initiatives that they are undertaking there?
The Caribbean is not an area that is out of the public eye; indeed, there is the work done by World Aware to promote education in developing countries. It has produced videos which are centered on St. Lucia. I was gratified to learn that it has been estimated that 1.5 million primary school children already have intimate knowledge of areas of the Caribbean. By raising this issue again I hope that they will have more.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for having cogently introduced this debate tonight. On those rare occasions when I find myself in total agreement with her it is impossible to find a stronger ally. I wish that I could have this experience more often. I fear that all I can do tonight is to underline the strength of the arguments that she put so well.
I also warmly endorse the remarks made by various noble Lords who have said how much they miss Lord Pitt. His death leaves an irreplaceable gap in any deliberations in this House on the Caribbean. It is impossible to fill that gap completely, but I hope that we shall try to make it good before too long.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, should make no apology for her intervention in the gap. The way in which she brought spontaneity of human concern in the
1344
midst of our wider deliberations was an example of this House at its very best. I believe that we should all take seriously the concerns that she has expressed.
Economic development in the Caribbean has been very uneven in recent years. According to the World Bank, the Caribbean and Latin America together have experienced a fall of some 0.1 per cent. per annum in per capita gross national product between 1980 and 1993. But individual countries have fared worse; for example, in Trinidad and Tobago per capita GNP fell by 2.8 per cent. in the same period.
Despite those economic difficulties, some indicators have improved. According to UNICEF, infant mortality in the region has decreased dramatically. In Jamaica it fell from 58 to 10 per 1,000 births between 1960 and 1994, yet some 80 per cent. of Jamaica's rural population still live below the absolute poverty line.
What has been the UK response? While the US cut its aid to the region by about 90 per cent. in the 10 years to 1994, from 226 million US dollars to 24 million US dollars, UK aid has remained relatively stable. However, the region will now be hit severely by the recently announced United Kingdom cuts. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental report indicates that by the end of the century Britain's aid to the Caribbean is already planned to fall by between 20 and 25 per cent. The recent fundamental expenditure review of ODA puts an even more disturbing questionmark over future levels of aid, recommending that the Caribbean should not be a targeted priority.
Even the less poor Caribbean countries—Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago—rank among the world's most heavily indebted. While their total debts may appear to be quite small—at 4 billion US dollars and 2 billion US dollars respectively—over 1,500 US dollars is owed for every one of their citizens. Both countries spend over 20 per cent. of their export earnings on debt servicing. Action has been taken to restructure and write off their debt, but it seems that Jamaica still owes the ODA over £50 million, making it one of its largest remaining debtors.
Furthermore, as we have heard clearly tonight, the economies of the Caribbean are often dependent on the export of one or two primary commodities. That dependency makes them highly sensitive to changes in the global market; for example, in the case of St. Lucia about 98 per cent. of exports to the UK consist of vegetables and fruit, particularly bananas. The introduction of the single European market has put product prices under pressure. At the same time, the US and various Latin America countries claim that the European Union's banana regime violates international trade rules because it discriminates in favour of ACP producers at the expense of Latin America. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has told us, despite what was taken by the Caribbean as the US indicating in good faith that the matter could be resolved amicably, the US has dismayed the Caribbean by lodging formal complaints with the World Trade Organisation.
Winston Graham, a banana farmer in the Windward Islands, has put it very well:

1345
"We are told that the world has changed, that because of GATT there must be a free market in bananas. But the market should not be so free that it can destroy people's lives".
And that is precisely what is at stake, together with whole economies, the social fabric and potentially the political stability of those small democracies.
In the longer term, there is a fatalistic tendency to assume that the need for special arrangements for Caribbean bananas will inevitably end at the latest when the present regime expires in 2002.
The Caribbean is determined to do all in its power to narrow the competitive gap with Latin America, but the physical circumstances of the Caribbean—the size of farms, the nature of the terrain, exposure to natural disasters, and other factors—make it impossible for it to compete on equal terms with the vast, flat plantations of Latin America and the highly integrated operations of the multi-national companies which dominate much of the marketing and production there.
The Caribbean Banana Exporters Association argues:
"This situation will not have changed by 2002. Nor is aid an acceptable alternative to trade: while diversification is feasible only as a supplement to bananas, not in substitution; for it could not provide comparable income or employment, or generate sufficient volume to secure the necessary shipping service for the islands".
That is all a sorry state of affairs in countries to which we have such close ties and in which the kith and kin of so many UK citizens live. It is an even more deplorable situation when we look at the Caribbean in an historical context: the whole story of slavery and of the colonial insistence on moving their economies to what has proved to be such a vulnerable dependency on a limited range of exports.
Our responsibilities are clearly heavy. It is therefore essential that we hear convincing evidence from the Minister on how the Government propose, both bilaterally and with the EU as a whole, to fight for those friends at risk. How do the Government reconcile the harsh recommendations of the fundamental expenditure review of ODA with the need for support for diversification and the building of alternative, viable economies? For whatever the traders in their fearful exasperation may say, diversification and alternatives must surely be found and supported if we are to guarantee long-term well being.
We must never be so ignorant as to lump the Caribbean together. While successful regional co-operation is essential, for any of us who has been privileged to visit these islands their individual characteristics, qualities and needs are what strike the outsider most. In view of our special responsibilities, we should really find the time to review the relationship with each individually.
Sufficient time is not available tonight, so let me briefly mention three current (Caribbean) concerns. I turn first to Haiti. Following the restoration of democracy after former President Carter's inspired initiative, those brave people face daunting challenges in every sector. As the Catholic Institute for International Relations and others have reminded us, the transition from dictatorship to democracy is complicated by extreme poverty, environmental devastation, tottering infrastructure and the legacy of 200 years of
1346
authoritarian rule. If we and other advocates of the cause of democracy are not to go down as hollow windbags, there is an urgent need to reinforce what President Aristide has modestly described as a
"move from misery to poverty with dignity."
That will have to include support for the rule of law and the reform of the judiciary; the provision of the new national police, free from old army influences, with the resources necessary to protect citizens everywhere; the development of democratic political parties and the institutional capacity for the operation of democracy and of representative government; and, together with NGOs, the strengthening of civil society—grass root organizations—the lifeblood of a stable democracy.
The second is the Dominican Republic—adjacent to Cuba, with both the Dominican Republic and Cuba having an obvious mutual interest for their development in economic and social co-operation based on sound democratic systems. The genuinely democratic presidential elections provided for in the pact brokered by the US and witnessed by NGOs and representatives of the international community will shortly take place. It is important for the international community to give all possible support to ensure that those elections are truly transparent. And if democracy is to stabilise, there is a desperate need for community-based development projects to combat the grim reality in which 60 per cent. of the population still live below the poverty line.
I turn thirdly to Cuba, to which significant reference has been made. Following the recent aircraft incident, the question has inevitably been raised as to whether the US did nor did not over-react. It is significant that the Catholic bishops in Cuba—normally critics of the regime—have expressed anxiety at the hardening of US policy. What seems to be clear is that the impact of the embargo upon the Cuban economy has seriously aggravated human suffering. There are many who argue with conviction that this has been counter-productive by, in effect, so far uniting Cubans, including those critical of the government, against what is portrayed as a foreign aggressor. Indeed, some suggest that the US hard line plays into the hands of hardline elements of the Cuban state who seek to blame all economic woes on the United States rather than addressing the serious structural issues which are the result of disastrous internal political dogmatism.
I do, of course, recognise that the UK Government have distanced themselves from the US position and have indicated their unhappiness with the US embargo and their opposition to the more extreme notion that the US should impose sanctions on those trading with Cuba. I also recognise that ODA has a small bilateral aid programme in Cuba and that our ambassador there has initiated a number of small areas of mutual co-operation with the Cuban Government. As I interpret it, the UK Government are keen to avoid economic collapse and rapid, perhaps violent, political change in Cuba for fear of a destabilising effect in the whole region and the massive exodus of Cuban boat people who might well head for British Commonwealth countries or other dependencies—for Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas and elsewhere.

1347
I hope that the Minister will tonight give specific information on the action the government are taking in respect of Haiti and the Dominican Republic and clarify their position on Cuba.
Drugs are a big factor in the Caribbean, with all the associated and lamentable corruption that surrounds the trafficking. Ugly elements in the Caribbean play a significant part in the wider international trade. However, unless Caribbean nations have a sound economic base and a reasonable expectation that they can in time develop diversified and competitive economies, no amount of special anti-drug co-operation will overcome the financial attraction to some individuals of an involvement with drug trafficking. The law of the market alone is, after all, amoral.
I have been concerned by reports of a recent article in the specialist US foreign affairs magazine, the National Interest, in which the former US Assistant Secretary of State, Elliot Abrams, is said to have argued—I hope I quote accurately—that,
"the Caribbean may well be best off accepting and trying to regularise American interventions in exchange for certain economic and trade benefits".
I gather he asked:
"Could American control of national security affairs not co-exist with local control over all other matters, at least in the small islands?"
Provocative thinking indeed. I hope that the Minister will leave us in no shred of doubt about the resolute determination of the United Kingdom Government that the idea of such a new hegemony, coming as it does from the Republican right, shall not be allowed to go unchallenged.
On these Benches we recognise the increasing global interdependence as fundamental to the reality of life for us all. We therefore advocate maximum possible international co-operation between nations large and small. But that is something rather different from what the reports of Mr. Abrams' remarks seem to suggest. We need, and hope we will have tonight, the reassurance of the UK Government that the ideas attributed to Mr. Abrams in no way reflect their own.
9.53 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have listened to tonight's debate with great interest. Like other speakers, I thank and congratulate my noble friend Lady Young on introducing the debate and more especially on all the work that she does to assist Britain's relations with the Caribbean, and to help develop a relationship specifically with Cuba. My noble friend has worked unceasingly for that. I should like to join my noble friend and other noble Lords in lamenting the absence tonight of a very dear friend, Lord Pitt. I learned a great deal from David Pitt over many years. I know that we really need someone in his mould for the future.
This has been a very short debate, but most varied in content, and I found myself thinking that this is just as difficult to wind up as any European Union debate. It is
1348
actually very important for the Caribbean: nobody who has spoken is in any doubt about that and nobody who reads our debate will be in any doubt.
As my noble friend Lady Young said, the Foreign Secretary's visit to Barbados and Jamaica early in April underlined Britain's continuing interest in the stability and prosperity of the Caribbean. While we may have relations with many other parts of the world and particularly with our big neighbour, the United States, we have a very fundamental relationship with the Caribbean. It is particularly important at a time when the Caribbean faces such very great change. I assure your Lordships that Britain is not about to abandon its long-established obligations to the region and, whatever Mr. Abrams may have said, which I have not previously read, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that that does not form part of our view.
At the beginning of this debate perhaps I may say a word in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about Montserrat. It is a very particular problem with which the Overseas Development Administration has been dealing right the way through from last summer. The volcanic activity is now at its most dangerous level since the crisis began. There is no doubt about that. The scientists are unsure about what may happen next, but what they are confident of is that the north of the island is safe from the effects of a major eruption. I spent some time this afternoon with the Governor of Montserrat, who is here to advise us. He told me a lot more about what is going on.
Certainly, the population from the southern part of the island, including the capital Plymouth, who were evacuated to the safe northern area on 3rd April, are safe and well there. We know that their conditions are not ideal. There is no employment for them, there is no recreation for them. However, they are safe, and the safety and the well-being of those people has been and will remain our overriding concern. We have spent nearly £4 million of emergency aid since August of last year, mostly on the scientific monitoring, but also on the evacuation requirements. I have a very experienced, full-time officer on the island who, with the help of some British forces who are out there, is master-minding the whole scenario of what might have to be done in the event of certain types of eruption.
We do have contingency plans for off-island evacuation, should that prove necessary. We are in touch with all the neighbouring islands and we have been discussing an improvement of the conditions in the north, because we are only too well aware that the hurricane season is upon us. This is something we are used to each year. The contingency plans are in place, but I can assure the noble Baroness that we will not in any way leave a stone unturned to help the people of Montserrat. At a time when they really do need our very best help, they will get it.
I turn from Montserrat to Haiti, which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned at the end of his remarks. Together with our other European Union partners, we are one of the major donors in Haiti. The European Mission there has been strengthened and, through the European Union, we are involved in providing assistance to help to improve the judiciary.

1349
There is obviously an onus on the people of Haiti to work to maintain and secure a stable democracy, but we hope that, with the election of the new president, good progress is going to be made there and we continue to work away at what is a continuing problem until the island has really reached greater stability than has so far been possible.
I turn to what I consider was a justified anger about the United States' apparently selfish attitudes towards the trading aspirations of the Caribbean islands. I do not believe that I can sum it up any better than that. All those who have been involved with the Caribbean over the years know how important the trade in bananas has been to the islands. The noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, mentioned the Windward Islands in that regard. We all know, too, that there has been a need for those islands to diversify their crops. British aid has been spent on helping them to do that. But we are now faced with a new situation, partly as a result of the much stronger trading patterns that take place between large trading blocs.
Of course, Britain trades significantly with the Caribbean and we hope this trade will grow. But even the Caribbean's trade with us or our trade with the Caribbean cannot make up for the imposition which is apparent in the activities of some in trading with the US. As a matter of record I should say that British exports to the insular Caribbean were £1.1 billion in 1995 and the net book value of British investment in the wider Caribbean is estimated at more than £2.5 billion and has been increasing in many different fields. Therefore, Britain is actually investing in the Caribbean as well as exporting to it. But there is also a growing Caribbean investment in the United Kingdom. Therefore, we know that the Caribbean is a good trading partner. That is why I mentioned those figures because it is important to underline how seriously we must take the Caribbean as a trading partner.
On his recent visit to the area, the Foreign Secretary told the Commonwealth Caribbean that it could count on the UK for support in developing its post-Lomé IV relationship in a way which is sensitive to the needs of the Caribbean. As for development assistance, in 1995 we approved a five-year strategy for the independent Caribbean which envisaged over that period a graduation from UK bilateral assistance to a number of the richer islands. But that does not mean that we are abandoning those who need help either in terms of investment through aid or in terms of supporting them in their trading relations.
It is extremely important to keep that in clear perspective. We shall defend the rights of the Caribbean under Lomé. We know that Lomé grants generous trade preferences for the exports of bananas, rum and sugar. But they are of particular importance to the Caribbean. That Lomé system is a useful mechanism which marshals the substantial sums of European aid going into the region. We intend to continue working for and with the Caribbean islands at this very difficult time of change. But as my noble friend Lady Young said, many of their leaders realise that at this time of change, they also have to achieve change.
1350
That is why I said some moments ago that the Caribbean cannot ignore the importance of restructuring and improving its banana industry along the lines suggested by the ODA-sponsored Cargill Report. I believe that if the Caribbean does so, the banana industry can and will retain its place in the Community market.
At the moment I believe that it is right that we should encourage the Caribbean to continue the restructuring and improvement process in the banana industry. While I understand the concerns of all those who mentioned Chiquita, it is not for me to comment on commercial matters. However, I understand very fully what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and others have said.
I am glad to note that the price of bananas has risen recently. That should increase the returns to the Caribbean producers. But in the longer term, those returns will depend on the success of restructuring the industry, as I mentioned some moments ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked about our aid flows to the Caribbean. In the last complete year, 1994–95, they totalled some £38 million, excluding the investment by the Commonwealth Development Corporation of some £57 million. I can assure the noble Lord that this figure is not likely to decrease significantly over the next two or three years. The Caribbean will also benefit from significant European Union aid. We are being extremely careful at targeting our aid and in making sure that it works to help the Caribbean islands improve their trading situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, spoke about changes in the Caribbean. I have heard comments of this nature from other people outside your Lordships' House. The change that frightens people most as regards the Caribbean concerns the growth in drugs. My noble friend Lady Young spoke of that too. Drugs pose the greatest threat—
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. We will all have found what she has just said immensely reassuring for the immediate future. However, I hope that she will have time to say a few words about the implications of the fundamental expenditure review for the longer term future.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, seems to believe there is some ghost around called the fundamental expenditure review. I can assure him that the plans I have just spoken about with regard to the next two or three years have been drawn up in the light of the FER. I do not think that tonight is the time to go into that in greater detail. However, I am absolutely sure that we have to be careful and specific as regards targeting; and that we are already doing with the Caribbean. That is why I can talk about aid flows with considerable confidence.
Other speakers in the debate have been rightly concerned about the depth of the problems which drugs trafficking, money laundering and related crime pose for the Caribbean. We attach great importance to the fight against drugs because unless we do more to help the Caribbean islands fight that plague, the situation will

1351
become disastrous for the younger generation. The European Union Caribbean drugs initiative was jointly launched by the Prime Minister and President Chirac in September last year after Mr. Major's meeting with Owen Arthur, the Prime Minister of Barbados. We now have a European Commission-led team of experts who produced a draft with a number of proposals for action. That is being considered at the UN International Drugs Control Programme meeting in Bridgetown, Barbados on 15th to 17th May, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said. Britain has contributed about two-thirds of the budget for the meeting. The aim is to agree an effective European Union/Caribbean action programme to combat drugs. The programme will be financed by the European Union countries, Canada, the US and by the United Nations control programme.
We are doing probably as much as any single country to help the fight against drugs in the islands and around the islands. We are considering new opportunities to help but the initiative I have mentioned will be a valuable and fruitful one. In addition we are providing bilateral and multilateral assistance for the anti-narcotics efforts of the Caribbean countries. We provided almost £2 million for 1995–96. We have a memorandum of understanding between the British Government and the seven member countries of the regional security system. This MOU will provide for a 10-man British military advisory training team to give advice, training and assistance to regional security forces, particularly in the fight against drugs. We also provide assistance through the West Indies guardship which works closely to combat drug trafficking.
I have concentrated on the Commonwealth Caribbean but I must comment on the all-important situation in Cuba and say, rather in passing but nonetheless sincerely, to my noble friend Lord Montgomery how much we welcome the proposal to establish the new Central American Chamber of Commerce in London, and how important we believe this will be for our Central American friends and for British trade with Central America.
I should like to move to the vexed question of the Helms-Burton legislation. Perhaps I may assure my noble friend Lady Young that many of the Government's Ministers, including DTI Ministers, have raised the UK's concern about Helms-Burton when they have met their US counterparts. I did so myself. We shall continue to press the US Administration to mitigate the effects of the legislation on UK companies and on UK trading interests.
1352
I can certainly tell my noble friend that at the CARITAG seminar at the DTI on 2nd May, my friend from another place, Mr. Ian Taylor, will be speaking and will make a very firm commitment as regards how we are taking forward the work against the Helms-Burton legislation. I am delighted that my noble friend will be chairing that meeting.
The extra-territorial provisions of Helms-Burton could give rise to conflict with international law. We have lobbied hard over several months against this legislation prior to its enactment. We have delivered notes of Britain's own views. We have worked with our partners in the European Union. Last Monday at the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union we expressed our deep concern at the legislation and invited experts to draw up all WTO and other options regarding our action in defence of European Union rights and interests, and as regards the way in which the Lomé countries, the Caribbean countries, are affected. We are considering the possibility of countermeasures as well, which I hope will help.
A number of other issues were raised in some detail. It is not possible to discuss them all tonight. However, I should like to say how strongly we believe it is right to try to build up trade with countries with whom we have not always had the closest of relations. I refer in particular to Cuba. We want to develop the relationship with Cuba on a political and an economic level both on our own account and on the part of our partners in the European Union. The reason I say that firmly, whatever the behaviour of Cuba, is that I believe that active involvement with a country like Cuba, rather than isolation, is the best way to encourage and achieve reform. When the Madrid European Council concluded that dialogue and co-operation should be continued with Cuba, that attitude was criticised in some quarters. However, we believe it to be absolutely right.
We have had a very interesting, although rather short, debate tonight. I hope that it will serve to say to all our friends in the Caribbean that we care about their development; we care about helping them to develop their trade; and we certainly care very much about the interventions of other countries which seem to impede their progress. That is why we are working, not on our own but with many other countries, to try to protect them and to give them the chance to develop so that they can stand as countries proud of their own inheritance and of their own abilities.
I am very pleased that our dependent territories in the Caribbean, as well as our friends on the mainland of central America, can be absolutely confident in Britain's support for them. I thank my noble friend very much for launching this debate tonight.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past ten o'clock.