Lords Sitting of 21 November 1996

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

European Union: Economic Stability Pact
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, well before the European Council to be held in Dublin on 13th and 14th December, they will take steps to prevent any participation by the United Kingdom in the so-called economic stability pact as proposed by the European Commission.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Commission's proposals for a stability pact, which involves fines for member states with excessive deficits as envisaged in the Maastricht Treaty, would apply to member states participating in EMU. Thanks to the opt-out which the Prime Minister negotiated, the United Kingdom will only join the single currency if there is a separate decision to do so by Government and Parliament.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Is he aware that an examination of the Commission's proposals discloses a degree of ambiguity in its wording? In particular a definition of participatory member states came to the attention of the Standing Committee in another place dealing with these matters. As a consequence, a Motion, number 27, was put down on the Order Paper in another place which is due to be discussed. It was supported by 200 Members in another place and withholds approval until the matter has been before the whole House. Will the noble Lord bear in mind that although we sit in a different place and have a different function he is a member of Her Majesty's Government and is responsible for the conduct of business in both places? Will the noble Lord say whether or not the matter at least can be brought before Parliament rather than being rushed through as it has been and as is indicated in this volume of documents which have cascaded over us in the past fortnight?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think that it would be for me, in your Lordships' House, to comment on what my right honourable and honourable friends and the business managers in another place should do in response to a Motion on this morning's Order Paper. I understand that a committee of this House, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has already had a hearing on the subject and has taken evidence.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, in view of the welcome statement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that he is prepared to block EU business if it is in Britain's interest to do so, will my noble friend on the Front Bench say whether we are prepared to block the stability pact in order to solve the problem of quota hopping by our EU partners?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor has said on a number of occasions, the objectives of the stability pact are wholly admirable. They are the objectives of anyone trying to run a sensible economy whether in or outside the EMU. I do not see how we can veto something which points in the right direction, whether in or out of the EMU.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister has got round almost to answering the first Question. Will he now confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees and favours the idea of a stability pact for the obvious reason that it is to the benefit and in the best interests of the UK whether we are in or out? At the same time will he confirm that under Article 104c—I hope that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington does not mind my quoting an article occasionally—any decision as regards fines would have to be taken by a unanimous vote of the Council?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there is some disagreement still so far as concerns fines. I believe that the Germans would still like the fines, and so on, to be automatic. However, our position is that the decision should be taken in the Council after considering the matter in the round. It is worth saying that we only reach a fines procedure if, first, we agree to join the EMU and are therefore in; and, secondly, if we actually run excessive deficits. I hope that that answers the second part of the question.
I believe that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has always made clear that a stability pact is a sensible way to proceed. There is little or no point in having convergence criteria, if one does not have some discipline in order to keep those who join having obeyed the convergence criteria within the limits of the convergence.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, does the House agree that it is of the utmost importance that we participate to the fullest extent in the preparation of the stability pact? Is it not a fact that if the pact comes about it will be one of the most important agreements for the well-being and future of the European Community?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Whether we decide to go into the EMU or to stay out, if EMU comes about it is absolutely sensible that it is stable. One of the ways to keep it stable is to have some form of stability pact that, for example, prevents those member states who are in the EMU running up excessive budget deficits.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for having taken the matter forward and having confirmed that the Government are in favour in principle of the stability pact. He mentioned earlier that some form of discipline would be needed to ensure that a stability pact was obeyed. What forms of discipline do the Government have in mind?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord borrows the papers from his noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. He will then see what is in mind.
I appreciate that the Labour Party is constantly looking to me for advice on this matter. For the past two-and-a-half years when I have discussed EMU from this Dispatch Box, it has argued with me and sneered at me in various ways. In each case it has come round, first, to approving the opt-out; and, secondly, to approving the taking of the decision at the right time in the interests of Britain. It has now come round to a referendum. I am not surprised that the noble Lord seeks advice.
The stability pact envisages that any country which has, or moves into, excessive deficits will be asked to explain how it will prevent such deficits or how it will sort the matter out. The provision goes further. It provides that if countries do not sort the position out but move into deficits, in the final analysis they can be fined. There are a number of other issues. However, I commend the paper to the noble Lord.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the Minister referred earlier to alternative forms of discipline which the Government favoured. Will he tell us what they are?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think that I referred to alternative forms of discipline in the way that the noble Lord suggests. I said that the fines system is there. There is some disagreement as to whether it should be automatic or agreed by the Council of Ministers. However, apart from that, the position of the fine as the longstop is up for discussion. It remains to be seen how the member states decide to agree on that issue.
However, what is without doubt true—I hope that the noble Lord agrees with me—is that if the countries join the EMU, having met the convergence criteria, there have to be some arrangements to ensure that they do not then promptly go against the very criteria which brought them into the EMU.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as my noble friend agreed, this is one of the most important steps that the EU will take and, as he said, there are great differences between the Germans, the French and ourselves on the process of the stability pact. Would it not therefore be much more sensible, even if another place will not hold a debate in government time, for this House, which is full of very clever people, to hold a similar debate?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend is not asking me for assent or dissent in relation to the last part of his question. I do not believe that the differences are great. As I explained quite clearly, there is no difference in the principle that we should have a stability pact to ensure, as the name suggests, the stability of any EMU that comes into being. That must be in the interest of everyone, in or out, approving or disapproving.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on the assumption that the noble Lord has in fact read the stability pact in draft, will he give the House an unequivocal assurance that on his reading of it the United Kingdom, if it decides not to participate in economic and monetary union, will not be subject to any penalties whatsoever under Article 104c of the treaty?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the position as I understand it is that there will be a procedure for those who remain out; they will be required to submit convergence programmes. But the next step, to move into the penalties, will not fall on the "outs". The penalties will be there only for the "ins".

Rape: Research
3.12 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why there has been a fall in convictions for rape from the reported 450 in 1985 to 425 in 1994 despite a trebling in the number of allegations of rape in the same period.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government recognise and share the concern about the low proportion of successful prosecutions in rape cases. My right honourable friend the Minister of State announced in another place on 12th June that the Government are to conduct their own research in this area.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I appreciate that reply. As we all know, special cases make bad law. However, is the Minister aware that the figures indicate very clearly that we are failing to secure justice for both women and men in relation to this difficult issue? Does she agree that the real reason is that it is impossible to achieve justice by slotting cases of rape into normal criminal proceedings? It is a unique crime and requires special rules. Instead of conducting their own investigations, will the Government ask the Law Commission to hold an independent inquiry into the whole issue, with special reference to three problems: the redefinition of the crime of rape; rules of evidence in the court; and legal representation for the alleged victim?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I began by saying that we share the concern of the noble Lord in regard to the

1345
statistics that led him to table this Question. We have no plans to ask the Law Commission to carry out that work. However, we believe that it is a very important prerequisite to any further work to have a piece of research which will examine the figures, update the research from 1985 and ask the very questions that the noble Lord asks. We know that there is a massive fall-out of cases at a number of stages in the process. We need to examine, for example, the role of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police in the process, the role of the initial recording of crime and the ways in which police record a crime or a no-crime. All those questions need to be researched. It is very important that we establish that scientific database before deciding whether further work needs to be done.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, who will conduct the research?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it will be the research and statistics department of the Home Office. It will examine cases across five police areas and five Crown Prosecution areas. It intends to examine 500 completed cases and at the same time examine in more depth cases that are already in progress. There will also be some sessions observing cases in court. The research started in September and is expected to take 18 months. It will be a very thorough piece of research and there will be an interim report in nine months.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what the Minister has just told the House is very encouraging. In the light of that, will the Government also study cases where it has been proved beyond peradventure that villainous activity has taken place and there is no doubt whatever as to the rape involved? Would not such an examination be able to assist the Government in formulating legislation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, where cases are proven beyond peradventure, I expect the courts to arrive at a conviction. Where they do not, it is a matter for the courts. There is a great fall-out: some 5,000 cases are presently being recorded, and only 9 per cent. of those end in conviction. We are examining ways to find out why, at various stages in the process, a number of cases fall out.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister think that there is a change in the pattern of rape? There have been some very horrific cases involving very elderly and very young people.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that will be one of the questions posed by the researchers. We are examining the pattern of rape and the nature of the cases that are reported. That aspect will be subsumed in the research.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House whether there are now special provisions for people who come to report
1346
allegations of rape? It is a most upsetting time for them. Will she say whether that is taken into account and whether special help is given to people?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I hope my noble friend knows, the police have done a great deal. We have given guidance to the police as to the treatment of victims of any offence but particularly rape. They have gone to great lengths to make it easier for people to record such crimes.
The figures are interesting: 5,000 cases are being reported now, as against some 1,000 cases five years ago. So people are coming forward to report such incidents. The conundrum is: why are those cases falling out of the system as they go through the process?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the Government's concern as she expressed it and the research that she described are both very welcome? However, is it not the case that during the passage of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act the Government resisted amendments that could have helped the situation in advance of a full-scale investigation relating to the video-recording of evidence both before and during trials for rape? Will the Government think again about whether they should proceed with reforms which are self-evidently worth while, even before the research is concluded?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is a general principle of our legal system that evidence should be provided in court. The Government decided that in the case of children, for example, their special needs warranted a departure from that principle. However, we should be very cautious about extending the principle further.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister ask the inquiry being conducted by the Government to take account of the fundamental fact that the nature of rape is unique, and the need for special provision? Will it also examine the possibility of at least half the judges being women? Sex equality and justice on this issue is profoundly important.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on the first point, we shall take that into account. It will be part of the research. As to what action to take, that will follow the research when we have seen the results.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, is it possible that an increasing number of the allegations are ill-founded?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the result of the inquiries may well be that some of the allegations are not founded. Two new areas have been introduced into the issue of rape: there is male rape, which is a new feature in rape cases; and there is rape within marriage. We know that in a very large majority of cases rape is committed between people who know each other—for example, date rape. Evidence is very difficult to secure. All those aspects will be investigated during the course of the research.

Fireworks: Aerial Shells
3.19 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees Lord Merlyn-Rees asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why no action has been taken, despite warnings from the Leeds Home Safety Council and others, to ban aerial shells which have recently caused two fatalities and serious injury, and what action they now plan to take.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, concern about some types of firework, including aerial shells, which are on uncontrolled sale to the general public was one of the considerations which led my honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs to decide to undertake a comprehensive review of the controls on fireworks. As part of this review, he issued a public consultation document at the end of July. The closing date for comments was last month and my honourable friend is now giving them careful consideration.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, is it not the case that undeniable evidence of danger from the so-called fireworks was identified and reported to the Government by a wide variety of organisations, including the West Yorkshire coroner and the Leeds Home Safety Council? Is it not also the case that controls were not implemented because of European Union and DTI procedures, as well as, of course, consultative processes? In the event, death and serious injury have followed. This House should not be able to duck that fact. It is all very well to have consultative processes, but death and destruction will come again next year. I understand that it is likely to be 1998 before anything is done. Could not the DTI step in and forbid the sale of these instruments of death straight away, in advance of the result of consultative processes? Could it not do something now, or next November the same thing will happen?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, regrettably this year there have been two tragic deaths, including that of a headmaster, where one of the aerial shells struck the person involved. The noble Lord is correct that there have been indications from both the coroner in Leeds and the Leeds Home Safety Council. They expressed their views to the department. The aerial shells are very powerful fireworks but they have a place in organised public displays. One of the issues is whether they should be changed from one category to another, which would take them off sale to the general public. There are difficult definition problems as to who are the "general public" in this context.
As I sought to indicate to the noble Lord, my honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs is looking at the matter. A simple change from one category to another might be a way forward. However,
1348
it may be that a rather more drastic reassessment is necessary. He is not in any mood to delay the matter any longer than is necessary.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that much of the trouble followed the relaxation of import controls on fireworks from the Far East? Will he assure us that there will be an examination of the question? It is clear that fireworks made in the Far East are causing many of the problems, the deaths and injuries.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I wish to reassure the noble Lord that he is correct that no import licence is now required. However, to consider that the controls were an effective technique is an exaggerated view of their efficacy. Perhaps I may assure him that there is nothing now authorised by the Health and Safety Explosives Inspectorate in the United Kingdom which would previously have been refused a licence. If it is not authorised, then it is an offence to sell such a firework.

World Food Summit
3.22 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the result and value of the recent World Food Summit in Rome.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the summit produced an international consensus on the action needed to reduce and eventually eradicate hunger throughout the world.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer which was a little short on detail. Does he agree that a major cause of the failure of food production in the developing world to keep up with the population increase is the extent of subsidised food exports from the north to the south which undercut and put farmers out of business in the south? Many of them leave the land and end up in already over-populated and impoverished cities of the south.
Will the noble Lord ask the Government to recommend the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference next month in Singapore rapidly to phase out or subsidise food exports from the north to the south? Will the Government also allow affected countries in the developing south to operate protective tariffs in order to encourage their own food production?
Finally, can the Minister explain the Ruggero initiative on tariffs which was mentioned by his noble friend Lady Chalker at the conference in Rome?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I could be here for quite a long time with that list of questions. The first point is that we are making all efforts to get free trade throughout the world; that will remove the subsidies on food products from the north to the south. However, with free trade it is difficult to say, "we must also allow other countries to have tariffs". The two are not possible together.

1349
The most important point is to consider the aid given and use it, as the ODA does exceedingly well. I know that it has support from all round the House. We should implement the plan of action and encourage everyone else to do so, that plan being to overcome poverty and hunger. We believe that that is best done by promoting sustainable development in those countries. Food is one of the most important parts of sustainable development.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the average size of delegation at the conference? We have heard worrying rumours of delegations of over 1,200 people.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am not aware of any allegation of a delegation of over 1,200 people. I have seen mentioned the figure of 100 from one or two countries but we have not received a final list of those attending. It is important to note that we deliberately kept the UK delegation small. We had six officials from the UK plus two NGOs and support from our missions in Rome.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my noble friend says that he advocates free trade in agricultural products. How does he square that with the fact that Customs and Excise is trying to impose a duty of £2,000 per tonne on the new spreadable butter instead of a duty of £700 per tonne on Anchor butter? Has that anything to do with free trade?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, individual instances are not terribly helpful. We are talking about what we are trying to do through the World Trade Organisation and GATT to free up trade all round the world, not a single instance such as the noble Earl mentioned.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Fidel Castro stated at the conference that reducing the number of people short of food from 800 million to 400 million was not ambitious enough?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am aware that that is what President Castro said.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, why do our European Union partners not share the Government's view that food aid destabilises local food prices? Do they have no regard for the consequences?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, while we are, of course, members of the EU and make our point clear in all the appropriate fora, we cannot answer for the EU. I wish to reiterate that we believe the funds are best utilised in promoting sustainable development, which is a way of reducing poverty and suffering on an on-going basis.
Lord Judd: My Lords, on reflection, will the Minister agree that for an issue of such immense significance for the poorest people of the world, his answers have been extraordinarily generalised? Will he tell the House what specific discussions are taking place between development Ministers in the European Union and
1350
agriculture Ministers on how subsidies for food production in the European Union will be phased out to stop unfair competition with the third world?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, as the conference finished last weekend, I do not have details of what discussions have continued since then. However, I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Government confirm that an action plan was agreed extending for the next 20 years to eradicate hunger in the world? Do the Government think that 20 years is a long time for hungry people to wait to be fed?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, this was a target. The target is for reducing hunger. It is sensible to have realistic targets. One of the problems with the 1974 congress was that the targets were totally unachievable. What this summit has tried to do is to come up with achievable targets. It is terribly important that we should have targets which are realistic and can be achieved.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that our aid is sufficiently targeted to small farmers, who need credit and advice, perhaps through agricultural extension workers? Where these schemes are applied well they are often extremely successful.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am sorry, but I could not quite catch the question. May I ask the noble Lord to repeat it?
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Lord feel that the correct proportion of our aid is going to aid agriculture at the front line in developing countries?
Lord Chesham: Yes, my Lords, we are doing everything we can to put it there and we believe that that is the right place for it to be.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend's original reply was described as "short on detail", apparently as a criticism. Does he agree that replies are expected to be brief at Question Time and that he has set a very good example to all other Members of your Lordships' House, including those who put Questions?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his comments.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the acquisition of British citizenship by certain British nationals in Hong Kong. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Home Energy Rating Surveys Bill [H.L.]
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for home energy rating surveys. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Ezra.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Public Service: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord McNally and the Earl Russell be appointed members of the Select Committee in the places of the Lord Harris of Greenwich and the Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Scottish Select Committee on the Bill:

L. Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

E. Dundonald,

L. Goold,

L. Gray of Contin,

L. Jauncey of Tullichettle (Chairman),

E. Kintore,

L. Macaulay of Bragar,

E. Mar and Kellie,

Ly. Saltoun of Abernethy,

L. Sewel,

V. Thurso;

That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the committee shall be printed and, if the committee thinks fit, delivered out;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Police Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Clause 46,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clauses 2 to 17,

1352

Schedule 3,

Clauses 18 to 43,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 44 and 45,

Clauses 47 to 61,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 62 to 86,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 87 to 94,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 95 to 97,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 98 to 122,

Schedules 9 and 10.—(Baroness Blatch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Minister on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 9,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 10 to 12,

Schedule 2,

Clause 13,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 14 to 23,

Schedule 4,

Clause 24,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 25 to 27,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clauses 28 and 29.—(The Earl of Courtown.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Financial assistance from the National Heritage Memorial Fund]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, after ("architectural.") insert ("engineering,").
The noble Lord said: I must apologise for tabling this group of amendments but, as older Members of the Committee will know, I have raised this matter from time to time, at least since the copyright Bill in 1988. I had thought that I had clawed my way at least partly up the north face of the Eiger when a year or two ago amendments such as mine were accepted on the British Waterways Bill. I should say at this point that I speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 9, 10 and 11. Amendments Nos. 1, 9, 10 and 11 are virtually the same; Amendment No. 3 is slightly different and I shall come to it later.
As I said, I thought that I had achieved something when the British Waterways legislation accepted my approach to this matter, and I was even more heartened when last year in the Environment Bill the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, accepted Amendment No. 1. I assumed that that ended the long saga and that I should not be required to return to it again. The phraseology used in the Environment Act 1995 asks the Environment Agency:
"to have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest".
The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, accepted in February last year the word "engineering" and surprisingly it is left out of this National Heritage Bill, which merely mentions having regard to matters:
"which are of scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest, including [this, that and the other]".
The question that arises in my mind is why engineering was brought into the Environment Act but was left out in this Bill. I should have thought that exactly the same considerations that applied in the Environment Act would apply in the National Heritage Bill. It all hinges on the attitude that people have to engineering and especially to the word "engineering", which seems to be very difficult to get into Acts of Parliament either in this House or the other place.
I refer very briefly to what the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said last year when dealing with the Environment Bill. He said that the noble Lord—that is me—
"spoke about these amendments in respect of engineering structures so eloquently at Committee stage that both I and my noble friend Lord Lindsay agreed to consider the issue further".—[Official Report, 2/3/95; col. 1663]
He then tabled amendments to the Bill (which are now included in the Act) of which he said that:
"objects of engineering interest are treated in the same way as those of archaeological, architectural or historic interest".
He went on to say:
"We were persuaded at Committee stage that the issues raised by the noble Lord were valid concerns and therefore we propose that the word 'engineering' should be included in Clause 7".
What was good enough for Clause 7 of the Environment Act in March 1995 should at least be good enough for the National Heritage Bill in 1996. I know that a year is a long time in politics but it does not mean that changes of such a vast nature should take place in
1354
that time. A happy conclusion was reached, and obviously I was pleased about it. Therefore, I tabled these amendments and informed the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that I intended to do so. I gave an explanation of why I was pursuing this rather tedious task—tedious to others, that is. I received a reply in a very courteous and lengthy letter, which unfortunately I did not find terribly satisfactory, though I am not trying to be churlish.
In his reply the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund were to look at things of,
"scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest".
That is correct. He was quoting from the Bill. He went on to say that that was sufficient to encompass objects of interest in respect of the history of engineering. The next part is the part that caught my fancy:
"Given that the list of adjectives specified in the provision is already rather long, I would be reluctant to add another one when there is no substantive need to do so".
I should have thought that adding another word to the Bill, even in four different places, does not lengthen the Bill unduly. It does not make an immense Bill. It is only one word longer, but four times. That is not a powerful argument and I imagine that the man who dredged that one up was at his wit's end. The Minister went on to say that the provisions of the Environment Act 1995, which I mentioned earlier, were not relevant as a precedent,
"since those provisions, unlike the current Bill, made no reference to scientific interest".
Incidentally, the Environment Act made no reference to an aesthetic interest either. The Minister dealt with that by merely adding the word "aesthetic" to the definition in the Bill; he could easily have added scientific in exactly the same way and we would all have been happy.
What we are dealing with is a substantial misunderstanding of science and engineering. Engineering is not science. Engineering uses science in order to make things. We had a debate a week or so ago in which my noble friend Lord Diamond went on at some length about the value of the classics, especially Latin, as an educational matter. I know very little Latin and even less Greek. I am sure that Whitehall knows all about it. But I remind the Minister of this.
The word "science" derives from a Latin word meaning "knowledge". It does not mean anything other than that. It means knowledge, and science is a body of knowledge. The word "engineering" derives from a quite different Latin word meaning "ingenious". The difference is that the scientist is involved in the pursuit of knowledge which others then use for some purpose. In the case of the engineer or the architect, that purpose is to make things. They are not interested in knowledge by itself; they apply knowledge to make things. The things an engineer makes in this case are bridges, roads, buildings and so forth. That misunderstanding is rife in Whitehall and should be rectified. I hope that that paragraph of my speech is distributed throughout Whitehall for the information of civil servants who are unaware of these matters.
What is at the back of this amendment to add a single word two or three times into the Bill? It is a simple matter of identifying engineering as a professional discipline of no less status or importance than architecture. "Architectural interest" is used in the Bill as though there were certain architectural qualities which were distinct from the other qualities—historic, aesthetic and so forth. It is assumed that the engineering qualities are subsumed in those other qualities and that, although there are architectural qualities which are distinct, there are no engineering qualities which are distinct. That is wholly wrong and shows a complete misunderstanding of what engineering is about.
I could give the Committee many examples but I am sure that they would not be welcome. I want the Committee to compare two well-known buildings which are quite close to each other. The first is St. Paul's Cathedral and the other is Tower Bridge. St. Paul's Cathedral is noted for its historical connections. It is noted for its aesthetic values and it is especially noted for its architectural qualities—though I have some doubts about that. The dome is not really a dome at all; it is a false dome. It looks like a dome but it is not a dome. But I shall not go into that. The architectural qualities of St. Paul's Cathedral are lauded everywhere.
Let me now turn to Tower Bridge. Nobody in this Chamber or elsewhere could claim that Tower Bridge has any aesthetic qualities whatever. It is a monstrosity. Every man of sensitivity realises that that is so. The only people who do not think it is a monstrosity are those who do not look at it. It is also architecturally unsound, for this reason. If we look at the quasi-Gothic towers at each side of the lifting spans, it might be imagined, if one were naive and young and not up to the mark on these matters, that they were solid structures supporting the bridge. They are not. They are mere cladding. They are supported on brackets off the main steel structure of the bridge. The reason that we quite properly nurture and preserve Tower Bridge is not for its quasi-architectural qualities, should we be misled into believing that it had any; it is because it is a bascule-bridge. We preserve it because of its engineering characteristics. That is what makes it important; not the fake cladding around it.
I can give the Committee another example. Let us consider St. Pancras Station, which we are likely to debate later today in another Bill. There are two parts to the station. First, there is the front, which is a marvellous Victorian Gothic structure by Gilbert Scott; secondly, there is the train shed, which is a wonderful engineering structure by William Burrell. We would keep the hotel, as it has been and may be again one day, for its architectural qualities and we would keep the train shed for its engineering qualities—not the architectural qualities, because it does not have any. Those are the distinctions I am trying to make. I could take other examples; for instance, the canals.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Howie of Troon: No, I shall continue. We have been concerned with this since 1988; we can spare
1356
another five minutes, another 10 minutes if I am provoked. Do not provoke me. We preserve canals all over the place and there is no architecture in them; they are engineering from beginning to end. And so the list continues.
Amendment No. 1 is designed to obtain parity of status and esteem between architectural and engineering qualities stated in the Bill rather than being left to be covered by other parts of the Bill.
Let me turn briefly to Amendment No. 3. The amendment seeks to add "or structures" to "buildings" on page 2, line 4 of the Bill. The Institution of Structural Engineers is a body of people who actually know about such things. They describe their profession as designing and making buildings, bridges, frameworks and other structures. They distinguish between buildings, bridges and other structures. They see a structure as something in itself. It is quite right to do so. Buildings are really a subset of structures rather than the other way about, as people sometimes seem to think.
I wish to turn to the Bill. I find one point curious. There may be a reason for it and I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to explain what the reason is, if there is one. In the schedule, "buildings" and "structures" are differentiated. They are separated out in the schedule but not in the main part of the Bill. I am merely saying that if "buildings" and "structures" are distinguished, as they ought to be, in the schedule, they should be distinguished also in the main part of the Bill.
I regret having to detain the Committee at some length on this matter. However, after our adventures on the Environment Bill which settled a point which caused me and my professional colleagues of good deal of bother over the years, I do not think the Government will step back instead of stepping forward. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. The Government are faced with a problem of logic. We are talking about a National Heritage Bill. Heritage is that which is inherited—something from the past. In new Section 3(1) the Government have seen fit to list,
"scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest".
Surely it is not necessary to have that list of characteristics when the subsection contains the word "historic". Surely "historic" is all that is needed. As soon as one starts producing a list, as the Government have done here, things are almost inevitably left out. It is very unfortunate that "engineering" has been left out in this case because it suggests that the Government, or whoever has drafted the Bill, are thinking in terms of the superficial appearance of things rather than the reality of the ingenuous mechanisms and structures that are behind the façade, as my noble friend has so succinctly demonstrated.
That takes care of the Government's position regarding Amendment No. 1. As I see it, they can either accept my noble friend's amendment or take out the other different characteristics apart from "historic" listed in the subsection. However, it does not resolve the

1357
Government's problem with regard to Amendment No. 3. As my noble friend pointed out, there is a problem in that in one part of the Bill "structures" are included while in another part of the Bill they are not included. Following the contributions from this side of the Committee I hope that the Government will take steps to resolve the problems which we have pointed out. In particular, I hope that this short debate will give the Government the opportunity to demonstrate that they have some regard for engineering structures, the engineering profession and the contribution engineers have made to the heritage we currently enjoy.
Viscount Caldecote: I would not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howie, in his views on the looks of Tower Bridge, but I would like to make two points on the amendment. First, there is a distinction between the preservation and the interest of engineering things and scientific things. Perhaps I may give the Committee one example. The Iron Bridge Museum, about which many Members of the Committee will know, has a splendid example of an engineering structure in its bridge and also, in the other parts of the museum, of the engineering developments of the Industrial Revolution. It is a fine example of preserving items of engineering interest. On the other hand, the electron microscope has made an enormous difference in the scientific world. If there is a place where the original electron microscope is preserved—I hope there is—that is a great scientific project whose preservation should be celebrated. There should be some way of funding such a preservation. Those two things are entirely different, although in the Bill as drafted we say that we shall preserve things of scientific interest but not of engineering interest.
Secondly, next year is the Year of Engineering Success and we shall celebrate the great importance of engineering, its success and its contribution to our society today. If we are to celebrate the present and the future contribution of engineering to our society, should we not also equally preserve the engineering achievements of the past? To do one without the other seems most illogical. The argument that one cannot put one more word into a Bill of this kind in order to make it a better Bill is not a strong argument at all. I very much hope that my noble friend will accept the noble Lord's amendment to include the word "engineering".
Lord Inglewood: If there was ever any doubt that your Lordships' House was not interested in and concerned about engineering, this debate has put paid to it. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, explained fully that his intention in proposing this group of amendments is to ensure that engineering is treated as an aspect of the heritage in its own right and not simply as an adjunct to history, archaeology, architecture or science. The noble Lord has of course played a distinguished role in the world of engineering and I fully understand his reasons for raising this issue. Indeed, he is a very well-known champion of the profession. I hope that I can give him an assurance that the Bill as drafted will fully meet his concerns. We shall consider very carefully the points that have been raised in the debate because the last thing we want to do is to have a Bill on the statute book that does not properly cover engineering matters.
1358
The Bill inserts into the National Heritage Act 1980 a new provision to define the scope of the funding powers of the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Under the terms of that provision the trustees' powers will be exercisable in the case of things of any kind which are of scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest. The legal advice we have been given is quite clear that the provision as it stands—and in particular the reference to things of historic, aesthetic, architectural or scientific interest—is quite sufficient to encompass objects of interest in relation to engineering and its history. The noble Lord referred to the Government's acceptance of his proposal that relevant provisions of the Environment Act 1995 should refer specifically to the concept of engineering interest. I do not believe that is directly relevant to this Bill. The list in new Section 3(1) of the Bill is already wider than the definitions in the Environment Act and I am quite clear that the list fully encompasses anything which can be said to be part of our heritage.
Given that the list of heritage "interests", if I may call them that, specified in the Bill is rather long, I am reluctant to add another one when there is no substantive need to do so. If the Bill were to include a specific reference to engineering—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell—then an equally valid case could be made on behalf of a whole range of other specialisms; for example, medical, bibliographical, horticultural and so on.
The problem is then that if the list is extended in that way it is not that it simply becomes inherently unwieldy, but the fact that something omitted may in turn become the source of misunderstanding and concern. Neither do we favour the insertion of the word "structures", as proposed in Amendment No. 2. The projects for which the trustees will be empowered to give financial assistance include, among other things—and I emphasise that—the construction or conversion of buildings and the carrying out of other works. Moreover, the provision makes it clear that the projects specified are not themselves an exclusive list.
Again, we are fully satisfied that a project involving the repair of an engineering structure would be eligible for assistance. We are concerned that if this amendment is added to the Bill—and we consider it to be unnecessary—it could then trigger a whole cascade of amendments to add to what is already clearly an illustrative list.
In saying that I am not overlooking the current Section 3 of the National Heritage Act, which includes the phrase, "land, building or structure". But the new Section 3 inserted by the Bill formulates the National Heritage Memorial Fund's powers in an entirely different way and does not require the retention of that phrase.
In the context of this debate it may be helpful to Members of the Committee to draw attention to the existing power of the Secretary of State to list buildings of special architectural or historic interest. The terms of this provision enable engineering structures, for example, Tower Bridge, to be listed albeit that I know

1359
the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has made it quite clear that he believes it to be a monstrosity. Nevertheless, in terms of the subject that we are debating that makes the case for me.
One thing that I would like to emphasise is that I hope that no noble Lord will believe that anything I have said in response to the helpful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, indicates that the Government or the National Heritage Memorial Fund trustees underestimate the importance of our engineering heritage. After all, a number of lottery awards have already been offered for projects relating to engineering history, including one with which the noble Lord has himself been much involved. I can give an absolutely clear assurance that the trustees will continue to have power under the terms of the Bill to assist such projects.
I hope that the remarks that I have addressed to the Committee convince the noble Lord to agree with me that his amendments are unnecessary in the context of this particular Bill and that his proper concerns are met four-square. Perhaps, in a slightly perverse way, they may turn out to be unhelpful. I am reluctant to move in the direction that the noble Lord has suggested, but I can give an undertaking that we shall look very carefully at what has been said this afternoon with a view to double-checking our interpretation of the words in order to make quite sure that we are satisfied that the very important points that the noble Lord made are properly covered. Against that background I very much hope that he will not want to press his amendment this afternoon.
4 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: I am very glad to hear what the Minister has said because it sounds as though the Government are listening and are respectful of our position. Perhaps I may pose him a problem. I was going to use the example of Tower Bridge, but perhaps that has been flogged to death already this afternoon. Perhaps I may put forward an alternative scenario; namely, a windmill in East Anglia. There are two ways of looking at an old windmill: one is that it is a beautiful, aesthetic structure although when they were built they were not considered to be so. But many people think of them in that way now. It might be felt that one of these windmills should be preserved for that reason.
There is another dimension and that is the engineering within the windmill, including the ingenious mechanisms contained in their manufacture, which is so important to our heritage. We could have a situation where the internal mechanics were stripped out of a heritage facility and just the façade left. That would be a great concern. I hope that the Minister will recognise that, given the current wording of the Bill, that is the sort of risk that those of us who know about these ingenious engineering aspects of our heritage will be concerned about. The Minister may be able to give me some reassurance and I would welcome that, but I wonder whether he can.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I am no engineer which, I fear, is painfully obvious. But I am a lawyer and I hope that
1360
it may be in order to reiterate my earlier remarks that we would like to look very carefully at what has been said. One thing that I am clear about is that, in terms of the substance of the matter we are concerned with, there is no difference between any of the speakers. Perhaps I may write to those who have contributed to the debate. We shall look at it all again with a view to bringing forward any refinements if they seem necessary to us at a further stage of the proceedings on this Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: I felt that I was possibly doomed when the Minister said that my contribution had been helpful. That is a word I have heard before. Indeed, I could have recited the Minister's speech because I have heard it six or seven times previously in the past eight or so years. We could have exchanged Hansard across the Floor of the House and saved a great deal of time.
I accept that, as the Minister says, what I want can be done under the Bill as it stands because it has been done in the past. He drew attention to a project with which I have been concerned; namely, the preservation of the oldest surviving railway bridge in the world over the River Irvine on the Kilmarnock to Troon railway, which was built in 1812. The trust of which I was chairman has restored that bridge. It was opened a fortnight ago. It is a marvellous construction. Perhaps I may say that we were greatly helped by the heritage fund, which gave us about half of the £1 million we required to restore the bridge. Therefore, we know that these things can be done under the existing legislation, but that is not really my point. That bridge was repaired because it was an historic monument of some sort. There was a railway bridge which was an engineering monument and not an historic one. That is my point.
Perhaps I may express my gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who is a very distinguished engineer whom I have known for many years. I found his contribution extremely helpful although he seems to have a blind spot as regards Tower Bridge, but that is another matter. Clause 1 of the Bill refers to things which are of
"scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest".
We find that there is only one profession involved there which is distinguished as having special qualities and that is architecture. I have no animus against architecture at all: in fact this evening I am going to the award ceremony which is being held at the RIBA. I have not had to pay so I am going.
The point I am trying to make is this: what are the specific architectural qualities which are different from these other factors? That was the point made by my noble friend Lord Monkswell. What are the specific qualities which are architectural and which relate to one specific profession and are so significant that they have to be included in the Bill whereas there appear to be no distinct qualities of an engineering nature which are worthy of inclusion? I believe that there are such factors. I agree that there are architectural qualities, but there are also engineering ones which are different.

1361
I have no doubt that the Minister will go off and think about it and then write me a letter which I could probably draft myself at this moment. I would like to come to see him to discuss this issue with his colleagues. The noble Lord seems to be engrossed in conversation at the moment and quite rightly, of course, because there is something extremely important going on there. I would like to come and see the Minister and discuss—
Baroness Trumpington: My noble friend was not talking at all; I was talking to the Deputy Chairman of Committees. My noble friend the Minister said that he will take back the whole question. I was wondering whether the noble Lord was dissatisfied with what he said.
Lord Howie of Troon: Nothing on earth would make me dissatisfied with anything that the noble Baroness might say, as she knows from our many years' acquaintance across the Floor of your Lordships' House. Although I thought that a most unhelpful intervention, perhaps I should leave that to one side.
I am talking about the difference between architecture and engineering. I hope that the Minister will agree to see me to discuss the matter over a cup of tea or, even better, over a Lagavulin.
I turn now to Amendment No. 3, which seeks to add the words "or structures". I see that the Minister is at it again and I find it very distracting. However, the question that arises is why "buildings" and "structures" are quite properly referred to separately in the schedule to the Bill but are not separated on page 2 of the Bill which refers merely to "buildings". There must be some reason for stating "building or structure" in one part of the Bill but only "buildings" in another. There may be a good reason for that, but I should like to hear what it is. Perhaps the Minister will write to me about that important matter. In the meantime, however, and giving the noble Lord the assurance that I shall return to the matter at a later stage—and no doubt until the Millennium—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 27, at end insert ("including financial assistance to prevent the imposition of admission charges at the British Museum and other national museums and galleries").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment, which stands also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, is to allow lottery funds, through the NHMF, to be used for financial assistance to prevent the imposition of admission charges at the British Museum and our other museums and galleries when they get into financial difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has asked me to say that he is prevented from attending your Lordships' Committee today and that he sends his apologies. I know that the noble Lord feels as strongly as I do about the difficult situation facing our museums and galleries following the recent financial cuts. The British Museum, for example, is faced with cuts in its grant amounting to 24 per cent. in real terms by the
1362
year 2000. The trustees are having to consider several options—none of them very desirable, such as the introduction of a £5 admission charge, cutting the workforce by a third or closing the museum for one day a week.
I feel that I have been through all this before. I remember in 1970 when there was the great controversy about admission charges that I played some part in the debates in your Lordships' House and outside. The Government had great difficulty in getting the measure through due to public opinion. However, they did so eventually, by the end of 1973. Charges were introduced for a very short period because in 1974, when the new Labour Government, of whom I was a member, came into office, my noble friend Lord Jenkins introduced a Bill to repeal the original Act. That was one of the first acts of the new Labour Government. I am glad to see my noble friend in his place today. Then, in the 1980s, the new Conservative Government reversed that—rather cunningly, I think—by allowing the trustees themselves to make the decision. The beauty of that, from the Government's point of view, was that they need take absolutely no responsibility at all, although the trustees were often driven to bring in admission charges if they got into financial difficulties because of the cuts.
The British Museum has always resisted an admission charge, as have the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery—and rightly so. However, other museums which have introduced charges have seen a sharp reduction in their number of visitors, sometimes amounting to as much as 50 per cent., and it is difficult to win many of them back. Is that any wonder? Even with children being admitted at half price, a family of two parents and two children would have to pay £15 on top of their fares and the cost of a meal. That is an expensive outing which is surely beyond the reach of many people. A high admission charge is also a hindrance for those specialists and others who may want to visit a museum for only a short time to see a special section. An admission charge is also a betrayal of those many people who have made bequests on the understanding that admission would be free.
I realise that the British Museum is to receive a grant of £30 million of lottery money to develop the Great Court following the British Library's move to St. Pancras. That will be an exciting and tremendously important project, judging by the plans and the architects' models that I have seen. However, we shall have the absurd situation of the museum not having sufficient resources to staff its galleries and research departments adequately.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and I therefore tabled the amendment to enable lottery funds to be used not only for new developments such as the Bill allows but also to enable the British Museum, our greatest museum—indeed, the greatest museum in the world—to remain free at entry as it has always been (except for a brief period during the time of the government of Sir Edward Heath) since its foundation in 1753. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I should like to add a word or two in support of what my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has just said. His amendment is desirable. Perhaps I may refer to a previous occasion when the government of the time—or, at any rate, the opposition of the time—accepted what the new Labour Government had proposed. That was in 1974 when, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has just said, charges had recently been introduced but were not altogether welcome.
When I came into office as Minister for the Arts in 1974, it was part of my remit to get rid of museum admission charges. That commitment had appeared in our manifesto. I remember Mr. Harold Wilson saying that it would probably be a fairly long job as fresh legislation would be necessary. However, after a study of the matter, in which I was considerably assisted by my civil servants, I discovered that the introduction of museum charges had never been part of any Act of Parliament. All that the Government had passed in the 1972 Act was a measure which enabled museums to impose charges if they so chose. Therefore, the idea that legislation would be needed if we were to get rid of the charges was untrue.
That was most important because, having only recently been appointed, about a week later I was able to come to the Chamber on 22nd March 1974 to say that only a week later, on 29th March, all the charges would be removed. One might say that that was done administratively because we got the leaders of the museums and galleries together and we all agreed that they did not want to charge and that where they already had charges, they would like to remove them. We agreed on a date a week ahead, 29th March, and all that we then had to do was to come to the House and announce that after 29th March there would be no admission charges. So, within a fortnight of being appointed and five days from the moment of my first measure in the House, I was able to get rid of the charges immediately.
I make that point because admission charges are not popular. However, that does not exclude our great institutions from being able to charge for special exhibitions. It is perfectly possible for the British Museum and other museums to make special charges for special exhibitions. Across the parties it is widely thought to be right that the standard exhibitions at our great institutions should be free of charge. They are part of the heritage of this country and there should be no charge. The short experience of charging last time was that the number of entrants substantially reduced and it failed to provide a useful amount of money. If one imposed charges at a level that resulted in a serious contribution, it had the effect of reducing the number of entrants. It simply did not work.
I fully support what my noble friend has said. We have worked together for a long time. At the time in question my noble friend was spokesman in this House for me as Minister for the Arts in the other place. I believe that our long friendship has arisen from that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will be able
1364
to accept the amendment. It merely illustrates a possibility and refers to a particular use, which I believe to be a valuable use. If he accepts that possibility, he will merely be following a step taken by his predecessor Mr. St. John Stevas, as he was then. Having been the Minister before me who introduced the charges, he had no hesitation in deciding that it was wrong that they should continue. He agreed that they should be removed. I hope that the noble Lord will follow that example.
Lord Renton: I am sure that many noble Lords would regret it if more museums had to charge the public for admission. It becomes especially regrettable if parties of schoolchildren and their teachers have to pay. Either they or the schools might not have the necessary funds. For parties of schoolchildren, visits to museums can bring to life the teaching of history, archaeology, geology, biology and other subjects. Therefore, if museums find it difficult to pay their way without making charges, surely some way must be found to try to keep them open without having to charge for admission.
It appears that at present the National Lottery Fund and the National Heritage Memorial Fund cannot be used for the purpose of enabling museums to pay their way because of the principle of additionality. That principle prevents those funds being used in addition to government grants, if Government grants can be used. Sometimes government grants can and have been used to help museums to stay open. One must consider whether this Bill will help in any way. I should be grateful for my noble friend's interpretation of it, because I believe that it is only a matter of interpretation.
Under the present law only specific projects can be funded. If we look at the Bill closely, Clause 1(1) amends Section 3 of the National Heritage Act 1980. Under subsection (2) it is provided:
"The Trustees may, for the purpose of …
(b) encouraging the study and understanding of them and the compilation and dissemination of information about them".
The "them" refers to the matters dealt with in subsection (1) which go beyond projects. For example, matters of zoological or botanical interest are included. Reference is made to improving access to them. That looks like admission to the public. Reference is also made to display. That is what goes on in a museum. It also refers to "encouraging enjoyment of them". Museums can provide enjoyment as well as interest. It goes on to provide:
"or for any purpose ancillary to those purposes [the Trustees may] give financial assistance for any project"—
that appears to be a word of limitation—
"which appears to them to be of public benefit".
Alas, the word "project" does not appear to me to include the general cost of running a museum.
Let us look, perhaps a little more hopefully, at what is said over the page. One finds that a new subsection (5) is to give financial assistance,
"by way of grant or loan out of the Fund, and in giving such assistance the Trustees may impose any conditions they think fit".

1365
Those conditions are set out in subsection (6). They include "means of access or display". That looks like admission to the public and what the public are to be shown.
Finally, I refer your Lordships to subsection (7):
"In giving any financial assistance under this section for any project for the preservation or enhancement of anything, or determining the conditions on which such assistance is to be given, the Trustees shall bear in mind the desirability of public access to, or the public display of, the thing in question and of its enjoyment by the public".
All of that looks very helpful, but it is a matter of interpretation in the light of the existing law which prevents additionality. It must be borne in mind that interpretation, stretched as much as anyone dare, is sometimes not enough. If one wishes to alter the previous law, one must amend it specifically. For that reason, I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about the effect of the Bill on what is proposed. I shall be interested in whether or not he believes that the amendment is necessary to achieve that purpose. If there is any doubt about it, I hope that the amendment, or something like it, will be accepted.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, gave a clear description of the merits of not charging for admission to the British Museum. Of course, the British Museum is not the only museum that does not charge. The National Gallery does not charge for admission. I believe that this amendment is rather dangerous for galleries. It would allow the Government—in effect the Treasury—to escape from all the assurances that had been given about additionality.
My noble friend Lord Renton said that there was a law which prevented additionality. I do not think that there is. There is simply an undertaking by the Government. One must remember that the Government do not give away lottery money. The distributing bodies give it away.
I am against the amendment because, in effect, it says that if post-settlement the Government cut the money which goes to the British Museum, lottery money will make up the difference. That would not prevent the Treasury from making cuts. I believe that it would encourage it to make cuts, because under the proposed amendment it would know that a museum could go to the Arts Council or the National Heritage Memorial Fund and say that its budget had been cut, that it might have to charge and that in the Bill it was provided that it could get lottery money. It would be very dangerous. I understand the noble Lord's concerns about charging but I do not believe that this amendment in this Bill is the right way to deal with the problem.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I thank my noble friend. If, by a slip of the tongue, I referred to the law of additionality, I was wrong; it is the principle of additionality. But it is a governing principle because it is something which the Government decided upon before giving away any money.
Lord Donoughue: I fear that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, described the reality of the current situation
1366
in this area, which is that cuts are made by the Treasury regardless. If there is any suggestion that money may be obtained from the lottery, that is used as an excuse, but if that money is not available then the cuts are made in any event.
However, I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friends Lord Strabolgi and Lord Jenkins. On this side we feel that perhaps the most important current single issue in the area of heritage is the plight of our museums and especially the British Museum, which, as has been said, is the world's greatest of its kind. I am puzzled. I believe that it is bizarre and ludicrous for the British Museum to be forced to make a charge which will exclude many of our citizens, especially our younger citizens, from its treasures. In the case of the British Museum, that will be all for the lack of £6 million per year when on another hand we see that £0.5 billion or more of lottery and other public and private money is ready to be hosed over the toxic wastes of Greenwich yielding little of permanent value.
I know that those are two slightly separate issues, but in the end, it is part of the heritage problem that we have in our society and I find it quite incomprehensible. In responding to the amendment, I should like the Minister to inform us as to whether existing legislation enables support to be given for the purposes suggested by the amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I find this a very misconceived and astounding amendment. I am sure that politics come into this more than practical matters in relation to the future of museums. I can think of many reasons, as I am sure can other Members of the Committee, why lottery money should be made available to our national museums for new purchases, enhancement of collections and so on. But why should we wish to subsidise rich American and German tourists who visit the British Museum? I believe that 80 per cent. of visitors to the British Museum come from overseas and a recent survey pointed out that 80 per cent. of those were not only able but willing to pay an admission charge, as, indeed, is charged at the Louvre, the Hermitage, the Kunsthaus in Vienna, the Uffizi in Florence and so on. There are no criticisms there.
And then there is the allegation that attendances have fallen. But I believe that the number of visitors was never counted in the first place. There cannot be a reduction from a number which was unknown in the first place. The way in which counting takes place at the museums still leaves a lot to be desired.
I believe that lottery money should be used for capital projects, and that was the main reason that it was set up. But to pour millions down the drain of an ever gaping hole is no incentive for the trustees to establish any sensible policy. It is easy to make no charge for children and old-age pensioners. Many museums do that. That is not difficult.

1367
I want lottery money to be used to improve what people come to see. If that is done, even more people will wish to pay to see the museums. Let us keep the money for that. So much can be done but to subsidise overseas visitors seems to me to be extremely silly.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I suggest to the noble Lord that he should speak to his noble friend Lord Gowrie, who will tell him that the notion that 80 per cent. of visitors to museums are foreigners is absolute nonsense.
Lord Inglewood: We have had a heartfelt and wide-ranging debate on this amendment. I am sure that the Committee will be aware that, under Clause I of the Bill, the trustees of the NHMF will be able to provide financial assistance for projects aimed at securing, displaying or improving access to heritage items and encouraging enjoyment of them. Thus the Bill allows the NHMF to consider assisting projects which would secure reduced admissions charges, which was the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton. I believe, therefore, that the Bill as drafted covers the purposes of the noble Lord's amendment. If the trustees of the NHMF receive an application and consider it appropriate, and if the policy directions permit, they would be able to provide financial assistance in this way.
It will be for the trustees to exercise their discretion as to how they should use their new powers. However, I would envisage that they might wish to give priority to projects which would encourage members of the public who might not easily be able to afford the cost of admission charges—for example the young, the elderly and the unemployed—to visit museums and other similar venues to enjoy them.
Thus I hope your Lordships will see that the noble Lord's amendment therefore adds nothing to the powers of the NHMF beyond what the Government are proposing in the Bill as drafted. However, what it does do is actually to restrict the discretion of the NHMF in undesirable ways. The amendment would give favoured treatment to the national museums and galleries, and I do not believe it is desirable to favour some organisations in this way, as is proposed. The trustees of the NHMF should have the freedom to determine their priorities within the heritage sector as a whole. The amendment would restrict that freedom.
The noble Lord's proposal seeks to address the long-term revenue needs of the national museums and galleries. However, while this is a matter for the trustees of the NHMF, I should be surprised if they would wish to use their powers to commit lottery money towards the long-term revenue costs of the national museums in order to avoid the need for a general admission charge. Any such assistance would principally benefit those visitors, including, as my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu pointed out, the large number of visitors from overseas who are well able to afford admission charges. Those museums and galleries which already charge generally offer free entry to special groups such as the elderly, children and the unemployed. The new powers could enable the trustees of the NHMF to assist museums in offering further concessions. Furthermore,
1368
lottery funding to prevent general admission charges would raise issues about substitution for core funding and affordability. As has been mentioned, it would be difficult to reconcile such a commitment with the Government's statement on additionality.
The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would also raise difficulties for the NHMF in determining how much financial assistance was needed by the various museums in order to help them avoid the introduction of admission charges. On what basis could such decisions be taken? In order to maximise their bids for financial assistance, the institutions would have every incentive publicly to maintain that they intended to introduce charges and it is difficult to see how the NHMF could form a judgment on those bids without exploring in great detail the institutions' finances and the options available to them for controlling expenditure and raising alternative sources of income. Certainly it would be a significant burden on them, I would expect.
The amendment before us refers to the "imposition" of admission charges. I must emphasise—and this was a point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Jenkins—that there is no question of the Government imposing this on the British Museum or on the other national museums, and let us be clear, the future of the British Museum is a very important matter and of concern to everybody in this country. The decision on this is entirely a matter for the trustees of each institution, who are in the best position to make that judgment in the light of their own needs and priorities. Of the 12 national museums and galleries sponsored by my department, six have introduced an admission charge. In each case the decision was taken solely by the trustees.
The Government neither encourage nor discourage charging for admission by national museums and galleries. It is up to them, and many galleries in the world do make a charge. In the case of the British Museum, it has recently completed a fundamental expenditure review—the Edwards Report—which has pointed out that the museum must balance its books: an entirely unobjectionable proposition, I would suggest. In order to do that, necessary and prompt action needs to be taken. One—but only one—of the possibilities raised is the introduction of admission charges. It is for the trustees themselves to decide what is to be done to improve the financial condition of the museum.
Given that the Bill as drafted will enable the trustees of the NHMF to provide financial assistance to museums and galleries and other heritage venues for discrete projects which would enable them to reduce admissions charges in specific circumstances, I very much hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment. I am reluctant, for the reasons I have touched on, to accept his proposal because it conflicts with the principle of additionality and because of the other actual and potential practical difficulties which I mentioned.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down, I hope that he will forgive me for intervening in a matter that I have just been discussing in another place. I understand perfectly that the Minister's position is

1369
correct; namely, that the decision on charging is entirely a matter for trustees. But does that not sound a little like an unsuccessful groundsman who says that a low score is entirely the responsibility of the batsman?
Lord Inglewood: No, it is not a case of Hobson's choice. Here we have a state of affairs where the British Museum, as analysed in the Edwards report, faces a series of problems. As I understand it, that report poses a series of options which either individually or together may provide the appropriate way forward for the trustees. It is for them to address the issues, looking at the options—and, indeed, any other options that may come to mind—and then to take the matter forward. I do not believe that the noble Earl is correct to say that the trustees are firmly impaled on Morton's fork.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down and before the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, replies, perhaps he would clarify one matter in his most interesting and, if I may say so, most convincing response to the debate. My understanding of what he said is that he maintains that the Bill makes an exception to the principle of additionality. However, if that is not so, how does my noble friend reconcile what he said about the effect of the Bill with that principle?
Lord Inglewood: The point I was making is that the course of action inherent in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would in our view pose potentially serious problems about the application of the principle of additionality. The point about the principle of additionality is that money from the lottery should not be a substitute for money from the public purse. What we are talking about in the context of the specific projects which may or may not commend themselves to the trustee of the fund is the fact that they would be projects which would not otherwise have been funded by the public purse. Therefore, we are genuinely in a state of affairs where something additional is being made available.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister. His answer was most convincing.
Lord Strabolgi: I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Jenkins of Putney and Lord Donoughue and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the most valid and, I think, important and discerning points that he made in interpreting the Bill. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, with his great experience of tourism, that it is not just tourists who go to the British Museum. A great many scholars and other people who rely on the expertise and scholarship of the museum do so. It is a very fine service. Anyone who has been to see one of the curators behind the scenes to obtain advice will know that well.
I am most grateful to the Minister for explaining the position. However, the Government are always like this. They say, "This is nothing to do with us; it is a matter for the trustees". They hide behind such statements. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, it is like the cat
1370
getting the monkey to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. It is never anything to do with them. They do this about everything. The underlying reason why the trustees might have to introduce charges is that the Government have made cuts of 25 per cent., as I said earlier. Why do the Government always treat the British Museum so badly?
I remember many years ago when I first came to this House in the 1950s being taken around the reserve rooms of the museum by the then director and being shown dozens and dozens of Greek and Roman bronzes, beautiful Greek mirror cases, and so on. Many of them were covered with verdigris. The director said, "Isn't it ghastly and tragic. It is because the Government will not give us enough money to employ people to keep them clean". That was the position in the 1950s. Of course, it is slightly better now.
However, now the Government are back at their old tricks of making big cuts. That is the trouble and that is why the trustees may be faced with bringing in charges. It is not a free choice on their part: it is just one of the very, very difficult options with which they are faced. I realise that the amendment is not the right way to improve the situation, for the reasons that the Minister explained. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will take on board the fact that they must finance our national museums properly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert ("or structures").
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move this amendment. I also give advance notice that I do not intend to move Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 when we come to them.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) In giving financial assistance to projects under subsection (3) above, due priority and consideration shall be given to works of preservation and repair of existing buildings and objects.").
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of my amendment is to get a clearer understanding of the Government's view of how the built heritage will receive lottery funding and how the National Heritage Memorial Fund is going to work alongside other funding bodies to achieve this aim. A great deal of emphasis has so far been placed on lottery funded projects which are new creations. Of course, many are new creations, although they are additions to existing buildings—new wings to galleries and new galleries within existing buildings. But the emphasis has largely been on the new. In the future, the Bill will allow other parts of the heritage that have missed out to benefit also. Perhaps one might say more preservation rather than new creation. My amendment would allow the Committee to consider whether this needs to be spelt out explicitly in the Bill.
Since the inception of the lottery I have always believed that it will only really be successful and acceptable to the public at large if we are able to use lottery funding to help restore our towns and cities—to restore townscapes, streets, crescents, urban parks, historic squares and other buildings, whether they are grand or modest in scale. Until now, some of these have been excluded from lottery funding under the current rules which are proposed to be changed by this Bill. Let us take, for example, a Georgian crescent, owned perhaps by a charity. It only takes one tenant, in one flat in one house, to exercise his right to buy for the application to be excluded because under the law the National Heritage Memorial Fund cannot fund private owners.
The Bill attempts to change that and will allow private owners to benefit, subject to all the necessary conditions that they may need to go through. Those changes are most welcome. But how will they work? As I understand it, at present English Heritage advises the NHMF on the merits of built heritage applications. There is also a successful joint scheme for the funding of churches and cathedrals. One of the more important English Heritage proposed schemes to be funded in future from the NHMF is conservation area partnerships. For the want of a better phrase these are poor towns or villages. By the NHMF helping to fund those schemes, I understand that that will then free up money so that English Heritage can continue to fund grants to local authorities and private owners.
Can my noble friend the Minister explain how in practice these schemes will work? I presume that lottery funding will be additional to English Heritage grants so that there will be no problems of additionality. But how will the funding work? What will be the priorities?
Does it mean that by this somewhat backdoor way of increasing or maintaining moneys available for the funding of private owners by English Heritage the National Heritage Memorial Fund will believe that it has now done its duty to the built heritage and need not consider further applications from some of the larger houses, some of which are in desperate need of funding in the future in order to preserve their collections?
Has the Minister considered whether it may be necessary to issue guidance or directions after the Bill becomes law? Not only might those be necessary, they might be helpful in ensuring that confusion does not occur.
I am sure my noble friend will say that some of the words in my amendment are unnecessary. I do not want to include unnecessary words in the Bill. What I am looking for is the assurance, a clear statement from my noble friend, that all the bodies working together will give due priority and consideration to the funding of our existing built heritage. I beg to move.
Lord Rothschild: In relation to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, perhaps I may comment on one or two points that he raised.
1372
I do not believe that on balance it is fair to say that thus far the National Heritage Memorial Fund's emphasis has been on the new. Selectively, trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund have actively encouraged the creation of some excellent new buildings in order to preserve or enhance items of our heritage which may in themselves become part of the heritage of the future. However, the trustees have always wanted to ensure that, where possible, new uses are found to preserve the stock of existing buildings of merit. Priority has been given to projects that make effective use of existing buildings which deliver additional heritage benefits. To reassure the noble Viscount, perhaps I may recommend our latest annual report in which all the projects involving the repair and preservation of existing buildings and objects are listed.
With regard to town centres, this is already an area that we are actively considering. Noble Lords may be aware that only last month we approved in principle a grant to revitalise the historic centre of Pontefract.
However, as I said during Second Reading of the Bill, once the Act is in force the lottery fund will able to consider all applications on their merits, unconstrained by ownership. Therefore, where a good project in heritage terms provides substantial public benefit but depends on the participation of private owners, that will be eligible for funding. We intend to use our funds for the widest possible public benefit. That will mean that all the areas mentioned—national parks, historic towns and conservation areas—will be priorities. I stress that we do not wish to provide a substitute for funding from government agencies although we have to recognise that the chalk line at times is difficult for us to define.
I have already made clear our views on private owners. We stress that we do not want to duplicate the work that English Heritage has done so well for many years. Our support should surely always depend on clear additional public benefit, usually in the form of increased public access. Therefore, we shall continue to work closely with English Heritage, as indeed with all the other heritage-related agencies. I should like to remind the House that the heritage fund covers much more than the built heritage of England; it covers the myriad aspects of our heritage across all four countries of the United Kingdom.
I should also add that, should the Bill become law, we shall be carrying out a nationwide public consultation exercise not only with our specialist advisers but with a range of voluntary groups and organisations to sound out heritage priorities across the country.
Finally, I should like to repeat what I said during Second Reading of the Bill: that we very much welcome the Bill and the extended canvas that it provides which will enable us to spread the benefits across an even wider range of projects.
Lord Donoughue: I speak broadly in support of the noble Viscount's amendment. Perhaps I may begin by saying how pleased I am, as I am sure we all are, to see the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, present. That is extremely helpful to us. What he said was reassuring.

1373
I wish to pick up one point. It concerns existing private houses. The Bill is an enabling Bill. It enables help to go to those houses. However, we fear that in practice few may be helped—not for bad reasons but for perfectly understandable reasons. There is no extra money. The money cake is still the same. The Bill enables the funding to be spread more widely. Preserving the fabric of our built heritage is expensive. The houses must compete with the many other admirable projects such as gallery extensions, visitor centres, and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, referred to that whole area. I was pleased to hear what the noble Lord said about the co-operation between the National Heritage Memorial Fund and English Heritage. It is understandable that the officers of those bodies have a most onerous and difficult task, and that they, too, will have their personal priorities.
However, as a result of all those factors we fear that while the Bill will give private historic houses a new right to be assisted in most years the money will not be available for them. On this side of the Chamber, we would be sad about that. I should like the Minister to reinforce the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, perhaps with a slightly different emphasis, that in practice positive consideration and help will be given to applications for such capital funding.
Baroness Rawlings: I support the noble Viscount's amendment regarding works of preservation. I should like to make sure that Section 3(2)(a), which refers to,
"securing the preservation or enhancement of such things",
includes security, to which I referred at Second Reading. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Trumpington who wrote to me, as she had said she would, stating that preservation could include protection against theft or damage. Security is needed for buildings, parks, town centres and open spaces. It places an astronomical cost on everyone. Crime prevention is much in the forefront of our minds, especially with regard to the very good paper which the Government produced today.
5 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: In speaking to the amendment, my noble friend Lord Astor asked about the fund's priorities for the allocation of lottery funds once the Bill becomes law.
We are now talking of the statutory powers that the National Heritage Memorial Fund trustees are given by the Bill to enable them to disburse financial assistance if they so wish. What the priorities should be is a matter for them. We have had some extremely helpful comments from the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in saying how pleased we are to see him here this afternoon. But, ultimately, it is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and his fellow trustees to ensure that the lottery resources which are made available to them support projects of demonstrable heritage merit and public benefit. I do not think that anybody in this House does not believe that they will exercise those duties conscientiously, knowledgeably and effectively.
1374
They are obviously very much aware that the fund's funding role must not duplicate or cut across the work of other heritage bodies. With that in mind the National Heritage Memorial Fund has, as I explained at Second Reading and as the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, repeated today, already embarked on constructive discussions with other heritage funding bodies on future priorities in the light of the new powers conferred by the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, explained that point in some detail. I do not see that there is any need for me to repeat his remarks.
The respective roles of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and English Heritage will be a key element in the discussions. They already work together in close co-operation and, as the noble Lord acknowledged, the fund seeks advice from English Heritage on lottery applications relating to the built heritage in England. As noble Lords will be aware, last month saw the launch of a joint National Heritage Memorial Fund/English Heritage scheme for church repair grants.
The Government are quite confident that the two bodies will continue to work together to ensure that the overall funding available, whether from the lottery or from English Heritage's own grant schemes, is applied in a way that best serves the needs of the heritage and does not lead to unnecessary duplication of expertise between them.
Perhaps I may focus on a particular point in a rather more general way than the way in which it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The trustees will exercise their discretion according to their assessment of the value of the projects in front of them and the inherent value of the heritage work of the schemes themselves. In determining between one category or another category of application, or between just two individual applications if there are more applicants than there is money available (which will almost certainly be the case) I am quite confident that the decision will be reached on the heritage merits of a proposal rather than any other consideration. That should give comfort to all those who, in whatever form, are responsible for buildings of high heritage value.
My noble friend Lord Astor urged that lottery funds should be made available to help our towns and cities. As I said, I have no doubt at all that he will find the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund responsive to that view. Indeed, the point was reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, this afternoon.
Clearly it is important in this context that the fund's role in this respect must be sensibly aligned with the other grant schemes, such as English Heritage conservation area partnership schemes. The detail of how that is done is a matter for the discussions that are under way.
My noble friend asked whether the Secretary of State will issue guidance or directions after the Bill becomes law. The Secretary of State has power under the National Lottery etc. Act to issue policy directions to the distributors. However, at this stage it is clearly too soon to consider when any such direction will be needed in respect of the powers being conferred by the Bill. The

1375
important point is that the National Heritage Memorial Fund should assess and identify funding priorities in consultation with the other relevant bodies and then develop the necessary procedures to give its ideas effect.
In conclusion, I assure the House and my noble friend that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and his fellow trustees are fully aware of the need to formulate proper, reasonable and thought through strategies for the exercise of their wider powers. As was explained, they are actively engaged in discussions with other bodies to do that. I am quite confident that the outcome will ensure that the overall resources available for the heritage are applied where they are most needed. Moreover, once decisions have been reached, I assure the Committee that noble Lords will be told what is intended.
Viscount Astor: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, for giving the Committee an explanation of the work that he and his trustees will do. I did indeed read his annual report and thought it an impressive document. The fund is doing an extremely good job and has the admiration of all of us. I was glad to hear that it will embark on a public consultation exercise and was particularly reassured by what the noble Lord said about town centres. That is very important. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for his support and to my noble friend Lady Rawlings.
My noble friend the Minister largely reassured me. However, he restricted much of his answer to the work of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I attempted to draw my noble friend on how the fund will work with English Heritage. After all, English Heritage is a very different beast. It is a body that hands out government money in grants to the heritage; whereas the National Heritage Memorial Fund hands out lottery money in an independent way without breaking any rules of additionality. The question is how one puts together these two bodies which come from totally different backgrounds, one handing out government money, the other handing out lottery money, and how they work together. That is the important question. We look forward to my noble friend, once he has gone further down the road with his policy, returning to the House to say how that will happen.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks and am much reassured. In that light, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert (", or
(c) to edit and publish a major work of reference dealing with all or part of the National Heritage.").
The noble Lord said: We are in a peculiar position in relation to this amendment. There is total agreement between the Minister and those whose names are appended to the amendment that they wish to enable the
1376
trustees, should they see fit, to contribute to the maintenance of the work of the editors and publishers of the Victoria County History. The amendment standing in my name and the names of other noble Lords would enable that to be done. It would, incidentally, also meet the case for the Survey of London, which is the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
The Government have so far wanted to rest their proposal—that was the point of the amendment tabled but not moved—on an extension of the power already in the Bill to maintain archives. Our contention is that archives and major works of reference like the Victoria County History are quite different and one cannot use one word to cover the other.
I speak with some experience. I started archival work in 1935 in various county offices and have worked—or, when fortunate enough to have research grants, had other people work for me—in a multiplicity of archives both public and private. Archives consist of what is left in terms of written documents on national policy, local policy and the fortunes, up and down, of families. I remember once discovering in a wooden chest in the hall of a family living somewhere in Worcestershire a charter of Richard II which they had somehow just put among their family papers.
Those documents are archives. It is desirable that money should be found, where necessary, to maintain archives. But to compile works of reference like the Victoria County History or the Survey of London is quite a different operation. They are documents which are written on the basis no doubt of the archives, but not identical to them. I understand that some lawyers believe that the word "archive" can be made to cover them. However, there is a character in Lewis Carroll's book who said: "You can always make words mean what you want them to mean". If that is the legal advice that the Minister has received, he should search for better legal advice.
It is essential that the words be right because, after all, the trustees of the fund will have to judge the matter. It is essential that we get the words right and I find the difference almost inexplicable. I do not understand why the Minister has so far insisted on using the word "archive" to mean something that it cannot possibly mean. I beg to move.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I support my noble friend. I underline that we appreciate the Minister's efforts to meet us on the point, but I am afraid I must strengthen what my noble friend said. Although the Victoria County History and the Survey of London use extensive archival material, they are history not archives, analytical history. That is their value. I am afraid that the amendment proposed by the department would not cover those kinds of books. Therefore we must ask the Minister to think again. I suggest that our original amendment has a better side to it.
I wish to say a few words on the financial situation of the Victoria County History and similar local histories. As noble Lords know, the Victoria County History was begun slightly before the turn of the century and was financed largely by the founder of

1377
W. H. Smith and by the readiness of people to pay 10 guineas a copy. However, in many counties only two volumes were produced. That is still the state of affairs in many counties in the country. Between 1966 and now my home county of Somerset has produced six additional volumes of considerable worth. But it did so largely with the assistance of local government. For example, the North Somerset County Council is prepared to regard the Victoria County History as a heritage scheme.
I therefore feel that if we are to fulfil the original aims of the imaginative people who began the Victoria County History, it is crucial that we be allowed to approach the trustees for lottery money. I remind your Lordships that this is the only project in the whole of Europe, apart from a somewhat similar exercise in the Black Forest. It is a worthy effort and it is crucial that we get the wording of the amendment right so that the lawyers do not deny us the money that would help the project.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: I support Amendment No. 7 which is in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Pilkington. I also wish to support Amendment No. 8 in the name of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a sometime—if only briefly—historian and Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.
I find myself in some difficulty because, like other noble Lords who have spoken, my main concern is to ensure that the great Victoria County Histories are covered. I should like to see the Dictionary of National Biography assured and certainly the Survey of London. I am totally convinced that the Minister agrees with and is sincere in wishing to meet my concern. I can see that the withdrawn amendments, Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, might have contained an improvement on the Bill. But like noble Lords who have already spoken, I am not convinced that the wording of the withdrawn amendments meets what we want.
The Victoria County Histories use archives and in a way generate them, but they are not purely archives. Stubbs' charters, which I once read, are probably a published archive; some of the series of the Camden Miscellany are probably archives. The published Foreign Office documents probably are. But the Victoria County Histories include narrative and analysis and a key part of our national heritage. They are to be used as vital works of reference in relation to that heritage.
I believe that the Government's wording, which presumably reflected the best they could do at the time, was not comprehensive enough for that definition. It might be a part, but it is not the whole definition. I believe that the wording of our amendment is better and is necessary to meet what we want.
I wish to float towards the Minister the idea that we might have a classic compromise with a combination of the two. I shall now read out that combination which contains, I believe, virtually every word of the Minister's amendment and our amendment. It might say:
"Page 2, line 43, at end insert (", or
1378
(c) edit and publish archive material and major works of reference dealing with all or part of the National Heritage or to do any ancillary thing.").
That is my first shot at it, but I have a feeling that if we have that wording, it would include whatever the Minister wanted in his proposal and what we wanted in ours. I believe that it would meet our wishes and those of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi in his amendment.
I should like the Minister in his reply to accept that the withdrawn amendments were not quite enough. I congratulate him on the flexibility with which he responded to the situation, technically before it arose. I ask the Minister to consider my suggestions for the Report stage; otherwise, we may have to come back then with our proposals and seek the support of the House. The Minister will have noted that this is a cross-party approach.
I hope that the Minister will see the strength of our arguments, will agree with our intentions and will seek simply to do what we tried to do: that is, to find wording that is copper-bottomed.
Lord Strabolgi: I should like to say a few words about my Amendment No. 8 which is to provide publishing costs for the Survey of London. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, it is probable that it could be covered by his amendment or a government amendment, whichever it is. However, I hope that whatever we have, something will be done to include help for the Survey of London because it is in great difficulties. That is why I wish to speak on my amendment and to bring the difficulties to the attention of the Government.
The survey was started in 1894 as a private venture by C. R. Ashbee, who is well known as an arts and crafts architect. In 1900 the LCC joined up with Ashbee's London Survey Committee which had run into financial difficulties, and it put its much larger resources at the disposal of the project.
For the last 100 years, since its inception, the survey has compiled and published a splendid series of volumes on the London parishes, where the history of the buildings and those who built them, as well as many of the people who lived in them, is studied in considerable depth. If one is lucky, one finds that when the volumes deal with the parish in which one lives, one's own house is sometimes mentioned, with details of who lived there originally and who built it.
There have been two volumes on Chelsea and Mayfair, four volumes on Kensington, volumes on St. Anne, Soho, Covent Garden, Lincoln's Inn Fields, with thorough accounts of Spitalfields and Mile End. The two most recent volumes cover Poplar and the Isle of Dogs. The Survey of London to date has published 44 volumes on the different parishes. The current work is on Clerkenwell. At least another 12 volumes are needed, even without the City of London.
But what is the position today? When the GLC was abolished in 1985 no one knew much what to do with the survey. So it was eventually transferred under the aegis of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments of England. I understand that the only external funding that it has obtained is from the London Dockland Development

1379
Corporation, which paid a proportion of the publishing costs of the survey's work on parishes in south-east London. But that is so far as it went. The survey is actively considering seeking other forms of outside assistance. I understand that its work and future publications are in jeopardy unless further resources become available.
The survey's archive, consisting of countless drawings and photographs, is scattered between the Greater London Record Office, the National Monuments Record and the London Division of English Heritage, which is the successor to the GLC's Historic Buildings Division. It is not clear where all the drawings are today. This is the position that it is in. A lot of the responsibility, of course, rests with the Government.
Therefore, I tabled this amendment to bring the survey's difficult situation to the attention of the Government. For example, the Royal Commission will suffer cuts amounting to 18 per cent. in real terms over the period from 1997 to 1999. If the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Beloff, and others are able to devise a satisfactory amendment and will assure me that it will include help for the Survey of London, I shall not move my amendment when the time comes.
Lord Inglewood: In my brief remarks I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. It seems a paradoxical state of affairs when we are all in agreement and yet we disagree with each other. But I believe that we can resolve this matter satisfactorily. It is important that we get it right. That is why I withdrew the amendments tabled in my name.
As everyone is declaring an interest, I shall declare an interest in that I was a former pupil of my noble friend Lord Pilkington, though I fear that by itself that has not made me a historian. As my noble friend Lord Beloff said, the legal advice that we received was that the formulation contained in my amendment met the case. Bearing in mind the doubts that have been cast upon it, the importance of getting the matter right and the agreement between us, I am entirely happy that we look again at it. I say only to my noble friend Lord Beloff that the courts are full of people who found lawyers whose legal advice they did not like and so found someone who gave them advice that they preferred to hear. That is sometimes a rather risky course of action.
In this context we want to provide a form of words which enables the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, if they so wish, to support what I might loosely describe as the bench-mark works of historical research as they affect our country. We do not intend here to provide a means for every aspiring historian to come to the door of the trustees and try to find a subsidy to support his work of historical research. It is meant to be narrowly defined to cover work such as the Victoria County History, the Survey of London and the Dictionary of National Biography, which have been mentioned.
1380
I said earlier this afternoon to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that I would go away and think about his form of words. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I still think that I may be right, but I very much welcome the opportunity to think about the right form of words to meet this problem. I intend to draw in those noble Lords whose amendments are on the Marshalled List. I hope that, against that background, they will feel able to withdraw their amendments so that we can come forward at a later stage of the Bill with a form of words that meets all our collective desires and is agreed between us as being satisfactory.
Lord Beloff: In the light of the Minister's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may make a very brief point, of which I have not given notice because I expected to be able to make it on Amendment No. 5. It does not strictly relate to Amendment No. 5 but comes within Clause 1.
At Second Reading I mentioned that it would be highly desirable to use the power to prepare archives for the purpose of collecting together the vast amount of treasure trove already collected and in museums and the further amount of treasure which will be collected under the Treasure Act 1996 introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I have his blessing on raising this point, by the way. In reply to the point I made, my noble friend Lady Trumpington said that a code of practice with regard to treasure would be introduced.
It seems to me that the archive need not await the preparation of a code of practice; nor need the code of practice refer to the desirability of having an archive of treasure. I should have thought that under the Bill as it stands that could quite well be done without further delay. It will be a very big and long continuing job but I see no reason why it should not start soon after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Lord Inglewood: My noble friend raises an important matter which I know is close to his heart. I hear what he says. But, of course, in addition to the Bill, it is also necessary for the process that he describes to take place and for the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and his fellow trustees to give it their blessing. I understand the point and if I may I shall clarify matters with my noble friend at a later date.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule [Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 not moved.]
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 23 [Restrictive trade practices]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 13, line 1, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to the powers of revocation conferred by subsection (5) of section 29 of the 1976 Act,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos 2 and 3. These are essentially technical amendments designed to clarify the way in which Clause 23(7) of the Bill operates and do not represent any changes of substance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 13, line 2, after ("under") insert ("that").
Page 13, line 2, leave out ("29 of the 1976 Act").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 have already been spoken to. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 54 [Service of Documents]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 27, line 39, leave out ("this Part of").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a simple drafting amendment correcting an inconsistency in the wording of Clause 54 of the Bill, which deals with the service of notices. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Heritage]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 166, columns 2 and 3, leave out lines 12 to 22.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as before, when taking part in the debates on this Bill, I must declare an interest as being a commissioner of English Heritage. The House will be aware that I addressed the Chamber at Committee stage to express my concern about the draft heritage agreement for Camden. I believed it to be flawed and to raise a fundamental question of principle.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Goschen for taking a great deal of trouble over this matter and for giving it serious consideration in his efforts to find a solution to meet my concerns. I can assure the House that it has never been my intention to press for any additional controls or powers of veto over the works by English Heritage. That has never been the case. All
1382
I have been seeking is for the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment not to surrender their normal powers to determine any dispute which might arise under paragraph 4(5) of the draft heritage agreement.
For noble Lords who were not present at the Committee stage I remind the House that my anxieties are centred on the magnificent Grade I listed train shed at St. Pancras, a Victorian masterpiece of world significance. Under paragraph 4(1) of the heritage agreement the nominated undertaker—in this case LCR—shall seek to reach agreement with the local authority and English Heritage on the nature of the proposed works, the construction methods and materials to be used, any mitigation measures to be taken and, except in the case of the demolition of the building, the preservation of particular features of the building and any restoration or reconstruction works where reasonably practicable. That does not present a problem.
However, that paragraph is qualified by paragraph 4(5) which states that the nominated undertaker shall not be required to seek to reach agreement with the local authority, nor with English Heritage under paragraph 4(1), but shall only consult them on the alignment, position and overall dimensions of any works other than essentially shops, and on the nature of the proposed works and construction methods and materials used where the works comprise a trackbed, tunnel, earthworks or anything in the nature of plant, machinery or equipment.
My concern was that, in so far as that related to St. Pancras station, a great many alterations could be carried out to that splendid train shed without the need to do anything other than consult English Heritage. Unlike other recent railway Bills, there is no mechanism for disagreement over substantive heritage issues to be determined by the Secretaries of State. My anxieties were eloquently articulated by Giles Worsley in today's The Times and by Stephen Goodwin of the Independent.
I am pleased to report that my concerns have been considered further. My noble friend Lord Goschen, as I understand it, offered to move some way on this point. A mechanism is suggested for the Secretaries of State to determine any dispute between LCR and English Heritage and the London Borough of Camden in the event of a disagreement over what works fall to be considered under paragraphs 4(1) and 4(5). If that is the case it is extremely welcome. It would be helpful if he could clarify how the agreement should be interpreted in practice. However, I am still disappointed that my noble friend cannot go further and provide a full arbitration procedure for works submitted under paragraph 4(5) with the exception of railway engineering matters which I accept could be exempted as a special case.
It seems ironic that at the very moment when the Heritage Green Paper proposes to extend established listed building consent procedures by the removal of Crown immunity, those same procedures should be disapplied for a private developer. Nevertheless, I have always supported the case for the CTRL coming into St. Pancras and I am confident that in the LCR we have

1383
a developer which will do all it can to work in a positive and constructive manner with Camden and English Heritage to safeguard the outstanding qualities of the train shed and create a world-class railway terminus.
I accept that a great deal of work has gone into devising an alternative regime for St. Pancras in lieu of listed building consent. It may be that CTRL should be regarded as an exceptional case warranting exceptional measures. However, I must stress that that cannot and must not set a precedent for the future. The existing regime of statutory safeguards for listed buildings is a highly effective, tried and tested system which has served the country well for many years. It must never be allowed to be dismantled or set aside for short-term commercial advantage.
It will be helpful to me and to your Lordships for my noble friend to tell us himself exactly what his proposals are and how they work so that I can judge whether or not to persist with my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Cavendish in his amendment. I should perhaps declare an interest as chairman of the Joint Committee of the National Amenities Societies and the Georgian Group. The House will remember that I spoke in support of his amendment at Committee stage. My points in relation to the principles at stake, the precedent the Bill would set for other projects and the need for a new policy were not addressed by the Minister. I do not wish to repeat them; I wish only to make one point concerning the adequacy of the arrangements which are to replace statutory conservation controls.
Put in a nutshell: will the arrangements work? We must be confident that if we pass the Bill, they will work. My noble friend's backstop proposal would be extremely helpful. We must remember that the powers to be disapplied—the tried and tested procedures of listed building consent—depend at the end of the day on final and binding determination by the Secretary of State for the Environment. That element of the procedures is a clear, firm, fast and effective way of dealing with serious issues. The Bill before us disapplies those controls and puts in their place a complicated set of schedules, contracts, procedures, undertakings and agreements which the promoters say are an adequate substitute.
The main argument for allowing exemptions from the heritage deed, which are the problem, is that there are other powers in the package to cover the risks which the exemptions open up. The Minister pointed in particular to the design guidelines in the planning and heritage minimum requirements. Those are legally enforceable as part of the contract. It is therefore suggested that we do not need to worry about the exemption of a certain aspect of the plan because that is covered by legally enforceable design guidelines.
We have it from the Department of Transport that that aspect of the arrangement is unprecedented. A letter sent to the Victorian Society on 2nd October stated:
"Your second query concerned whether there was a precedent in heritage issues for the Secretaries of State to fetter their ability to issue a binding determination, and instead rely on a court ruling regarding the interpretation of a contractual document".
1384
The reply stated,
"Concerning precedent … the St. Pancras Minimum Requirements are unprecedented".
One of the design guidelines for the great vaulted space of the train shed, which is this great masterpiece, reads,
"The open nature and spatial integrity of St. Pancras Train Shed will be substantially retained. Any new works within the train shed must be consistent with these objectives and must be designed to the highest quality with the aim of minimising their impact as a whole".
It is difficult to see what those words mean. That was a point made by Giles Worsley in his article in The Times today. They surely could be interpreted in different ways by different people and, if push comes to shove, what would a court make of them? What experience is there in law for dealing with contracts with terms like those? In what circumstances should the court judge that LCR had failed substantially to retain the spatial integrity of the train shed to such an extent that it had broken the contract? Can we be sure that High Court litigation on such terms will be a practical alternative to straightforward determination by a Secretary of State? I fear not.
I was glad to hear from my noble friend that the Minister has something to say to us on this matter. My noble friend's proposal is a moderate one and has my support. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, with the leave of the House, I put the Government's view at this stage. That would not prevent other noble Lords speaking afterwards if they wish.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I hope that will not preclude the noble Viscount speaking again at the end of the debate.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall be delighted to mop up any residual points that may be made.
We have come again to the issue of heritage. I was very pleased to hear that my noble friend Lord Cavendish felt that considerable progress between us had now been made. I was certainly delighted to hear that.
Since the debate on the issue some three weeks ago I have met my noble friend Lord Cavendish, accompanied by his advisers, and also by the Minister of State for Planning, Construction and Energy Efficiency and Department of National Heritage officials. I believe we had a useful and constructive exchange at that time and since then there have been further constructive contacts between English Heritage and London and Continental Railways.
I made it clear on the earlier occasion that we had no intention to ride roughshod over heritage interests. The CTRL scheme, as we all agree, is of national significance and will bring major benefits, not least to the nation's heritage through creating a 21st century railway use for such a fine 19th century station. Because of the importance of the project it is being promoted as

1385
a hybrid Bill and, as normal for a project approved by such a Bill, the need to apply separately for listed building consent has been disapplied. But in its place we have produced a tailor-made package of requirements, controls and consultation which have been refined during two years' of negotiations. That is the key point which was somewhat absent from some of the press coverage in recent times.
At Committee three weeks ago there was no objection in principle to this approach from my noble friend. The area of difference was quite limited. English Heritage was not satisfied with the provision in the heritage deed that it will be consulted on railway works. Instead it favoured control or agreement. That was in substance the issue that was considered in detail by the Select Committee at the recommittal stage. The committee's view contained in the special report is perfectly clear:
"The Committee has no doubt that the draft Heritage Deed meets the interests of the petitioners".
Perhaps I may spend a few moments on the broader view. The fact that St. Pancras will be the London gateway to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link inevitably means that there will be some heritage impacts but those stand to be more than amply offset by the heritage benefits of the restoration works to St. Pancras Station and Chambers and the bringing back into fruitful use of the Chambers. That point is often not adequately made. That provides the best guarantee of future conservation. Furthermore, with the prospect of the new terminus comes the best regeneration opportunity the King's Cross area has had in decades. There can be no doubt that in heritage terms alone, even before one takes account of the economic and environmental advantages for the area, the new rail link will be a very significant net benefit to the area as a whole.
In the debate a few weeks ago my noble friend Lord Cavendish welcomed the competition announced by LCR to find a viable economic use of St. Pancras Chambers, and applauded the agreement reached by LCR with English Heritage on the arrangements for the listed gasholders and the waterpoint. Since then, as we have heard, there have been continuing constructive discussions between LCR, English Heritage and the local authority about the emerging design principles for the St. Pancras train station and also for the area between St. Pancras and King's Cross. Indeed, I understand that English Heritage has given a warm reception to the outline of the St. Pancras design proposals.
With regard to the further discussions, I understand that at a very recent meeting LCR and English Heritage agreed that they should join together in defining a letter of intent from LCR. This would set out how the stages of consultation provided for in the heritage deed would operate and serve and therefore to identify any potential problems in time for them to be satisfactorily dealt with. I am sure that will come as welcome news to the House.
In recognition of a key concern put to me by my noble friend when we met earlier this week, I offered an additional provision in the heritage deed that introduces a process to determine an important area of potential disputes in this important area. This will allow English Heritage or the local planning authority to seek
1386
determination by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport where English Heritage or the authority believes its agreement should be sought on a work but LCR proposes consultation. The Secretaries of State would thus be responsible for interpreting what the deed requires. This is an added protection in addition to all of those which I have already described and which offers heritage interests an avenue of direct appeal for determination to the Secretary of State.
I thought it worth speaking at an early stage after my two noble friends had spoken to put the Government's view, to illustrate the changes that had occurred and to welcome the great progress that I believe has been made towards bringing the heritage interests and those of the promoters nearer together. I feel that we now have an agreement and we have a situation with which we are all happy. While welcoming the opportunity for discussion raised by my noble friend Lord Cavendish I feel confident—I hope my confidence is justified—that he will not feel any need to press his amendment further.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, we are pleased that the Minister sought to meet the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish. I have heard some good words of comfort and I believe that the new procedure needs to be tried on this important project. It is excellent news that it appears that agreement has been reached.
Extensive safeguards are already contained in the development agreement and I understand that those are already in the public domain. Extensive safeguards for-planning and heritage are minimum requirements. We have talked a good deal about consultation. It pleases me that the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, is as impressed as I am with the ideas and proposals London and Continental Railways has put forward and with its commitment to heritage.
I wish to strike one note of caution. We must be careful in these discussions that perfection does not become the enemy of the good. There must be a tight timescale to this project if it is to be completed as planned and open to revenue earning traffic. The same happened on the Channel Tunnel. Speed is of the essence. I have a slight concern about the track record of speed and sensible resolution of problems in some of English Heritage's projects. I am no expert on heritage but I question whether it is good value for money to pursue a lady who puts up a special door in her house to keep out the traffic noise from the juggernauts thundering by, a door which looks like wood but is plastic. I also question whether Stonehenge should be staying in the state it is because the only acceptable solution to the road problem is £130 million of tunnel.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, £300 million.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that correction. It is £300 million. There must be an easier and cheaper solution in what is a fairly wide open space of countryside. As a result, nothing has happened in the interim because costs are high and finance is short.

1387
The train sheds and the railway works that go with them need to be used. At the moment they are sitting there doing nothing. I believe that the House should accept the safeguards which have been discussed and that there should be consultation with English Heritage. I hope that in the light of that consultation and the Minister's comments, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I wish to make a couple of brief points. I shall not seek to divide the House if the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, does not do so. Perhaps I may remind my noble friend Lord Berkeley that the price tag of the Stonehenge road has risen steadily since the closing of the latest public inquiry. The first figure was £80 million, then it was £120 million and then £140 million. I cannot imagine where the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, came by the figure of £300 million. I look on all those figures with the greatest scepticism.
However, returning to St. Pancras—it was not a long excursion—various speakers today have verged on alleging that the filling out of the detail will delay the construction of the railway. That is quite absurd. In fact, there is no real heritage objection to anything which the railway company wishes to do at St. Pancras. I cannot speak about the rest of the country. The objection is to suspending the law in its favour. As the company does not wish to do anything wrong, why is it necessary to suspend the law in its favour? Why should we believe that it will take longer to go through the normal hoops to obtain approval for whatever bits and pieces it has to do? I am sure that if it does take longer, an emotional appeal from the Secretary of State to Camden Borough Council will induce it to hurry up and that the Secretary of State will take an earlier decision. I wish to register a protest about the bad precedent of the suspension of regular preservation law in this case. That suspension is probably all the worse because there is no need for it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I rise in some embarrassment because when I intervened in Committee I did not realise that I should have disclosed an interest. I now realise that Foster Associates is the firm of architects producing the designs for the whole project. I must report that my son-in-law is one of its senior partners and may well be involved in this affair, as he was in the design and construction of the fourth London airport at Stansted. I find that embarrassing because it raises a problem about the relations of the architects to the scheme and the way in which that works out.
I appreciate the fine constitutional care which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, my old friend, has expressed tonight. The only trouble is that it is slightly like one of those two favourite arguments which are sometimes used. I refer not to the doctrine of unripe time—that although this is a marvellous scheme, the time is not yet ripe for it—but to the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument—we must not do this because it might create a precedent and drive a wedge through procedures of which we all very much approve. I understand that that
1388
is a valid argument, but I hope that on this occasion we shall not give into it in view of the importance of the whole rail link, which has been so long delayed.
I hope that the architects will produce designs which will satisfy all the preservation groups. Indeed, I believe that that will be the case. However, what will happen if there is a dispute between the architects and the railway company? Do we know anything about the sources of finance and whether they are totally satisfactory to the railway company? Let us suppose that the cash runs out during the project and the railway company goes to Foster Associates and says, "Look, I know that we agreed our scheme. It is a good scheme but you must now make some economies". In making those economies, Foster Associates may well say, "We cannot do that. We gave our word and our reputation as a firm of architects that we will produce a scheme satisfactory to all the environmental groups and concerns and we cannot now cut what we intended to do". In that case, the railway company may well say, "We shall have to find other architects". There will then exist a totally different state of affairs. Where are the safeguards in such a case?
The noble Viscount may well revert to an answer which, if I were in his place, I might well use: that we cannot go into every hypothetical consideration because we should be here all night. But I believe that the problem is genuine and I wish to know whether, if in a situation in which suddenly the terms change, the Secretary of State will be enabled to intervene.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, your Lordships might well ask why I am intervening, not having spoken previously. I believed that the arguments for making a small amendment to the Bill were so ably put by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, and to a lesser extent by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that there was no need for a small voice such as mine to be heard. I too have an interest to declare. It is not such a grandiloquent interest as the noble Lord, Lord Annan; it is merely that I am a humble and long-standing member of the Victorian Society. Therefore, I am bound to feel sympathy when a proposal in a Bill which is seemingly as horrific as this is going to go through. In Schedule 7, to be disapplied from all constraints is a notable Grade I listed building, subject to a few concessions in column 3. Column 2 lists the entire set of listed buildings, subject to minute qualifications in column 3.
I believe that the proceedings have been conducted in such a constructive way that I have nothing but praise to accord. My only worry is that the accord is non-parliamentary. Why could it not have been achieved previously? Why were the Government so obstinate? I believe that we are in danger of losing parliamentary control if this kind of nod and a wink is allowed to proceed instead of provisions appearing on the face of the Bill. I believe that that is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Parliamentary language is such that it cannot be contravened except by a further amending enactment.
These are very important matters. What the heritage is losing as a result of the rejection of these amendments is that an important precedent is being created. I say to

1389
the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that that is not a fussy or minute point at all. If it is the case, as I believe it is, that Parliament has never before agreed to a provision such as this without first having seen the plans and having approved them, it is not a minute consideration. Parliament is throwing away safeguards for the heritage and for humble organisations such as the one I belong to, the Victorian Society.
Having said that, and not having been at the important negotiations which have taken place, of course I cannot oppose the agreements which have been reached by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, and the noble Viscount. I am extremely thankful that they have come to such agreements. I do not myself wish to amend the Bill at such a late stage as this. I ask the noble Viscount to make public the agreements which so far have been negotiated in secret.
6 p.m.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, it is in public. The Heritage Deed has been printed and it is available. It has been available to the noble Lord for quite a while now.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I have just been hearing about the negotiations that have been taking place until this afternoon, not some time ago. What I am saying is that the detail of the fine tuning which has been taking place has not been available to me or to the noble Lord unless he has been party to those proceedings, which I suspect he has. I hope that the agreements which have been reached by noble Lords outside this House will, by some means or other, be made available to noble Lords within the House. That is only a second opinion. The first is undoubtedly that they should be in the Bill itself.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question? Has the noble Lord heard, as I have, that the Victorian Society is very satisfied with all that has been agreed?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I believe that is true.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I am very happy about almost everything that has been said. Perhaps I may deal first with what my noble friend Lord Henderson has just said. The Heritage Deed takes the place of putting things on the face of the Bill. There are approximately 600 undertakings which have been given. This is a hybrid Bill, which the noble Lord may well remember from his previous career is a different animal from an ordinary government Bill because it is ephemeral. It covers a short period of time and affects only a very small proportion of the population. An immense number of negotiations have to take place. They have the same force of law as if they were on the face of the Bill. If every one of those 600 undertakings were made part and parcel of the Bill there would have to be 600 schedules to the Bill. That would make it an even lengthier document than it is already.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, suggested that this procedure was unprecedented. It is normal with an infrastructure Bill of this nature for the normal rules to
1390
be disapplied. One then puts in their place what has been put back in this instance, the Heritage Deed. It is absolutely true that this is a document which has been under negotiation for, I believe, the best part of two years. It was brought before the Select Committee and we made what we and, I believe, both English Heritage and the Victorian Society regard as some improvements. They obviously did not feel that we went far enough: hence the negotiations which have gone on since we reported the Bill to the House and which, I am very happy to hear, have now resulted in agreement being reached. That agreement will be an amendment not to the Bill but to the Heritage Deed itself, which will have just as binding an effect as it would if it appeared on the face of the Bill.
This is one of the two most contentious matters that remained at the conclusion of the hearings of the Select Committee. The other seems to have been resolved. I shall be extremely happy if this one is also resolved.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I would like to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I say particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that neither I nor English Heritage in this context is pursuing a single interest line. Both of us are extremely excited by this Bill. It is a wonderful Bill offering opportunities not least to the heritage. We are not trying to take a narrow view of detail. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I shall not be drawn on subjects such as Stonehenge or plastic doors.
However, I would like noble Lords to understand that I took my amendment very seriously albeit that it was a wrecking amendment. One has to get to the heart of the Bill to make an amendment. If I had not had some comfort from various sources, I would have taken it to a Division. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, for his remarks. There is an element of the removal of protection from Grade 1 listed buildings which I still maintain is without precedent, but be that as it may. We have accepted that this is a difficult and complex Bill.
I thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for his detailed reply. As I have said, I believe that this is a compromise over a matter where arguably there should not be one. I hope that the House will take to heart the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, whom I thank for his kind remarks, that this will not be a precedent. Lessons will be learnt from a Bill which is truly unusual. There are many facets which have probably not been before your Lordships' House before.
There is one further matter. I have learnt this afternoon of the outcome of the meeting which took place this afternoon between LCR and English Heritage. LCR has agreed to define in a letter of intent the stages of consultation which will enable English Heritage to identify at any stage any outstanding problems. That is very helpful and provides more evidence, if it were needed, of LCR's goodwill in the matter.
The combination of these two changes gives me comfort. I offer renewed thanks to LCR for its constructive response to the concerns of English Heritage. I also thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who played a part in restoring harmony. I renew my

1391
thanks to my noble friend Lord Goschen for his helpful concessions on the draft heritage agreement. I have been given sufficient comfort to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 10 [Disapplication and modification of miscellaneous controls]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 180, line 33, after ("is") insert ("made under paragraph 9A below or is otherwise").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 to 16. These amendments honour the commitments I gave during the Committee stage of the Whole House and at Report stage, to look again at the provisions of the Bill that deal with the application of the London lorry ban to the Channel Tunnel rail link in the light of concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Jenkin and indeed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who also has an amendment tabled with this group.
The amendments follow a very useful meeting with my noble friend and the noble Baroness, and officials of the London Boroughs Transport Scheme, on 12th November, and a further constructive meeting between officials on Monday, when agreement on the exact nature of the amendments to be made was reached.
The amendments before us this evening remove the word "cost-effective" from the existing provisions of paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(3)(a), words to which, as my noble friend explained in Committee, LBTS objected. I should perhaps point out that the issue of timing in relation to the grant of permits raised by my noble friend in Committee has fallen away with the amendment to line 4 of page 181 removing altogether the provision relating to the deemed grant of permits after one working day contained in paragraph 9(6).
The amendments also provide a mechanism for "emergency" permits to be issued where a journey is proposed to be made in less than eight working days' time, allowing, among other things, the Secretary of State to impose conditions on the grant of such permits. I should stress for the record that such a procedure is intended for emergencies only, and that we would not expect its use to become the norm. Indeed, we have offered LBTS an assurance that we would require LCR to require its haulage contractors to submit applications at least eight days in advance where reasonably practicable. For its part, LBTS has accepted the need for appeals against the imposition of conditions which might obstruct the proper carrying out of the CTRL works to come to the Secretary of State.
Finally, I should say that we have also offered LBTS a number of assurances, one of which I have already mentioned, to deal with the concerns it expressed during the discussions which could not readily be dealt with in statute. Those include offering an assurance that we would require LCR to set up a contact point for LBTS for enforcement queries about its haulage contractors should, for example, LBTS sight a CTRL lorry on a road not covered by a permit.
Those assurances, once they are accepted, will of course be entered onto the register of such assurances that we have been keeping. I know that that is a particular concern of my noble friend Lord Jenkin and I hope that he is happy to hear that that assurance is now on the record. Noble Lords will know—from what was said during Committee, on Report, and from the letter I subsequently wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to which reference was made on Report, that that would mean that LCR would be required to comply with the assurances.
I hope, therefore, that it will not surprise noble Lords if I say that I believe that with these amendments and the assurances we have offered we have gone a very long way indeed to meet the concerns of LBTS, so eloquently detailed by my noble friend during the earlier stages of the Bill, and struck the right balance between the needs of a project of national significance that has the support of both Houses, and the environmental protection afforded to London residents by the lorry ban.
I am also happy to make clear to my noble friend that the procedures which we have now agreed, and provided for in our amendment, should not be seen—indeed, they are not seen by us—as setting a precedent, rather they reflect the national significance of the CTRL project, as can be seen from the scale and extensive planning provisions found in Schedule 6. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has tabled an amendment which relates to this group. If it meets with the convenience of the House, perhaps I may reply to her points once she has spoken. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I seek to move Amendment No. 16 as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, but perhaps I may speak generally in response to some of the amendments that have already been moved, as well as explaining my amendment.
I am grateful for the time that the Minister and his officials have devoted to this issue. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who has put a lot of work into ensuring that the London lorry ban is not—
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I apologise to the House for intervening, but, to set the record straight, technically speaking we are discussing the grouping with Amendment No. 6, so the noble Baroness does not need to move her amendment. That is what I understand from advice from the Table. Technically, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness has yet to be moved, but that does not alter the problem. If the noble Baroness merely speaks to her amendment, we can sort out the technicalities in a moment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am hearing different advice from different directions. I do not think that I have ever heard an amendment to an amendment being moved without us getting into some difficulties.
However, to return to the substantive point, it is perhaps something of a misnomer to refer to the "London lorry ban" in those words; it is a permit scheme

1393
to protect London's environment and to balance the interests of the environment with those of ensuring that important projects can develop.
I should prefer there to be no exceptions to the scheme— irrespective of whether they are or are not the thin end of the wedge or whether the timing is too early or too late. As a small measure of support for that, perhaps I may mention a letter which the unit received from the Corporation of the City of London, which I am sure that noble Lords will recognise takes a considered view of such matters and speaks authoritatively. The corporation said that, in its view, disapplying the ban would have set a particularly unwise precedent, particularly as the present arrangements appear to be working satisfactorily for large-scale projects. It is essential that local authorities have the ability to ensure that suitable routes are used—this is relevant to my amendment—that vehicles can be safely accommodated and that their impact on the environment in terms of noise, vibration and pollution is minimal.
My amendment relates to paragraph (g) of Amendment No. 15 which will be new Section 9A(3) which deals with proposed stops in London for the purpose of making a delivery or collection. The fact that I seek to alter those words in what may seem to be a minimal way might appear to be carping, but I do not believe that that is the case. It is important to ensure that lorries which do not have any proper business going through central London should be restricted in doing so. I understand that there is concern that there might be an occasion when the M.25 is blocked in both directions. That may or may not be a realistic concern and I leave it to your Lordships to assess the state of the M.25—but perhaps not tonight. If that were to happen, it must be more than likely that the police would impose diversions, but I cannot think that they would wish to divert traffic up, say, Acacia Avenue somewhere in the East End—in other words, along a residential street—as an alternative to using trunk roads.
It is important that individual drivers are not given an excuse to make short cuts or to stop off for personal reasons. In seeking to tweak the wording of the paragraph, I suggest that a provision to limit journeys through central London to those which are entirely necessary is an appropriate final amendment to make to this Bill. In this connection I refer to paragraph 3.4 in the policy statement dealing with exemptions published by the London Boroughs Transport Committee:
"The most important criterion which will apply when a decision is made whether or not to grant a Permit is the circumstances of the applicant's need for a Permit. First and foremost it is the Committee's policy to ensure that only vehicles undertaking necessary business in London should be permitted to use restricted roads in the area for which the Committee is responsible".
The committee is not only responsible for certain roads but is itself a responsible committee. One of the difficulties that underlay the whole debate on this issue over the past few weeks was the concern that the committee might change and not be so responsible. As proposed, the powers now rest with the Secretary of State rather than the committee. I am unable to resist the comment that the Secretary of State may change as well. Some noble Lords may feel that a future Secretary
1394
of State—I do not comment on colour since I do not want to make a party political point—may be less responsible. I do not believe that a complete balance has been struck.
I am glad to hear the Minister's assurance about the undertakings being formally recorded on the register. That is extremely helpful. I am also glad to hear his comment that because of the exceptional importance of the scheme no precedent is being set. Both I and the unit are grateful that matters have moved forward and perhaps some of the objections have been met, and, even more, it has been clarified how matters will proceed in future.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness. What has been working extremely hard during the passage of this Bill is the fax machine in my office. The documents that have poured forth from my noble friend's department and the London Boroughs Traffic Scheme have to be seen to be believed. That the amendments before the House tonight are themselves starred is testament to the fact that the work was proceeding until a late hour yesterday before my noble friend's new paragraphs could be tabled. At one point I received comments on an earlier draft when the new draft was already coming through by fax, which made life a little difficult. All this is testimony to the fact that officials both in the London Boroughs Transport Scheme and my noble friend's department have bent over backwards to try to reach a workable agreement to reconcile the very desirable objectives of protecting the citizens of London from unnecessary disruption and loss of sleep in the night and allowing this hugely important project to get under way.
My noble friend's department has been at the centre of a good deal of pressure. I have seen some of the pressure that has come from London and Continental Railways and the very proper and single-minded enthusiasm of the London Boroughs Transport Scheme. Like the noble Baroness, I was glad to hear of the undertakings for the formal recording of assurances that had been given to the London Boroughs Transport Scheme about the timing of applications and the contact point for enforcement queries. That will be most valuable. It demonstrates the importance of the register to which the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, referred in another context a few moments ago. They will be recorded in the register and will be enforceable, and, if necessary, justiciable.
I also welcome the fact that the conditions to be attached to deemed permits under the emergency procedure will be departed from only where it is necessary to give effect to approved arrangements in respect of one or more of the qualifying authorities in London. That, too, is a valuable assurance. As we have heard in several debates, it is the nature of this huge national project that makes it necessary to suspend the operation of the normal rules and regulations. I believe that we are nearly there.
I refer next to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. I shall become a little more earthy. I am sure that the railway company will do its best; I am sure that the head contractors will do their best. But one is here

1395
dealing with lorry drivers, who come in all shapes and sizes. There are kings of the road, who are men of the utmost integrity. As there are good schools and other schools, so there are good lorry drivers and others who do not quite match up. The amendment of the noble Baroness is aimed at the following.
Imagine that an urgent load, perhaps a special piece of excavating equipment, comes from a site somewhere to the west of London down the M.4, or from the north down the M.40. That load has to reach a site in Kent, perhaps—who knows? —at Ebbsfleet. As subsection (3)(g) of my noble friend's amendment is drawn, it is only if it has to stop in London that it will be subject to these constraints. It does not have to stop in London; indeed, it is not going to any place in London. It is travelling from a depot in the West Country to a site in Kent, which is outside London. Obviously, it is highly desirable that that load should travel via the M.25 unless the M.25 is closed, in which case the situation is covered by a police direction.
However, lorry drivers being what they are will not necessarily want to go through the tunnel and incur the toll. It would be nicer for them to cross a bridge and incur no fees and pocket the money. Alternatively, they may have other reasons for wanting to stop in London. It is well known that from time to time lorry drivers like to visit their girlfriends. If there is no obligation on a lorry driver to go round London on the M.25 and avoid the restricted roads—there is no power under the scheme to require him to do so because subsection (3)(g) refers only to lorries making deliveries to or collections from London—there is a loophole. That loophole does not concern any of the obstacles that may be in the way of the railway company getting on with building the railway. It is a loophole for lorry drivers.
The London Boroughs Traffic Scheme has had a good deal of experience in dealing with lorry drivers. It seems to me that the Bill should not leave a loophole. I believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, which does not refer to delivering or collecting from London but is at large, will close that loophole. When the moment comes perhaps she would be wise to consider pressing her amendment in the light of what my noble friend may say in reply.
Amendment No. 14 has the effect of deleting from the Bill the definition of "working day" at line 21 on page 181. I should like to ask a question, not so much on that definition, but on the definition of "working day" which is relevant in the context of protecting people in the context of the environment. I refer to the definition of working day in the first part of the code of construction practice produced by the railway company to satisfy the environmental minimum requirements.
A normal working day is 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. There is a possibility in special circumstances of extending that by an hour so that work could start at 7 a.m. and continue until 7 p.m. It is suggested that that might become a norm when it should be only an exception. If my noble friend could give an assurance and state that the normal working day is what it is supposed to be and that the exception is supposed to be an exception only, some of us would go home happy tonight.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the Minister now speaks I am not sure whether I would have the right to speak again, so it may be better if I intervene at this stage. The House is greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for pressing the points they have in the way that they have, and to the Minister and his civil servants for responding as they have.
The ideas were put forward by the LBTS, as we heard in Committee. I thought then that they were potent points upon which the Minister should have reflected, and I am glad to say that he has. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rather than his fax machine, was able to represent the case on that occasion. It is a wonderful fax machine, over-used, but necessarily so.
I said at the time that I believed that reconciliation was possible. That has happened, with this relatively minor point, having regard to the totality of what was in issue, outstanding. In these matters it is difficult to achieve a proper balance. Someone once described a proper balance as having a chip on both shoulders. Everyone has striven to achieve that balance, and I believe that overall it has been accomplished.
The points made by the noble Baroness, as has been acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, are significant. I cannot believe that they would create too much difficulty. I hope that the House will not divide over that issue. I do not know what the Minister will say about it, but the best thing may be to see how the situation works, not in theory, but in practice. I have some doubts as to the wisdom of encouraging a Division, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, seemed to do, because we have achieved a great deal, and I do not believe that it should be spoilt. I would urge the Minister to seek to achieve a balance, even at this late stage, because we are not at the end of the proceedings. As the Bill has to go to another place, there is the possibility for that matter to be considered still further. Having said all that, I have some doubt about the practicality of the proposal, but I shall listen, as I said, to what the Minister has to say.
The House is greatly indebted to the Minister for the way in which he has responded on this matter. They were real ministerial qualities, if I may say so. He and his civil servants are to be congratulated on that. I support the Minister's amendments.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly just to say how sorry I am about the heat of the fax machine of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. He could have avoided shifting his temperature by having brought this matter before the Select Committee, which, in some respects, is an omission which has given the department the task of finding rather hurried solutions to the problem. I welcome what the department has come forward with, which is along the lines, I hope, of what we might have come forward with.
We had problems of this nature; for example, in the Borough of Newham where there is a ventilation shaft, and, as it is surrounded entirely by residential streets, there is no way in which one can get rid of the spoil

1397
without causing some disruption. We have laid down what we hope will be suitable measures to protect people as best we can, but someone has to suffer. I hope that anything more rigid than what is proposed in the amendments will be avoided.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Of course there was a petition. There was thought to be an agreement. On that basis, the petition was withdrawn, which is why it did not go before the Select Committee.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have spoken during the debate. Despite the procedural difficulties in which we found ourselves, perhaps I may address the points made by the noble Baroness. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his positive approach and support for the government amendments, and for his feeling that perhaps for the noble Baroness to seek to amend the Bill with her amendment would not necessarily be the best course of action. I hope that I shall be able to persuade her of that fact through force of argument. I also hope that I shall be able to persuade my noble friend Lord Jenkin.
I should like to welcome the role that officials have played, both those from the department and those from the LBTS. They have been involved in some of the most detailed, exhausting and exhaustive negotiations that I can remember. The running total is about eight-and-a-half hours of negotiations with several players on each side. We worked out the total at about one man-week.
Given the effort that has gone into producing what I understood to be an agreed solution, I urge the noble Baroness not to press her amendment. It is not the minor detail that some might think. It is a significant amendment. Paragraph 9A(3)(g), as inserted by government Amendment No. 15, provides:
"if it is proposed to stop anywhere in Greater London for the purpose of making a delivery or collection, the place or places at which, and the time or times when, it is proposed to stop for that purpose".
The "if' at the start of the paragraph is significant, in that it contemplates the possibility that emergency permits may also be sought for journeys through London but where no stop in London is intended; in other words, it would allow emergency permits to be sought for through journeys, with no stop in London.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness replaces the original formulation with
"the place or places, and time or times, at which it is proposed to stop in Greater London for the purpose of making a delivery or collection",
which, by removing the "if', means that emergency permits could only be sought for journeys which included a stop in London.
Given that paragraph 9A deals only with emergency permits, the noble Baroness's amendment would not stop LCR or its haulage contractors applying for a permit for a through journey under the non-emergency provisions.
1398
Leaving that detail aside though, I should explain why we have felt it necessary to make provision for through journeys. We must take into account the fact that the CTRL project, which the House has so warmly welcomed, is linear in nature, extending through London and beyond, with construction and working sites all along the route, rather than a number of discrete sites as for the Jubilee Line extension works or those for Waterloo International. There may be times when, in order to carry out the CTRL works in a timely and efficient manner, an operator would need to travel through London rather than take an orbital route. We must have this flexibility for a project of this nature. For example, an urgent journey may need to be made at a time the orbital routes are closed. This amendment would not allow the journey to traverse London even where the alternative was an unacceptably wide detour.
Having said that, I appreciate the concern that an operator might seek to make a through journey rather than an orbital one just to save money—and that is essentially the noble Baroness's concern—by, for example, saving money on fuel. We have recognised and dealt with that concern.
One of the government amendments in the group removes the cost-effective provision in paragraph 9 which my noble friend was so concerned about. In recognition of that great anxiety, we removed that provision. Therefore, if my noble friend is considering whether to support the noble Baroness's amendment, I hope that he will bear in mind that we have removed the provision about which he was so anxious.
As a result, the LBTS could refuse a permit if it considered that a route through London had been chosen just to save money and that the lorry could be routed via the M.25 without interfering with the timely and efficient carrying out of the work or with the construction arrangements approved under Schedule 6.
Moreover, the need to cater for through journeys was part of the agreement reached with LBTS on Monday. That is a significant point. The agreement was reached as a result of exhaustive negotiations, and that was part of it. In the light of that, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will see the force of the argument that I have sought to put forward and will not press the amendment.
My noble friend asked about start-up and close-down times for construction sites. I cannot answer that in two or three words and I hope that my noble friend will bear with me because I must give a rather detailed explanation.
The code of construction practice which specifies, among other things, working times and appropriate noise levels, has been the subject of negotiations over several years between Union Railways and the local authorities. The latest version, incorporating the results of the discussions, which include the matter now raised, was sent on 19th September to the London Borough of Newham which has been leading for the local authorities. No comments were received despite a specific request that Union Railways should be informed as soon as possible if there were any objections.

1399
I remind the House about the provision for working hours. Normal working hours are from 8 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock in the evening on weekdays, which does not include Bank holidays, and 8 o'clock in the morning until 1 o'clock in the afternoon on Saturdays. If longer periods are needed because of, for example, weather or seasonably dependent works, those can be negotiated with the local authority in the usual way.
The extra time, which was mentioned by my noble friend, is a period of up to one hour before and after normal working hours. They are said to be used for start-up or close-down activities. Every effort has been made to ensure that the arrangements do not cause problems for those living nearby. The code is explicit that the extra periods should not be considered an extension of the normal working day and, again, particular care will be taken to limit and control disturbance to local residents during such periods. The code even goes so far as to give examples of the type of work which would and would not be permitted. The movement and maintenance of equipment and taking deliveries would be allowed but the operation of equipment would not be allowed. The code specifies also that the noise generated by any activities must not exceed the levels agreed with the local authorities for the quiet times before and after normal working hours.
My noble friend has asked for an undertaking that those times should be used only in exceptional circumstances. I cannot give such an undertaking. The code is very clear. The start-up and close-down times are provided in order to maintain working hours. In the light of this very important project, that is reasonable and the constraints on working already provided offer substantial protection to those living nearby. I hope that that detailed explanation puts the matter into context and will satisfy my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 14:
Page 180, line 38, after ("timely") insert ("and").
Page 180, line 38, leave out ("and cost-effective").
Page 180, line 43, after ("timely") insert ("and").
Page 180, line 43, leave out ("and cost-effective").
Page 181, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) If on an appeal under sub-paragraph (4) above against a decision under sub-paragraph (3) above the Secretary of State varies the decision, the variation shall have effect from and including the date on which the appeal was constituted or such later date as the Secretary of State may specify.
( ) The applicant may not challenge a decision under sub-paragraph (3) above otherwise than by an appeal under sub-paragraph (4) above.").
Page 181, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
Page 181, line 18, at end insert ("and").
Page 181, line 20, leave out from ("1985") to end of line 23.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 181, line 23, at end insert—
("London lorries: emergency permits
9A.—(1) This paragraph applies where a person proposes to undertake a journey before the end of the next complete eight working days, being a journey—

(a) proposed to be undertaken in connection with the carrying out of authorised works, and

(b) for which a permit under the London Lorry Ban Order will be required.

(2) The person may apply for a permit under the Order for the journey by giving the details mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) below to the authority concerned by telephone or by means of facsimile transmission.
(3) The details referred to above are—

(a) the identity of the applicant,

(b) a number on which he can be contacted by telephone or by means of facsimile transmission,

(c) the registration number of the vehicle to which the application relates,

(d) the authorised works in connection with which the journey is to be undertaken,

(e) whether any approved arrangements are relevant to the application, and, if so, what they are,

(f) the date when the journey is proposed to be undertaken,

(g) if it is proposed to stop anywhere in Greater London for the purpose of making a delivery or collection, the place or places at which, and the time or times when, it is proposed to stop for that purpose.

(4) In this paragraph—
"approved arrangements", "authorised works" and "the London Lorry Ban Order" have the same meanings as in paragraph 9 above; and
"working day" means any day which is not a Saturday or Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971.
9B.—(1) An authority responsible for dealing with applications for permits under the London Lorry Ban Order shall make arrangements enabling applications under paragraph 9A above to be made at any time.
(2) Once an application for a permit has been made under paragraph 9A above, then, for the purpose of any relevant journey, the application shall be treated as granted subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may by order specify for the purposes of this provision.
(3) A journey is a relevant journey for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above if it is begun before the authority to which the application is made has communicated its decision on the application to the applicant by telephone or by means of facsimile transmission.
(4) If an application under paragraph 9A above has been granted, or is treated as granted, then, while the vehicle concerned is undertaking a journey covered by the application, paragraph 4 of the London Lorry Ban Order and of the Westminster Lorry Ban Order shall have effect in relation to it with the substitution for paragraph (a) of
"(a) in relation to any goods vehicle being driven by any person in a restricted street during the prescribed hours in respect of which an application under paragraph 9A of Schedule 10 to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 has been granted, or is treated as granted, provided that any conditions subject to which the application is granted, or treated as granted, are complied with; or".

1401
(5) The power to make an order under sub-paragraph (2) above includes—

(a) power to make different provision for different cases, and

(b) power to make an order varying or revoking any order previously made under that provision.

(6) In this paragraph—
"the London Lorry Ban Order" has the same meaning as in paragraph 9 above; and
"the Westminster Lorry Ban Order means the City of Westminster (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1992.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the amendment which caused such consternation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, Amendment No. 16:
Leave out paragraph 9A(3)(g) and insert—
("(g) the place or places, and time or times, at which it is proposed to stop in Greater London for the purpose of making a delivery or collection.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall move this amendment because this is my opportunity to respond to the pre-emptive strike by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
The suggestion has been made that one should leave things as they are now and alter them later having seen how they work. But this is the Third Reading of a Bill before Parliament. In practical terms, it will be very difficult if we wait to see how it works. So often we hear of the difficulties of finding parliamentary time. The prospect of finding parliamentary time to deal with an amendment to a schedule to this type of Bill frankly seems to me to be extremely unlikely.
Nor indeed do I think that it is appropriate to accept that because a whole man-week has been spent—and as I think some of it was a woman-week perhaps I should say a person-week—on negotiations relating to these amendments. That is not a good reason not to seek to get the matter entirely right.
The Minister said that there would be a problem if it is not possible to allow movement through central London other than on occasions when there is a proposal to stop. That is precisely the point. From the notes that I have seen, the whole issue is about a situation when it is not practicable, because of an emergency, to move round London in the way the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, described.
I believe that it strikes at the heart of the aim to protect the environment which is inherent in the London lorry ban scheme to suggest that there should be that exception. It may sound a small point, but it may also give rise to opportunities for improper and inappropriate journeys to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred, although he described it rather more earthily.
I do not believe that the point has been met, but there has been some movement in the Chamber and I shall move the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I fear that I shall be guilty of the most heinous crime of leaving
1402
a lady in some distress. I found the explanation of my noble friend on the Front Bench entirely convincing. I had not given the importance to the word "if" at the beginning of the sub-paragraph which it deserves. Indeed, my noble friend went a very long way towards convincing me that the argument was the other way round: that the Government's amendments succeed in building in the protection which we are seeking whereas the noble Baroness's amendment might inadvertently cause us to lose it.
Those are matters of legal interpretation. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right. If this Bill is amended, it will have to go back to another place and there will be an opportunity finally to look again at that matter. I believe that it would be wholly inappropriate, despite what I may have said at an earlier stage, to press this amendment to a Division. I thank my noble friend most warmly for the very cogent and convincing replies which he gave not only on that matter but also in relation to the working day.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the suggestion that the noble Lord has just made regarding the noble Baroness is nothing compared with the fact that he sought to aid and abet her earlier on and then resiled from so doing. So he gave her that encouragement, and then walked away from her. However, my view remains that there is still an opportunity further to reflect on the matter. As I understand it, these discussions were still going on last night. I am inclined to feel that the Minister is right, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, indicated. It would not be the best way forward to pursue the matter tonight.
I am sure that the Minister will not say that consultations are at an end. He has come to a conclusion at present but he has shown himself flexible regarding two amendments discussed tonight. I urge the noble Baroness to leave the matter at this stage. If any discussions can take place by way of further amendment in another place, I am sure that that would be the best way to proceed. I find it most difficult to react in the way suggested by the noble Baroness. There has been so much discussion about all these highly complicated matters. Therefore, if we find that there is one possible loophole, it is difficult to make up our minds about it tonight. That would be the wrong way to proceed. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend very much indeed for listening so carefully to my obviously very powerful argument. Indeed, it certainly convinced me, and I am very pleased that it also convinced my noble friend.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Baroness's point has been addressed by the explanation that I gave; in other words, to make an attempt to go through just for the sake of money would be defeated.

1403
I hope that that explanation has convinced the noble Baroness. However, if it has not done so, I hope that it will have convinced many other noble Lords here present.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, again for his support for the Government's position. I would only differ with him in his interpretation of the finality of the proceedings. Clearly the Bill has been amended and will, therefore, go to another place, where your Lordships' amendments will be considered. I certainly hope that we are not about to embark on anything that could be described by the informal name for table tennis which has occasionally occurred when disagreements have arisen between this House and another place. That clearly is not the case here. The Bill is supported by all sides of the House.
The very point raised by the noble Baroness is most specific. From the way it is written, it looks as though it relates to a small detail, but it is important; it is of clear significance. The safeguards are there for the reasons that I have detailed. I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I do not know whether Hansard will record the laughter which filled the Chamber when the Minister thanked his noble friend for his remarks; indeed, he might well thank him. I am not distressed as has been suggested, but I am numerate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 15 agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Protective provisions]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos 17 to 22:
Page 215, line 1, leave out ("If any") and insert ("Sub-paragraph (4) below applies where").
Page 215, line 4, after ("rights") insert— ("(4)").
Page 215, line 4, leave out ("to that effect").
Page 215, line 5, after ("undertaker") insert ("that this sub-paragraph applies").
Page 215, line 8, leave out ("that") and insert ("the").
Page 215, line 8, at end insert—
("(5) The obligation imposed by sub-paragraph (4) above shall not extend to the exercise by the undertakers of any power to acquire by way of compulsory purchase order any land or rights in land, other than any power which may be exercisable by them under paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 to this Act.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments honour a commitment given during an earlier stage of the Bill. Part II of Schedule 15 to the Bill sets out provisions for the protection of the various utilities affected by the construction of the CTRL. The provisions have been the subject of discussions with the utilities since the Bill was introduced, and a number of amendments to them have been agreed between the parties and made during the earlier stages of the Bill's passage.
What is before us this evening simply delivers the last of the amendments agreed in principle with the utilities last December. They make it clear that, if it proved necessary as a result of the CTRL works for compulsory purchase orders to be obtained for land required for the
1404
diversion of apparatus, the utilities would not be required to use the compulsory purchase order-making powers they have under their existing legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
It is a full two years since the Bill was first introduced. Throughout that period, the Bill has been subject to the most intensive scrutiny in both Houses. As a hybrid Bill it has been through all the usual stages for a public Bill, together with scrutiny by Select Committees in each House which occupied some 15 months, considering some 1,300 petitions in total.
The way in which the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, undertook its task has rightly won praise. I should like to reinforce the comments that were made at an earlier stage of the Bill and thank all the members of the Select Committee for their hard work and their exhaustive examination of the issues. In particular, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, for his chairmanship. The way in which the Select Committee was conducted was a credit to the noble Lord and indeed to all its members. A remarkable amount was achieved in what was a comparatively short time.
There has been sustained enthusiasm from all sides of the House for this project, and a wish that it should be built as soon as possible. The project has been considerably improved during the consideration of the Bill and it can fairly be said that the legislation properly protects the interests of those affected. I should like to thank all noble Lords who spoke during the various stages of the Bill. I believe that there has been a level of co-operation and agreement across the House that is not altogether usual. It is widely accepted that all parties have wanted to see this link built and that the House has considered all the issues most thoroughly. I should also like to pay a tribute to all the officials from the Department of Transport who have worked long and hard on the Bill. They have certainly given me very good support. I believe that they have also provided a great deal of information which has led to successful conclusions within the House.
With the completion of the consideration of the Bill in your Lordships' House, the project moves forward to detailed design and the raising of finance. This project is a flagship for the Government's private finance initiative. London and Continental Railways have taken over the project with considerable enthusiasm. I am sure that the House would wish to join me in wishing LCR well in bringing this nationally important project to fruition at the earliest possible stage.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Clinton Davis: My Lords, the Minister is right to say that this is a Bill of monumental importance in moving towards the fulfilment of a vitally important project—one of the most important infrastructural projects ever undertaken. The noble Viscount is right to have offered the appreciation of the Government—and I am sure that

1405
that applies to the whole House—for the work carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and his colleagues in considering and invigilating all the points at issue with such great care. There is no doubt that that has reflected well, not only on the committee but also on this House and, indeed, on Parliament as a whole.
From this side of the House I should like to thank the large number of organisations and individuals who lent their support to the consideration of the Bill in its final stages; that is, through Committee, on Report and now on Third Reading. I have in mind those with environmental interests, who set out their case with great skill and care, the London Boroughs Transport Scheme, which has had a significant success, assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I hope that we too have given them support and encouragement in what has been a very good outcome.
I wish to thank the promoters, too, for the care that they have given to concerns which arose during the course of the inquiries. I thank all noble Lords who spoke during the various debates. In particular, perhaps I may single out my noble friend Lord Berkeley. He has given me enormous help during the course of the Bill. I am very glad indeed that he has joined my transport team and has proved himself so well.
I am not prepared to give the Minister and his officials a general plaudit. My plaudits are strictly limited to this Bill, although we have a great affection for him. He has done himself proud, and his officials responded as officials should to the discussions in which they were heavily involved. The Minister has done his reputation no harm at all in the way in which he responded to the wishes of this House that discussions proceed in the way they did.
The Bill has been improved; I am sure of that. The House, the Select Committee and everyone concerned can take great pride in that. I join with the Minister in hoping that the matter can now proceed to as rapid a completion as possible. Let us hope that it will not be subjected to any other delays, such as those we experienced as a result of the incident recently. It is an important Bill; and the project is of great significance.
7 p.m.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, at this late hour, I do not wish to make a long speech going over the history of the Bill. However, as a member of the Select Committee, there is something that I must say. When the seven members of that committee met for the first time we were not well known to each other. However, during the course of those two months we became one of the best parliamentary committee teams that I have ever come across. That was largely due to the leadership that we enjoyed from the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill. He sometimes hides his goodwill beneath a somewhat stern appearance, but it is not long before goodwill becomes absolutely apparent. I think that I can say safely on behalf of ourselves that in working with him we were completely in harmony throughout all our meetings during those two months.
1406
Not only is our gratitude due to him but also the gratitude of the petitioners and the promoters. No one worked harder than the noble Lord to ensure that every case was properly and sympathetically examined. Through his gentle persuasion, the number of agreements reached is quite remarkable. I say no more than that.
On behalf of the promoters, the petitioners, the committee and, I believe, the whole House, our thanks are greatly due to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, the House should take no notice of all the kind things that have been said about me. However, it is absolutely the case that it was the most marvellous Select Committee that it has ever been my privilege to head. I do not believe that there is any noble Lord present who served with me previously—and there have been some good committees, too—so I think that I can make that statement with impunity. The members were absolutely terrific. I think that we broke every record for the length of our sittings and the compression within the timescale thereof.
I wish also to thank the clerk of the committee, Mr. David Batt, who did a splendid job; and Mr. Brendan Keith who occasionally glanced over his shoulder. They did a stupendous job.
The officials of the department have been mentioned. They sat through 31 sitting days, and put up with listening to me, with many a jaunt through the countryside. They, too, were immensely helpful. So, too, was the team from Union Rail now part of London and Continental, who produced some machinery which made it possible to complete the committee in the time that we did. We all had a computer screen in front of us; thank goodness none of us had to work the knobs. But it meant that every document was brought before us in no time. I know that that is something the House will take on board for future occasions, should there ever be one quite as horrific as that. The counsel who appeared before us were admirable, and I think that it would not be inappropriate to mention them too.
An important debate is to follow. I say no more except to thank noble Lords very much for all the extremely kind things that have been said.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that I have been unable to take part in debates on the Bill. That is not through lack of interest or any wish to show any disparagement towards an immensely important project. I have read with great interest the proceedings of the House, and with even greater interest the report of the committee which was extremely interesting in all its detail. Nothing remains except for me to wish the project a very fair wind.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, on that happy note, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his kind words and reciprocate them. In doing so, I recognise the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord

1407
Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, from the Liberal Benches. With those thanks and recognition, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland)Order 1996
7.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order makes a number of important changes in Northern Ireland's rating legislation, principally in the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. For a number of years, the rating system in Northern Ireland has been significantly different from that which obtained in the rest of the United Kingdom and this difference has increased since the introduction of the council tax and uniform business rate.
The different legislative regimes stem mainly from the fact that in Northern Ireland it is central government and its agencies which provide up to 90 per cent. of the services which in 'Great Britain are the responsibility of local authorities. In these very different circumstances the Government have no plans at present to make fundamental changes in the Province's rating system, but it is necessary to review the legislation regularly. This order does just that. In addition, the order makes specific provisions in preparation for a non-domestic revaluation which will take effect from 1st April 1997.
I shall now deal briefly with the substance of each of the main articles. Article 3 of the order will enable the Department of Finance and Personnel to make regulations providing for different rate poundages to apply to the domestic and non-domestic sectors.
Article 4 removes an ambiguity in the law by providing a uniform method for determining the date of rate liability.
Article 5 is again related to the revaluation. A revaluation does not in itself result in any overall increase in ratepayers' liability. Generally speaking, higher valuations are offset by lower rate poundages.
However, a revaluation does redistribute the rate burden between individual ratepayers. That, indeed, is the purpose of having a revaluation.
The order enables a transitional relief scheme to be considered which can be used subsequent to a revaluation to moderate the swings between ratepayers if these are judged to be too severe.
Article 6 will enable the extent of all property occupied by a utility to be defined in an order after which a conventional, rental-based assessment can be undertaken. That will bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain.
Article 7 will enable different types of property occupied by the Department of the Environment Water Executive, such as reservoirs, treatment plants, pipelines, and so on, to be valued as a single item and entered as such in the valuation list.
The effect of Article 8 will be to remove from the overall valuation that part of the valuation attributable to the dwelling house before consideration is given to the primary use of the remainder of the premises and the applicability or otherwise of industrial derating to that part.
Article 9 should be read in conjunction with Article 12, paragraphs (c) and (d). Taken together these will enable the definition of a railway to be revised and updated and the valuation of a railway to be specified in an order, and for that valuation to be apportioned between the various district council areas. At present railway property in Northern Ireland is valued at 1914 and 1932 rental levels.
Article 10 is intended to clarify what is a difficult area of the law by distinguishing between a private dwelling, the owner of which takes in the occasional lodger, and a commercial enterprise specialising in rented accommodation. It rests on the concept of "primary use". This will bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain.
Article 11 provides for buildings associated with salmon and eel fishings, public parks and certain public recreation areas not to be hereditaments. That means that they will be removed entirely from the valuation list. In 1994 an amendment to the principal order provided that salmon and eel fishings, which make use of fishing engines as defined in the 1966 Fisheries Act, would cease to be hereditaments. It had been assumed that this would include buildings used for the storing of fish and equipment.
However, recent legal advice is that the 1994 amendment may not have fully achieved its purpose and these buildings may continue to be rateable. The present change will remove any doubt. The removal of public parks and other recreational areas from the valuation list is a technical change only, since they are already fully exempt from rates. The article is a parity measure which brings the treatment of parks broadly into line with Great Britain.
I referred earlier to Article 12 in connection with the valuation of railways. The article has three other purposes. First, it will enable a so-called "decapitalisation rate" to be prescribed in an order instead of being applied administratively as at present. This refers to a rate of interest employed in the valuation of specialist public sector buildings which are not usually rented; for example, schools, hospitals and leisure centres. It is a technique used to convert capital cost to an annual value. It is another parity measure with Great Britain.
Secondly, the article will enable Northern Ireland's plant and machinery regulations to be brought back into line with those in Great Britain. That had been the position until the 1995 revaluation when the Great Britain regulations were changed.
I hope the House will agree that these are important, useful and straightforward changes which have practical consequences for ratepayers in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that introduction. Only she could have made the rating of hereditaments occupied for the purposes of sewerage services an object of such glittering interest, particularly at this time of the evening.
Life is often so unfair. Why is it that our colleagues who live in Northern Ireland are not to have the treat of the poll tax or council tax?
I have one or two questions, delivered in perfect innocence. Is there to be a uniform business rate in Northern Ireland? Is there, lurking behind this apparently innocent scheme, a plan for the privatisation of water services or the railways in Northern Ireland? I have one last question—because I am conscious that we have other business to which to attend in the Northern Ireland context this evening. Is it anticipated that the rates payable by individuals will rise? If not, why is the order needed at all? We shall not oppose the order.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for suggesting that I have skills that I thought were beyond me. Normally I say that things are done better in Northern Ireland. On the question of the community charge or poll tax, I shall simply confine myself politically to saying that, in this instance, they are different.
The noble Lord brings out three "nervousnesses". I assure him that it is not the intention to bring forward the unified business rate. Separate rates are needed as a technical measure; after the revaluation, the domestic and non-domestic sectors will be on different valuation bases. In such circumstances the uniform rate poundage which the existing legislation requires cannot be applied. It is not the intention of this order to bring forward to the House a privatisation move. The article on the water service merely provides a statutory basis for current administrative practice. As the railways were last revalued in 1914 and 1932, one feels that there is a very definite commonsense requirement that they should move into this decade.
There will be no overall increase in rates liability resulting from the revaluation. But for the most part higher valuations are offset by lower rate poundages.
A revaluation produces winners and losers—those whose valuations change by more or less than the average. At the end of the day we aim to have a fairer distribution of the rate burden. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Succession (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order before your Lordships' House gives effect to a number of minor recommendations contained in the Law Commission Report, Family Law: Distribution on Intestacy, which have already been implemented for England and Wales in the Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995.
The order makes three main changes to the law of succession contained in Part II of the Administration of Estates Act (Northern Ireland) 1955 and the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.
It amends the 1955 Act, which sets out an order of priority for sharing in the estate of someone who dies intestate, by introducing a rule that a surviving spouse should inherit on intestacy only if he or she survives the deceased by a period of 28 days. This is to prevent the somewhat arbitrary result where the family of one of the spouses inherits the property of both should the two die within a short time of each other—a common example of this is after a road accident. It has long been considered good practice for such a survivorship clause to be inserted in wills. The order will now reflect this good practice in the rules governing intestacy.
Secondly, the order will repeal the complicated and unclear "hotch-pot" rule enshrined in Section 17 of the 1955 Act which affects intestacies. Under this rule, benefits received by children (but not other relatives) of the intestate, during the latter's lifetime, must be brought into account against the share of the estate to which the recipients would otherwise be entitled. Not only has this rule proved difficult to operate, it is out of date and its strict application is undoubtedly capable of producing consequences which are not what the deceased would have wished. Consultation has revealed that its abolition will be widely welcomed.
The third change to the law brought about by the order is the introduction of a new category of applicant who may apply under the 1979 order for reasonable financial provision from the deceased's estate where the will or the rules of intestacy have left them without such provision. Under the existing law, cohabitees have to prove that they were actually dependent on the deceased. This can have the effect that a long-term cohabitee who has contributed fully to the running of the common household is unable to rely on the provisions of the 1979 order which was designed as a safety net.
This order will permit a cohabitee who has lived with the deceased for two years immediately preceding the death to bring a claim without having to show dependence. Rather, the court will take into account the applicant's age, the length of cohabitation and the contribution made by the applicant to the deceased's family.
Your Lordships will note, however, that some distinction between married and unmarried claimants is retained in that the definition of what constitutes "reasonable financial provision" is the same for cohabitees as it is for other applicants who are not spouses.
I hope noble Lords will agree that the provisions constitute a useful and uncontroversial measure of law reform which has the support of all those who responded to the consultation on the proposed draft order. I beg to move the order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
7.20 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we positively welcome this order. It is long overdue: the working paper which led to the consultation is dated as long ago as 1988. As the Minister indicated, this has been the law in England and Wales for about a year. The Law Commission has done a first-rate piece of work and we congratulate it on the thoroughness of its research.
One must bear in mind that sense and reason need to obtain at times of bereavement when those who survive are, in the nature of things, distressed and vulnerable. This provides an admirable scheme of additional protection for surviving spouses and also— extremely important— a just, appropriate provision by way of alteration which allows a cohabitee who has cohabited for the whole of the two years prior to the death to make a successful application without having to go through the sometimes rather unseemly formula, and sometimes rather an artificial formula at that, of proving dependency. We welcome the order.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, as I read the order, and particularly Article 4, I wonder whether it was written with undue regard to the welfare of the legal profession in Northern Ireland. We see the phrase:
"living… in the same household as the husband or wife of the deceased".
Surely that gives a tremendous variety of cases which will be difficult to prove. I presume there could well be cases where, for example, a man lives apart from his wife but has not divorced her. He may live in a house, perhaps with a housekeeper, but they have chosen to "comfort one another", as we say, for perhaps a year or more. I can see that kind of situation being the cause of undue, costly and tedious litigation. I wonder whether a better definition can be given to "cohabitee" in that case.
Perhaps I may also point out that there appears to be a mistake in numbering. In Article 4, the "(1)" is against the article number rather than the first paragraph. The numbers should all move down.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, for those comments and also the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his welcome.
1412
There is no attempt in the order to provide for the welfare of lawyers in Northern Ireland; that has always seemed to me well taken care of.
The article is specifically aimed at cohabitees. Married couples are already covered in the main legislation but "cohabitees" are further defined by Article 4 so that a man and woman must be living together as husband and wife for at least two years immediately preceding the death of the partner. This is a definition for the cohabitee which is successfully used already in the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. I shall examine the wording of the Bill. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Northern Ireland Peace Process
7.24 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham rose to call attention to the prospect for the peace process in Northern Ireland; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Your Lordships will have observed that during the course of the week this item has mysteriously metamorphosed through the usual channels from being an Unstarred Question, which would have put a tight corset on our debate. The corset has been loosened and it has now become a debate on a Motion which I am glad to move. I feel that one of the regrettable features of the way in which we deal with Northern Ireland business in this House, quite apart from the strange hours of the day at which we normally do so—for those who do not regularly come to Northern Ireland debates, this is luxuriously early in the day for us to discuss Northern Ireland business—is that we generally discuss specifics such as a government Statement or one of the flow of orders by which the Province is so inappropriately governed under the present arrangements. That being the case, we rarely have the chance to discuss the general state of affairs in Northern Ireland. I am glad that the Motion gives us a chance to do so.
This is an important moment in the so-called peace process. I believe that the question in a nutshell is this: can progress be made before the British general election and the Irish election which will follow it? Some may feel that the alternative is not too bad: to put the whole project in cold storage for a year, then try to warm it up again in the new political situation, whatever that may be.
I fear that that is not an option. In my belief we either move forward or we are likely to see a further retreat behind the barricades of the past and a relapse into sectarian zealotry and the barbaric acts with which we are familiar from the past 25 years. Consistently, the story of Northern Ireland over the past 25 years has been that, when hope is denied, despair fills its place.
We have an impressive list of participants in the debate. I thank those noble Lords who have put their names down. Perhaps I may say in particular how much

1413
I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Alderdice, the leader of the Alliance Party. He has been a consistent and eloquent voice in Northern Ireland against sectarianism and in favour of inclusion. He has been a consistent and benign influence for principled compromise between historical adversaries. He has been active in the whole peace process in a way which reflects great credit on him and the Alliance Party. I know that he will make a major contribution to this House, as he has over many years in Northern Ireland.
Let me start my own analysis of the prospects in Northern Ireland with something which is obvious to me but which is often ignored. Peace and political progress in Northern Ireland depend on one relationship above all others. No, it is not the relationship between Mr. Hume and the Republican extremists. Nor is it even the relationship between the British and Irish Governments, important though that is.
It is the relationship between sensible unionism and moderate nationalism. That means in party terms between the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP. That is what matters above all. Can they agree to share power and live together in the same space on the basis of equal inclusion? We all know that the context matters a great deal; that the nature of the relationship with and between the parent countries of the respective traditions is important; that the degree of respect and protection for both majority and minority rights is crucial; and that the presence or absence of violence is a vital factor. But nothing can take away from the primacy of the central relationship between moderate unionists and their nationalist counterparts. Anything which detracts from them settling down to build an accommodation is frankly displacement activity and even potentially a distraction.
That is why I believe that the message of the past few months is so mixed. On the one hand there has been the deeply depressing spectacle of Sinn Fein and its IRA allies slipping back into hot words and dangerous deeds—like the Bourbons, learning nothing and forgetting nothing. For those who have not heard, tonight we have news of a 600-pound car bomb, fortunately defused, outside the RUC headquarters in Londonderry. The menace of violence is there in a very real way.
But, on the other hand, there has been maintenance, however tenuous, of talks and even the first glimmering of genuine dialogue, albeit of a largely procedural nature, between constitutional nationalists and unionists. That must be welcomed. Indeed, I believe that it is one of the reasons why some of the militant Republicans now seem to be trying to find their way back into the process. The synchronised McGuinness—Mayhew dialogue of recent days may or may not lead somewhere. We shall all have to see. I do not regard what has happened tonight as particularly encouraging.
But, for myself, I believe that Sinn Fein could only be readmitted to civilised discourse if the proof of its seriousness was represented by some combination of three things: first of all, words—unambiguous adherence to the Mitchell principles; second, deeds—unequivocal commitment to a parallel decommissioning
1414
process; and third, time—the elapsing of peaceful time. Who can judge yet if Sinn Fein is serious enough to realise the depth of the distrust that it must now allay by the right words and deeds and the passage of peaceful time? In that context, I want briefly to refer, in comparison to Sinn Fein and the IRA, to the very great restraint that has been shown by the former Loyalist paramilitaries. That restraint over the past few months, when some of their supporters must feel that tit for tat must obtain again, has been, to say the least of it, impressive.
Reverting to Sinn Fein, I believe that the show must go on with or without it. We must never again allow a Hume-Adams strategy to so overwhelm the agenda of both governments and both communities, let alone the US administration, that everything and everyone is paralysed until Messrs. Adams and McGuinness smile upon us. Waiting for Gerry is not a strategy; it is a recipe for disaster. So if the show is to go on, it demands movement and compromise from those who want peace and stability. A stable settlement in Northern Ireland is absolutely essential to the inward investment and prosperity for which the noble Baroness labours so tirelessly, effectively and, if I may say so to her, so often unacknowledged. It is good to have the chance to do so here this evening.
I say to my nationalist friends in the SDLP, "This could be your moment. Sinn Fein is currently discredited. You have the opportunity for making sure that peaceful constitutional nationalism is a bridge between a past of division and a future of reconciliation." To my unionist friends I say, "Please, please respond to the mood of the people of Northern Ireland who want to move on rather than march to the old atavistic drums of the past. You have won the prize of no surrender. You have won the prize. Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom so long as that is what the people want. So now set that agreement in foundations of stone by making the compromises essential to share power and create equal rights, so that the people of the rest of the United Kingdom feel proud of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic of Ireland can experience your confidence and friendship rather than the suspicious distrust of the past." To the governments, I would advise, if I may, "Stay close together. Don't follow the IRA will-o'-the-wisp into the bogs. Let it come to you, if it will. Be ready to modify the North-South All-Ireland strand of the negotiations, so that cross-border institutions are seen primarily as practical means of necessary co-operation rather than as an attempt to create shared sovereignty."
In my opinion, the primary role of the Irish Republic should be as a co-guarantor of a new settlement rather than as a co-administrator of Northern Ireland. I believe that the Dublin Government under the able leadership of Mr. Bruton and Mr. Spring are ready to be realistic in that respect. Canon Frayling, in a notable sermon in Westminster Abbey in July, talked of the sense of betrayal felt by unionists over the years and the sense of injustice felt by nationalists over the years. He also said that politics alone cannot heal the wounds. Of course, he is right on both counts. But even if

1415
constructive politics are not sufficient, they are necessary. This is a time when the leaders of both main communities, like the Alliance Party which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, leads, need to listen to the people of Northern Ireland, who, in my belief, are ready to go that extra mile for peace. They must not be let down.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. We are very fortunate that he is here today.
Two weeks ago Mr. Spring said that Sinn Fein/IRA received 17 per cent. of the total vote in the last election. Mitchell McLoughlin, while complaining of disenfranchisement, claimed that between 35 and 40 per cent. of the nationalist population in the North supported the Sinn Fein/IRA. A poll since the election showed that it was running well behind the SDLP. Sinn Fein/IRA has a party which represents no more than one-third of the nationalist vote, one-sixth of the whole electorate in the North. So why is it deemed impossible for the parties already attending the talks to speak for or represent the nationalist community in negotiating the future, especially since the leader of the SDLP has retained throughout the years of political negotiation both close links with Sinn Fein and a close working relationship with the Irish Government as well as our own?
Why are the two governments, and no doubt the American Government and the European Union also, striving so hard to get Sinn Fein/IRA into the talks at any cost? Mr. Spring says that it is because:
"if you want an accommodation that has the broadest possible support, the 17 per cent. should be reflected in the negotiations that lead to the accommodation".
He does not say what the effect would be on the other 83 per cent. if Sinn Fein/IRA were to be brought in on any grounds other than the terms that have been laid down time and again in the Mitchell principles and by the governments.
The 83 per cent. might find it hard to understand why a party whose credibility as a political force rests almost exclusively on its claim to be able to influence the IRA—a claim which it effortlessly couples with disclaimers of any influence on that body—should expect to be allowed to dictate its own terms on the timing of its entry. Mr. Adams boasted, when he was asked at his book launch whether he would condemn the amassing by the IRA of 10 tonnes of explosive, that he had avoided the politics of condemnation before now and would continue to do so. How true! He never condemned Canary Wharf, Manchester or Lisburn; nor the punishment beatings. Was he perhaps not free to do so? Of course, he makes an exception when it comes to condemning the British for being prepared to defend the citizens of the United Kingdom as it is their duty to do. I hope that we shall not let down our security or our military guard.
1416
We have come to live in a looking-glass world, or perhaps it would be true to say that we are being manoeuvred to look through the wrong end of the telescope. The reason why Sinn Fein/IRA has, in Mr. Spring's view, to be at the talks, whether or not that might drive the other parties away—and then, of course, they would be blamed for destroying the peace process; geese are not allowed to object if the fox is invited into the coop—is that Sinn Fein has friends, the IRA, who are accustomed to kill whatever gets in their way and to negotiate through the bullet, not the ballot. In fact, it is perfectly prepared in every sense to kill as many innocent people as will secure media attention. That is what makes that grotesque little party so special. And the IRA can make trouble in the Republic too, despite the fact that Sinn Fein/IRA is even less representative of the democratic vote there than in the North. I could wish, incidentally, that the media would question Sinn Fein as toughly and rigorously as they do all other political figures.
Sinn Fein/IRA has three conditions which must be met before there can be any prospect of a ceasefire, according to Mr. McLoughlin, which are: a guarantee of inclusive talks involving Sinn Fein; a time-frame for political settlement; and confidence-building measures. Mr. Adams has added a further condition: that the Taoiseach's brief must include defending the rights of the nationalists in the North. No one must defend the right of the majority in the North. On the contrary, as Gerry Adams said at the Sinn Fein conference in 1995, the British Government must be pressurised to adopt a policy of disengagement based on Britain becoming a positive persuader for ending the Union. At that meeting he spoke of an all-Ireland struggle and stated clearly that Sinn Fein's objective was to bring about an inclusive and negotiated end to British rule in Ireland and to seek to replace it with a new and agreed Irish jurisdiction. He said:
"negotiations need to take place in a climate where no section of our people hold an undemocratic power of veto".
Ironically it is Sinn Fein/IRA which at present wields without scruple, through violence and the threat of violence, that undemocratic power of veto. All those who are urgently trying to make the peace process work should not forget that. Sinn Fein is prepared to be quite as undemocratic in the South, though hitherto the IRA has refrained from actual violence there—with one exception—in order to retain the freedom to operate from and train in a safe base. Mr. Adams said:
"Sinn Fein seeks the transformation of all Irish society, not only in the occupied areas but throughout the entire island".
The present Taoiseach said loudly, after the Lisburn bomb:
"We, the people of the Republic, have no agenda for a progressive take-over of Northern Ireland against the wishes of the majority there. There is no pan-nationalist agenda. Any government I lead would never be part of such an agenda".
That is what I call a confidence-building measure, and a great credit it is to him. I wish we could hear Mr. Spring say the same thing. Martin McGuiness said in February 1995:
"What is our agenda? We want the ending of British rule in our country".

1417
Let us examine Sinn Fein/IRA's latest three conditions which must be met before there can be a ceasefire. First, it wants a guarantee of inclusive talks involving Sinn Fein. Why should the other parties, including the Loyalist paramilitaries who have so steadily refused to be provoked into violence, allow the conditions to be set by the very party which is preventing any move to peace?
Next, it wants a time-frame for a political settlement. How can anyone set a date when the complex problems and difficulties of many years have to be resolved? If the date chosen is too soon, it will lead to recriminations and be used as an excuse for renewed violence, if no other excuse is handy. Thirdly, it wants confidence-building measures. Everyone but Sinn Fein and the IRA has leaned over backwards, including, let it be said, the Irish Government in their moves to legislate for decommissioning and their reference, at least, to eventual action to put the issue of Articles 2 and 3 to a referendum.
There is then the Loyalist offer, tabled as long ago as February 1995, to put the whole issue of decommissioning to an international body. We had the Mitchell Report; we had the President of the United States waving White House wands, only to find, poor fellow, that he had conjured up not the good fairy, but a wicked stepmother who was preparing for Canary Wharf at the very time that Gerry Adams was posing for pictures with him.
We have had the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, whose report Sinn Fein alone rejected. We have had, above all, wise negotiators in the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and his Ministers, and I pay my tribute to them tonight. It is not true to say that Sinn Fein/IRA—those infinitely skilled word- spinners—need a clear statement of the conditions required for entry into the talks. The Prime Minister said that we need an unequivocal ceasefire which is verifiable. What could be clearer or more reasonable? Mr. Hume has spoken of the need for litmus tests for the other parties on their commitment to the peace process. The IRA plays judo with us, requiring both the governments and the parties already involved in talks to prove their bona fides. The only people who can move us on, the only ones who can enable the peace process to be put into gear and move off are the IRA. It is the IRA's credentials which need testing. As the Prime Minister said, it is difficult to reconcile Sinn Fein's rhetoric of peace with the IRA's preparations for murder.
I am half persuaded that it would be no bad thing to call Sinn Fein's bluff—early rather than late—and once there is a ceasefire, let them into the talks to expose their real agenda; that is, a non-negotiable, undeviating determination to end Northern Ireland's present status within the Union, whatever the wishes of the majority, and to impose a united Ireland. Like the North Vietnamese, the IRA only negotiates to win. Once it finds it cannot secure, not partial, but total victory through talks, it will, I fear, revert to the only form of combat it knows—and it will be well prepared. If it has meanwhile succeeded in the negotiating phase in causing the other parties to withdraw from what could prove a travesty of democratic discussion if it was
1418
present, that too would be a victory. If it can provoke the Loyalists into breaking their ceasefire, it would be a disaster.
I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in believing that we should believe in the talks and carry them on. Therefore, though I admire the cool courage, patience and determination to find a way to talk and to be seen to satisfy in so doing the universal longing for peace for ordinary people on both sides, I fear the scenario is not encouraging. It could be another tactical ceasefire, probably preceded by a series of bombings which will be attributed, unless very successful, to mavericks. There will be the entry of Sinn Fein/IRA into talks and the presentation by them of a series of non-negotiable demands which the majority and at least one of the two governments cannot reasonably accept and which might lead to the break-up of the talks. Lastly, there will be the reversion to armed struggle, a renewed IRA campaign and inevitably in that case a Loyalist response.
Hence I hope that both governments will think long and hard before watering down the conditions or at least the timing for entry after any ceasefire until some verification has been provided. Meanwhile, let us get on with the talks as they are. The two governments should be seen by the majority who feel threatened already to be proceeding cautiously and not bounced by either Mr. Spring or Mr. Hume into premature action. I believe it is right and will be seen to be right to lean over backwards to let in Sinn Fein/IRA, after a ceasefire, once they comply with the necessary conditions.
At least by going as far as we have to meet the Irish Government, which is in general receptive to Sinn Fein for a variety of reasons, we ought to be able to expect from them a far more active policy of support; for instance, possibly the trying and imprisoning in the Republic of wanted IRA men when they cannot bring themselves—for good political reasons—to extradite. They cannot claim to advocate the interests of the North without accepting some responsibility for acting to contain and frustrate the IRA operations based in the Republic. The Garda is, of course, already doing something towards that.
The people who have had a taste of peace and prosperity, the Loyalist paramilitaries, who have shown such restraint, the American Government, who can so powerfully influence events, and the Nationalists, who trust the SDLP and the Alliance Party rather than Sinn Fein to represent them, must all see that everything has been done to bring Sinn Fein in. But it must not be perceived to be appeasement. The 83 per cent. must be given reason to trust the Government—indeed, the two governments—to remember that they are the majority and they have rights. If they lose faith in good government, that will be the real IRA victory.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the first thing I should do is extend a warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I also want to take this opportunity to thank him sincerely for the patience and skill with which he has led the Alliance Party on a difficult path over the years, though I feel he has not as yet harvested the fruit.

1419
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, comes to the House with a great deal of up-to-date knowledge of the political position in Northern Ireland. I believe also that he has interests in some health matters as well. But his words will carry particular weight and be of great value to those who follow Northern Ireland affairs in your Lordships' House. I very much look forward to his maiden contribution on a very complex subject which is so near to his heart. If I have one caveat at all, it is this—and I speak as a Welshman. I believe that the Welsh branch of the Celtic family has an ancient and sceptical attitude towards your Lordships' House. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord can contribute to our work without in any way weakening his beneficial influence in Northern Ireland—because it is there that we want the enlightened leadership.
Over the past few weeks we had been expecting a definitive statement by the Government about the peace process. But that was not to be. Then the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked this simple but penetrating question: what is the outlook for the peace process in Northern Ireland? I find his question an extremely difficult one to answer, so I much look forward to the Minister's response to it.
Speaking on what is visible about the peace process—a great deal is not visible—I am saddened that the hopeful signs are so few as the obstacles are more and more visible. They have been mentioned this evening—the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire, then the events of last July surrounding Drumcree, the subsequent boycott of the shops and the continued discovery of arms. The cumulative effect of these events is that the general public are in a fairly pessimistic state about the political position in Northern Ireland. All this suggests to me that the peace process is proving far, far more difficult than most of us foresaw three years ago, two years ago or even a year ago. I am sure that there are lessons to be learnt for the two governments and for the political parties from the failure to make progress, but I have no wish to allocate blame—I have no wish to be involved in any argument—for the failure.
However, this week, like, I am sure, many others, I have been reading and re-reading carefully the report of the speech which the Secretary of State delivered at the Manchester Luncheon Club last Friday. I have a great respect for the Secretary of State's tenacity and for his judgment. I believe it to be an important speech for two reasons. First, the Secretary of State declares that we now have a basis for negotiations. Can I tempt the Minister to tell the House what precisely the Secretary of State had in mind when he used those words? In my view, the speech is important for another reason. The Secretary of State deals at some length with Sinn Fein's position, as outlined in the speech of Mr. McGuinness the previous night, a speech described by the Irish Foreign Secretary as "significant and important". It seemed to me that the Secretary of State's words throughout his speech—or what has been reported of the speech—are measured. The speech is carefully constructed. The analysis is a careful analysis. I welcome the tenor of his speech. But it is nevertheless not clear to me how great is the priority which the
1420
Government attach to the entry of Sinn Fein to the all-party talks and whether there are any significant differences between the two governments about that. I wonder whether the Minister can comment on that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that an agreement between the SDLP and the Unionists would be a huge step forward. However, I have to say for my own part—I speak for myself and not necessarily for the Labour Party—that I happen to support those who believe that both governments and the Northern Ireland parties should continue to seek ways and means of bringing Sinn Fein into the talks. If it be true that one or both governments are today in indirect touch with Sinn Fein, does this not indicate that the obstacles may not be insurmountable? Unless its voice is heard in the talks, after it has been given reasonable opportunity to take part in them, I believe that the prospects of a just and lasting settlement will be fairly remote. I leave that matter there.
There is at least one other development which is required, and required before next summer. Nowhere were the difficulties facing Northern Ireland more vividly demonstrated than in the marches last July. The rule of law had a substantial set-back. The RUC's chief constable found himself in a hopeless position. In a sense the marches issue goes to the heart of the deep-seated differences between the two communities in Northern Ireland. It has fallen to Dr. Peter North, the vice chancellor of the University of Oxford and one of the most distinguished jurists of our time, together with two assistants, to review the current arrangements for handling processions in Northern Ireland and establishing principles which will reconcile the exercise of almost mutually incompatible rights. If a way can be found which will not be a victory for one side and not a defeat for the other, that will be a huge development and it will strengthen the peace process.
To find or design such a way is an exceptionally complicated task, but the Secretary of State has called to his aid some of the best legal brains in the country. I trust very much that their task is not an impossible one. When do the Government expect to receive Dr. North's report? If it recommends legislation, will that lead to a process of consultation, or will the Government proceed to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendation of Dr. North's committee if it is acceptable to the Government?
I do not wish to raise any other point. I thought it was worth mentioning those matters and I did of course mention them to the Minister so that she would be aware that I proposed to raise them.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for introducing the debate. Secondly, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. They are difficult matters to have to tackle. Finally, I apologise for being unable to stay to the end of the debate. I was advised that it was likely to finish earlier and therefore I shall try to be brief.

1421
I wish to raise only one issue in relation to the peace process. It arises from the 1995 annual report of the Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Annesley, of the RUC. Perhaps I may first recall the causes of the disturbances in 1968 and a report made in 1969 by the commission entitled Disturbances in Northern Ireland, which is Command Paper 532. That is often known as the Cameron Report, as he was the chairman of the committee. I shall not go into its contents. It showed only too clearly that for 40 years Catholics had been second-class citizens; that is, since Lord Brookeborough and his government took control. He should have been able to do much more for us—I speak as a Catholic—but, as the report shows, Catholic citizens were second class judging by the numbers in the Civil Service and the police force. The numbers taking part were laughable.
I believe that as a Catholic I have a duty to ensure that something like that never happens again. Using as yardsticks the composition of the Civil Service and the police force as regards Catholics and Protestants, one can see that during the past 25 years immense progress has been made. The composition of the Civil Service is about 60 per cent. Protestant and 40 per cent. Catholic. Given past history, that is a considerable achievement. It is well done and everyone should be proud of it. However, sadly, a very different state of affairs exists in the police force, the RUC. It is about 6 per cent. Catholic and the rest Protestant. I understand that during the last 18 months the figure for the number of Catholics has improved and that we welcome.
Why is it so difficult to get Catholics to join the Police Force? I shall quote from two paragraphs in the 1995 annual report of the Chief Constable. At page 14, he states:
"Regrettably, it is necessary to highlight the practice of pressurising local people in some areas not to engage in police/public consultation. This odious practice is not only clearly unacceptable, but it deprives members of the community of the benefits of information on important subjects such as drugs, child abuse and crime prevention. I salute the courage of those members of the public who have so firmly resisted this blatant attempt to thwart their freedom to talk to, and listen to, whom they wish".
An even more important paragraph appears in Appendix 1 at page 102. It states:
"I am sensitive to the real difficulties experienced by some people in considering a career in the RUC. I can assure those in such a position of our ability and preparedness to help them to overcome these difficulties. I am committed to making the organisation as representative of the population as possible.
A more representative police service, however, should also be the aim and responsibility of the whole community".
That is an extremely important point. He goes on to state:
"I invite everyone, including those who criticise the religious balance within the RUC, to note what we are doing to bring about change, and also to reflect on how they may assist us in making further progress".
That is the point that I wish to stress. It is for all citizens of Northern Ireland to try and encourage Catholics to join the RUC. It is the duty of the priests, the schools and responsible citizens wherever they may be so that the whole population will trust the police force. In the peace process, nothing is more important
1422
than a properly balanced police force. Everything that the Government can do to ensure that must be an essential and vital part of the peace process.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is he aware that perhaps the main reason why Roman Catholics do not join the RUC in greater numbers is that those who do are branded as traitors by the IRA and INLA and are therefore at even greater risk of assassination and attacks upon their families than are their Protestant fellow officers, particularly those who choose to remain living in Catholic areas?
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I fully realise that and the great difficulty and danger faced by Catholics who wish to join the RUC. However, the Government and chief constable have made progress and I beg all those in the Protestant and Catholic communities who are working so hard together to ensure that we achieve a balanced force in the RUC.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, first, I thank your Lordships for your welcome to this House. I appreciate it greatly. Secondly, I thank my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham for bringing forward this topical Motion at this time. I know that a considerable number of noble Lords have a great deal of experience in Northern Ireland. As I look around the Chamber I see some who hail from our beloved Province. I see others who for a long time have had an interest there and those who have had experience as Ministers of Her Majesty's Government. I wish to refer in particular to the Minister. She has gained enormous respect right across the community in Northern Ireland for her indefatigable efforts to build up its economy, not least in its largest industry, agriculture. Her efforts are deeply appreciated.
Those who know Northern Ireland appreciate the enormous complexities, nuances and sensitivities of political life there. They are a minefield for the unwary and even sometimes for the wary. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Holme for showing not only his customary courtesy and political astuteness but also for an unfailing surefootedness in Northern Ireland politics and in dealing with Northern Ireland politicians across the divide. All will appreciate the considerable achievement that he has gained. Of course, we are all aware of his considerable achievements elsewhere, too.
I must also make mention of another Lord who is no longer with us. Henry, Lord Dunleath, was a member of my party and effectively the voice of the Alliance Party at Westminster for many years. Subsequent to taking his seat in your Lordships' House he stood for, and was elected to, Ards District Council where he served as a constituency councillor. He was also elected to a number of other assemblies in Northern Ireland. From 1982 to 1986 he served as Deputy Speaker in the Northern Ireland Assembly. He was a towering and significant figure in the business and agricultural life of Northern Ireland and also in the sporting, arts and charitable fraternities. We mourn his passing. We cherish his memory and pay tribute to his service in your Lordships' House, in Northern Ireland, and indeed to the continuing service of the Lady Dunleath.

1423
Not only was he one who moved away from traditional boundaries and crossed the borders of class, creed and political allegiance in the course of peace and reconciliation, he was, for all who knew him, a remarkable individual and a remarkable individualist. That was one of the things that made him a particularly precious symbol of our party because we believe very much in the cherishing of individual differences. It is these things which enrich our society and it is at the heart of what I and my colleagues believe. Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland it has become common to reduce all the variations of religious belief, class, gender, cultural, sporting, artistic interests and political conviction to the traditional sectarian divisions of Protestant Unionist and Catholic Nationalist thus splitting the community and setting the scene for endless feuds.
How does this manifest itself in political life? In recent years the British and Irish Governments have sought to work together to try to address our difficulties and this is extremely welcome. However, Unionists find themselves opposing this co-operation because they believe that Her Majesty's Government should be backing their case because, after all, they are the ones who wish to remain within the United Kingdom. They become suspicious, angry and very fearful when they believe that that is not so. Nationalists, however, welcome the co-operation between the two governments because it means to them that a sovereign, independent Irish Government is available specifically to address and represent their interests. But in our view if the British Government see themselves as there to represent the views of Unionists and the Irish Government is there to represent the views of Nationalists, that is a recipe for deepening the split and institutionalising the polarisation of our society. In passing, I may also say that such a thing would leave little opportunity for the representation of those of us who do not particularly want to view ourselves as either Unionists or Nationalists, but liberal-minded, tolerant Ulster people. We want to see both British and Irish Governments being sensitive to the needs of all sections of our community, not each government acting as a supporter to one side against the other.
There are, of course, sections of our community whose actions do not excite sensitivity, but rather a rightful and frosty opposition. I refer to those who see violence as a legitimate political instrument. Since 1992 the notion developed that it might be possible to get an agreement which would not only bring our troubles to an end, but canvass the support of people right across the divide, from Mr. Adams and his colleagues in the Republican movement to Dr. Paisley and those on the right wing of Unionism and Loyalism. I was always sceptical of this view, but I am not one to sit on the sidelines and snipe just because an analysis is not my analysis or a strategy is not my strategy.
As soon as the violence was stopped I entered into discussions with Mr. Adams and his colleagues and with the Loyalists, publicly and privately, week upon week, for something up to 17 months. It is with some sadness that I have to say to your Lordships that during that
1424
time, while I find developments with the Loyalists, I find no indications that the republican movement is truly prepared for the kind of honourable compromise which is a pre-requisite for a settlement to our problems. Rather, it seemed to me, that despite the kind of memorandum of understanding which there had been in South Africa, which we had attempted to emulate by putting together the Downing Street Declaration, subsequently a framework document, and indeed in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin—a report which we had hoped that Sinn Fein could address and support—we find the republican movement turning back to violence and indeed a new form, the tactical use of the armed struggle.
Be aware that simply because there is no return to an ongoing campaign that does not mean that the trouble is truly less. It is simply that it is frequently found more effective to have a tactical use of the armed struggle which keeps the agenda and the focus firmly on the republican movement.
It is for that reason that I find myself returning to what I regard as the firmer and more solid ground, not the attractive illusion that we can bring together everyone unanimously. I know of no place in the world where it has been found possible for everyone to sign up to a resolution. In the Middle East, Hamas and Jewish fundamentalists still find themselves opposing everything. It was the case in South Africa that the white Right and elements on the other side, too, refused to go along with a legitimate, reasonable and honourable compromise. I believe that we may have to accept that it is not always possible—in fact, it is rarely possible—to get everyone to agree. Indeed, it can be the case that going for the ideal is in fact courting disaster. I fear that what has happened in the past two or three years is that the community has divided itself even more deeply than was the case before.
Why should that be when there was the chance of peace? When governments were seen to be addressing those who were on the extremes they felt themselves to be the big fellows. They felt themselves to be the ones who were running the show and those who were in the broad centre of politics found that their message—and I speak here not just of my own party, but of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP—was of less interest to government and to the media. When people discovered that they found themselves moving to the extremes as well. It is not a counsel of perfection to address the concerns of the extremists and to ignore the desires of the majority of people on both sides and across the community as a whole.
The current government have devoted a great deal of time to Northern Ireland. Perhaps no Prime Minister since Lloyd George and, before him, Gladstone, has devoted more energy to addressing our problems than Mr. Major. He is to be commended by all sides for that. I trust that, whatever the vicissitudes of politics over the next 12 months and whoever it is who heads Her Majesty's Government, they will continue to make a non-sectarian and non-partisan approach to Northern Ireland a matter of the highest priority until the matter is resolved as fully as it can be.

1425
But that is most unlikely to be successful unless we press ahead now with those of the broad centre who are prepared to build a sufficient consensus. We must deal immediately with the necessary structures and legislation which would facilitate the decommissioning of weapons in the event of a ceasefire. I and my colleagues have described in a detailed document elsewhere to the two governments and the other parties how that might be done. We are engaging in discussions each day to try to bring that closer. We must get beyond that and into substantive talks before the Christmas Recess, because I have to say to noble Lords that if that is not achieved, whether through the stubbornness and lack of courage of some Unionist leaders or because of Nationalist leaders chasing the end of a rainbow, this whole process could be in the most profound jeopardy.
The result will be much more serious than the running out of steam to which the Secretary of State referred yesterday evening. It will result in an ever-deepening polarisation of our community, the re-emergence of more serious and widespread violence, extending (as it has done before) to this side of the water and to the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps most seriously, it will result in a snuffing out of the hope which burned so brightly this time last year when the President of the United States of America, Mr. Clinton, turned on the Christmas lights in Belfast. The next few weeks will determine whether or not this Christmas sees a renewal of hope. I know that I and all concerned can depend upon your Lordships' encouragement in all our efforts to achieve that aim.
8.20 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I should like to extend congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on his very interesting maiden speech. He has a good deal of experience of negotiations in Northern Ireland. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing him speak again in this House in the future.
Since 10th June, the Ulster Unionist Party has been engaged in multi-party talks at Stormont with the sole aim of securing an equitable, inclusive and peaceful future for each and every tradition that makes up the Northern Ireland community. In recent years we have developed proposals for a regional assembly in which all could share on an equal basis. The key is the principle of proportionality: an assembly elected by proportional representation, with no executive or cabinet in the conventional sense, but a body which would work through committees, the members of which would be appointed in proportion to their party's strength; the chairman and deputy chairman of the various committees being elected from the parties comprising the assembly. Every party with significant support could participate at every level. However, we think that it should be essentially an administrative body rather than one with legislative or financial power. Financial power should rest at Westminster for the foreseeable future and all major policy issues should therefore be decided here. So, it is not a choice between devolution and integration; what we propose contains elements of both.
1426
We also consider that the European Convention on Human Rights should apply to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, however, that cannot be done unless it is made to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not see why the Government should object to applying that to Great Britain or why they hesitate to apply it to the whole country.
Our proposals would involve replacement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, under which the government of the Irish Republic have a secret part in the government of part of the United Kingdom without any reciprocal obligations, without doing so openly in any democratic process, and still maintaining their territorial claim to part of the United Kingdom. That must be swept away. We believe that there should be co-operation on matters of mutual interest such as tourism and agriculture, but that that should be done openly and democratically, not secretively.
I was interested to hear the noble Earl, Lord Perth, talk about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I hope he knows that in 1921, when the government of Northern Ireland was established, the then Prime Minister, Viscount Craigavon, reserved one-third of the places in the RUC for Catholics but they refused to take them up and have been very reluctant to join ever since, despite encouragement. Some of those who joined were probably very brave to do so, particularly if they lived in an area dominated by Sinn Fein, because they left themselves open to considerable danger. It is our desire to have the police representative of all elements of the community. It seems absurd to say that because Catholics have been reluctant to join they are being treated as second-class citizens. I submit that that is an affront to common sense.
Another difficulty at the moment is that the SDLP is now boycotting our only Province-wide democratic body, the Forum. It finds serving on a health committee with unionists unacceptable. That does not augur well for the chances of meaningful discussions about forms of government. I hope that everybody will see sense and that we can get down to what is an essential and important task.
We must move ahead with negotiations between responsible and law-abiding citizens whatever their political views, rather than trying, as the Government appear to be doing, to entice terrorists to join in. Surely they have learned something from the last ceasefire. It was a "ceasefire" in the sense that there were not so many bombings, but there was still intimidation. There were still punishment beatings and firms were still being blackmailed. There has now been a great increase in what is called "ethnic cleansing"—in other words, the boycotting of Protestant shops and businesses in the west of Northern Ireland with the intention of driving the Protestants out of those areas. I find such things beyond comment.
What we want is a genuine and permanent ceasefire. If it is to be permanent, those involved must show that they do not require weapons and explosives for future use. It is hypocritical to say, "We are going to have a permanent ceasefire, but we are keeping all our weapons

1427
and ammunition just in case it turns out not to be permanent". We want something that can be guaranteed to be permanent.
I have great pleasure in saying that I appreciate the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, tabled this Motion to give the House the opportunity to consider this matter.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, first, I join the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on a most excellent, interesting and well delivered maiden speech. The noble Lord is most welcome and we look forward to hearing his views on Northern Ireland for many years to come.
When I read the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, on the peace process, I had to ask myself: what is the peace process? One might wonder how one can have a peace process without a war. My conclusion was that the peace process is fragmented into two very different parts. The first entails the containment of terrorism in Ireland. The second should be an attempt to create a peaceful environment in which Nationalists and Unionists can live together positively and fruitfully. On the plus side, at the moment some of the political parties are talking to each other. I understand that some useful work is taking place in the Forum. The Government of the Republic of Ireland are still giving strong and supportive leadership and, with the re-election of President Clinton, there is hope that the Americans will continue to have a positive influence.
Sadly, on the down side the terrorists have a well thought-out strategy. They have not given up, and I do not believe that they ever will. They will probably have to be defeated in one way or another. They have a well thought-out strategy which they have pursued with some success, despite the brilliant work of the intelligence services and security forces. It appears that the current terrorist plan is to have a mixture of fewer high profile incidents and periods of tactical ceasefires. Nobody should be fooled by that. It is linked to a rather nasty phenomenon—I do not know a great deal about it but I have heard and seen some evidence of it—known as popular violence. It involves inciting riots, barricading particular sectors and getting people in the street involved in destabilising the country. No one should be fooled by that either.
It is right that Ministers should be involved in high level talks with the elected politicians and the government of the Irish Republic in their attempts to find a solution to the problem of Irish terrorism. It is also right that as long as Sinn Fein represents an active terrorist movement it should not be at the table. It would be wrong, however, to allow the Dublin Government any say in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. Further, it is wrong to give an aura of respectability to ex-terrorists. I believe that the population of Northern Ireland as a whole has been horrified at the respectability accorded certain leaders of the Sinn Fein movement over the past year. Whatever success may be achieved and whatever agreements may be reached by
1428
government in their negotiations, there will be compromise. It will not be possible to impose that compromise on the population from the top down.
I turn to what worries me perhaps more than most. I believe that my noble friend Lady Denton knows what I am about to say. Part of the objective that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, pronounced at the beginning was the coming together of the SDLP, the Nationalist movement and the Unionist parties, gaining a better understanding of each other and learning to live together. I, and I am sure others, have evidence that local authorities around the Province have done a great job. In many areas Nationalists and Unionists have found ways of working together on many important subjects. At times they have even brought in Sinn Fein. However, in Northern Ireland there is still a huge democratic void. To all intents and purposes, the country is run by the Northern Ireland Civil Service, with the exception of one or two departments from time to time. I have nothing against the Northern Ireland Civil Service, but it is not its role to run a country like Northern Ireland so that it is accountable only to visiting Ministers of the United Kingdom Government.
It is important that the Government address that problem and encourage local authorities to live and work together by returning to them greater authority, accountability and financial control, even if it means entering into another major reorganisation of local government. But in the democratic process in Northern Ireland we are seriously deprived of the budgetary controls and accountability that is expected of our local authorities.
I digress for one moment. As a Millennium Commissioner I have travelled the kingdom fairly widely and met a good number of local authorities who are dealing with major projects. I have seen the style, standard and size of budgets of local authorities across the country. Many of the projects that come to the Millennium Commission which are worth many millions of pounds, have been supported, backed and prepared by local authorities. Some have nearly 50 per cent. local authority funding. That has not happened in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is short of projects of any size and scale in terms of the Millennium Commission. I am convinced that in part the reason for that is that the Northern Ireland Civil Service is central government and many local authorities do not have the wherewithal to put together projects which similar bodies can put together this side of the water.
My plea to the Government is that they should look hard, seriously and quickly at how the democratic process can be significantly improved. We do not want the country to be run in future by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I am sure that the Northern Ireland Civil Service does not want to run it either. We want elected representatives who are clearly accountable, and that is very much overdue.
I also ask the Government to put a little more effort, and perhaps a little more money if necessary, into balancing the propaganda account in Washington. My noble friend the Minister has done excellent work in America on the industry side in trying to bring inward

1429
investment to Northern Ireland, but I believe from what I read in the press that the propaganda remains unbalanced. We want a truly balanced propaganda machine in America.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, this is proving to be a very interesting debate. I and I am sure all noble Lords are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for initiating the debate. I listened carefully to all that he said. In many respects he put his finger on it. One question that he regarded as critical was whether it was possible for the unionists and the SDLP to agree. I believe that they can. I believe that that view is shared by most of the Unionist Party and the SDLP, but not in the shadow of violence. It is that which makes it so very difficult. I believe that it will continue to be difficult as long as the violence is there. For one thing, the SDLP must look over its shoulder at what will happen to its seats at the next election if it does something which Sinn Fein alleges is not the proper thing for nationalists. It is the shadow of violence that makes the position so difficult. If Sinn Fein is not in the talks, they will fail because of the shadow of violence; if Sinn Fein is part of the talks, they certainly will not succeed, because it is difficult to believe that Sinn Fein can in a short time become a truly democratic party.
Any debate on Northern Ireland affairs is made more difficult by the expression "peace process". It suggests that in Northern Ireland we are at war. That is not so. Northern Ireland is at peace, as we who live there know. But the community is under attack, or the threat of attack, by the IRA. That is not the same as war. Ninety five per cent. of the people fervently hope that the IRA will decide that nothing is to be gained by force, and that it will lay down its arms and cease other activities, such as the horrific punishment beatings and orchestrated boycotts. That is hoped for, too, by the vast majority of people throughout the island of Ireland. Permanent rejection of violence by the IRA and the acceptance of democracy by Sinn Fein are the prerequisites of peace and stability. Only then can inclusive talks hope to succeed.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Protestant paramilitaries are just as illegal and form just as criminal an organisation? What does he propose to do about them?
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I believe that they have answered that question themselves by the way in which they have held the ceasefire, and are working hard on the perhaps more unruly elements who are also carrying out punishment beatings. That has to stop on all sides.
Unfortunately, Sinn Fein-IRA does not even recognise the right of the majority in Northern Ireland to be part of the UK. Many months were spent by the Dublin forum last year, when all other parties and the Dublin Government recognised the right of majority in Northern Ireland to determine their future. Sinn Fein was the only party to refuse to accept that. That is not a good omen.
1430
Again, Sinn Fein has recently restated the conditions under which it would be prepared to consider a ceasefire. The Government must not impose any preconditions to its immediate entry to inclusive substantive negotiations, but Sinn Fein has stated its own preconditions. They include no internal settlement, by which it means that Dublin must be involved. In the list of critical items, it includes adjustments to the constitution, changes to the police, and the release of political prisoners, which is its way of describing convicted terrorists.
After agreement has been reached on all those matters, Sinn Fein states that it will be prepared to discuss the removal of guns and explosives. Can anyone expect the democratic parties to accept that list? It would prove that violence pays, with the inevitable consequences.
There are only two options for the UK Government. The first is to make it clear that those conditions are not acceptable and to take whatever action is necessary to persuade Sinn Fein-IRA that armed force will achieve nothing. The alternative is to give in to the IRA in the form of successive fudges and confused statements with double meanings.
The general feeling in Northern Ireland—it is a deep feeling, I am sorry to say—is that our Government are heading down the appeasement route. If that should prove to be so, it is dishonest and will lead to even greater problems. I must state that, because it is worrying that such a feeling exists. Of course it would be dishonest because it would put blame for the failure of talks on to the pro-Union parties, which may refuse to talk to a party that in their eyes has not shown sufficient commitment to the democratic process, or, if talks do commence, may refuse to discuss constitutional matters, and again will be blamed for the failure of the talks.
The breakdown of the talks would be serious, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said in his excellent speech, that would lead to a worsening of community relations and further exasperation. I implore the Government to be careful to ensure that the form of the talks is such that there is hope of success. It is time for us all and for the Government to be realistic and to face facts. The leaders of the IRA are intelligent. It is their belief that violence has paid.
I mention two things which are a direct result of the IRA's campaign of violence—the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Frameworks Document. The Anglo-Irish Agreement enabled the Dublin Government to gain a foothold in the affairs of Northern Ireland, and the Frameworks Document as good as promised a step towards dual sovereignty in the form of cross-border institutions with executive powers. In parenthesis I say that everyone in Northern Ireland is in favour of extensive cross-border co-operation to mutual benefit but not in the form of cross-border institutions with executive powers.
The belief of the IRA that violence has paid should help the Government to reject a policy which is not helping. They should devise one which will offer hope in the future. It must be one which will ensure that the IRA is contained or otherwise dealt with.

1431
I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, had to say about democracy. I will not add to what he said because I have spoken on the subject before. Many people have been doing their utmost to encourage an extension of local government powers. One thing I can add is that the forum which was set up in Northern Ireland, perhaps without government support, has proved to be a great success, in that it has given all parties, except the SDLP, an opportunity to discuss matters of importance and interest. It has given young people their first chance to sit down together to discuss subjects of mutual interest. It indicates that if those young people had a vehicle by which they could have some influence on local affairs, that would be a step forward.
There is some good news which deserves comment. The intelligence services, in collaboration with the police, have forestalled several major attacks and recovered significant quantities of arms and explosives. In the Republic, the Garda have done well recently with finds in Donegal to the north and County Louth to the south. Congratulations to them and best wishes to them for continuing success. Intelligence success could make a positive contribution and mean real containment of the IRA.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, had one disadvantage. It showed me how little I know about Ireland. I ask noble Lords' indulgence to speak on this subject. I thought that it might be worth looking for a few minutes at what has happened in South Africa over the past 10 years to see whether we can learn some lessons from it to help those dealing with the situation in Northern Ireland. I spent 10 years as a child in South Africa, so the country has always been dear to my heart.
The situation in South Africa 10 years ago was apparently hopeless. It looked as if there could be no worthwhile political progress without a civil war. However, 10 years later, although there is more violence and lawlessness than one would like, there is nothing like a civil war. Fortunately for South Africa, 10 years ago they had a number of leaders of good will and vision. The breaking of the logjam came in an unpredictable way from an unlikely source. Members of the Dutch Reformed Church started to realise that the policy of apartheid was not only unfair, it was unworkable. They even convinced some of their colleagues in the Dutch Reformed Church and there was the extraordinary sight of Dutch Reformed ministers getting up in their pulpits and apologising to their congregations for having misled them about apartheid.
That action met with real Christian understanding from Dr. Mandela and his friends. It is to their greatest credit that, having already suffered unjust imprisonment for many years, they put all bitterness behind them.
Furthermore, there were political leaders from all sections of the political spectrum who were men of prayer. When Mr. de Klerk was asked recently whether
1432
the end of apartheid was brought about by sanctions he said, "No, but by deep self-analysis before God on our knees".
The divisions in Ireland are of course extremely complex and deep-rooted. There can be no quick fixes. However, the leaders of Ireland and Britain contain God-fearing men and women capable of emulating their South African counterparts in building bridges between the different sectors of the population. Many bridges are needed. Whatever has happened in the past 25 years, our record in the longer term is by no means without blemish. One has to think only of the massacres by Cromwell, the penal laws and the famines of the 1840s. We have often in our rule of Ireland been unfeeling and uncaring, and sometimes downright cruel. Moreover, over and above the troubles that one reads about in the newspapers and sees on the television, there is a spiritual battle which St. Paul tells us is the one that really matters. It is to be fought with spiritual weapons—truth, righteousness and so on. To go into the fray with unserviceable weapons is to court disaster and to go in as though you are fighting with one hand tied behind your back. The only way to get out of that situation is through forgiveness.
Now I must make one point which can be misunderstood; that is, the hurt has not all been on the Catholic side; the hurt has been on the Protestant side as well. Any action taken must reflect that. I know that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have expressed their personal regret for the actions that have marred our record in Ireland, as has the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I admire them for that stand. However, in my view what is required is a national act of apology and regret endorsed by the highest authority in the land.
The South African story points to the value of forgiveness and indicates also the importance of people—the ordinary people as well as the leaders—getting together if only to learn that across the divide there are other human beings. We should be grateful to those who are working in Northern Ireland to establish those day-to-day connections.
Finally, there is a need for everybody involved to be gathered together in prayer. Then, and I believe only then, will the wounds and divisions be sufficiently healed so that the peace process can go on. I am glad that the next speaker is the noble Earl, Lord Longford, because he is on record as saying that forgiveness clears the air. I very much look forward to hearing what he has to say. I thank your Lordships for listening patiently to me.
8.55 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we all respect the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, partly, perhaps I may say without embarrassing him, because of the great way with which he copes with a disability which may afflict any of us at any time, particularly someone who is 90 years old like myself. However, we also admire him because of the clear Christian voice which emanates from him.

1433
He pleaded for an act of apology from this country. I cannot help but remember what I wrote at the end of a book which I published in 1935, which is probably before some speakers were born. I wrote at the end of that book:
"It remains for Ireland to do herself justice as a nation for that she has not yet done. It remains for England to make atonement for that she has not yet made".
As regards this country and the Irish Republic, the Irish Republic has done itself justice and this country has made atonement as far as necessary. In any event, it is not oppressing Southern Ireland any more. As regards Northern Ireland, that remains an open question but I see very much what the noble Lord has in mind.
We do not have unlimited time and many important points have been made. I should like to go on thinking about the points made, for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and many others. But in the short time available, I shall make two submissions.
On the one hand, the gap between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland is nothing like as deep as people suppose. It is nothing like, for example, the gap between the Greeks and Turks in Cyprus or between Jews and Arabs. I speak as someone who was brought up an Irish Protestant but has been an Irish Catholic resident here for many years; my brother, a Protestant to the day of his death, was made a senator by Mr. De Valera. There was a minute's silence for him in Dublin when he died. Therefore, I am connected with this problem from both sides of the religious aspect and many other aspects, and have been all my life.
What are the two points that I would like to make? As I say, I submit that the gap is nothing like as deep as people suppose. Some years ago I founded a centre for homeless young people in London. There were two main social workers—a Protestant girl from Queen's, Belfast, and a Catholic girl from Queen's, Belfast. They became great friends. When the Protestant girl went back to Lurgan and married, the Catholic girl was her sole bridesmaid, and as chairman of the centre, I was invited to the wedding. I was given this tie, an Irish rugby union tie, by an Ulster Protestant. I am very proud to think that that is its origin, and I have worn it ever since. In that Protestant church in Lurgan there was that Catholic bridesmaid and me. I was elderly even in those days and I was prominent. It was impossible to believe that people could be killing each other not so many miles away.
Therefore, we must ask why there is trouble—not trouble in the political sense—but why are people killing each other. A former Prime Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said a very wise thing when he went to Northern Ireland for the first time as Home Secretary. He came back and said there are too many guns.
Why are there too many guns in Northern Ireland and not in Southern Ireland and England, Scotland and Wales? The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, spoke about the IRA as though they are the only gunmen. I wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, who cares so deeply about such matters, had been with me when I stayed some years ago—and she may believe me or not—with one of the leaders of the Ulster Volunteer Force. I spent an
1434
evening with him and his friends. He asked me whether I knew Carson who helped to bring the guns to Ireland in the first place. The guns were brought to Ireland by the Protestants, by the Ulster Volunteers, before the first war. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, might not have blamed the Catholics for all the violence in Northern Ireland if she had realised that that is where the guns first came from.
Again, and more recently, the noble Baroness may have cared to be with me when I visited IRA prisoners and Protestant paramilitary prisoners. Indeed, some time ago I met a Protestant paramilitary prisoner who had killed four Catholics on military instructions. Well, of course, a Catholic had done the same to them. It is a both-ways traffic. It would really be insulting the intelligence of this House to suggest that it was all one way. Naturally in England the IRA are the danger. One can understand that: the IRA is thought to be the danger here. The Protestants are not killing anyone in England. However, I rather hope that our Unionist friends—those very enlightened people from Northern Ireland—will not come here and, too often, give us the impression that all the shooting and killing in Northern Ireland is done by Catholics. Despite the recent Protestant ceasefire, they must know that Protestant paramilitaries have killed more than the Catholic paramilitaries. That is just a fact, but you would not gather that from our Unionist friends. Those are the actual facts. Here is this terrible mutual killing between people who do not really hate each other; it is just a horrible tradition. How can we solve it?
I come now to the solution. It lies in the way outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, at the beginning of the debate. We must bring together the moderate Protestants, the Unionists and the Social Democratic Federation. It sounds so easy. Why not? Let us take Sunningdale which is my own solution in just three words, "Back to Sunningdale". However, people do not like going backwards, so let us say, "Forward from Sunningdale". I do not think anything better has been devised. It was a coalition, a Protestant majority and a Catholic minority, including the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who was very prominently involved in all that, but he will speak much more about it in a moment. That worked extremely well but it was sabotaged by the Ulster Unionist strike. Those are just the facts. Indeed, going back a little before that, why did the British Army go in such force to Northern Ireland? To protect the Catholics against the Protestants. Let us at least be clear and try to balance the argument in this tragic situation. There are villains on both sides. We must not suggest that they are all on one side for that would be unworthy of the intellectual standards of this House. No, the answer is back to Sunningdale, or whatever you like to call it now, with a formula like that devised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. That is one way.
I should like to make one further point before I sit down. There is one aspect of this which is all-important. It is the only way to remove the fear that undoubtedly leads to some psychological support for the IRA among the Catholics. They are a minority and the Protestants are much stronger; the British Army had to be brought in to protect them. We must remove that fear. That could

1435
be done through an arrangement such as Sunningdale. We must also remove the counter fear—the Protestant fear—that they will be overwhelmed by the south of Ireland. If we get rid of the fear, then we will get reconciliation. As I said, the answer lies along the lines pointed out at the very beginning of tonight's debate by the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, while listening to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I was reminded of my late grandfather, who lived to the age of 99. When I looked into his safe I found an armament which related back to the Clyde valley. I have been reminded of the problem of guns as mentioned by the noble Earl. I am afraid that it goes back an awful long way. I would prefer instead to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on his maiden speech. I should at once declare a prejudice in the noble Lord's favour in that we were both reared in the same district of County Antrim. My late father was a founder and the first leader of the party which the noble Lord now leads with such ability and distinction.
The noble Lord's professional qualifications as a leading psychiatrist also give him the opportunity to analyse and diagnose, often with brutal clarity, the political behaviour of other Northern Ireland politicians. I suggest that noble Lords should consult him. But, above all, the noble Lord is a force for the good of the peace process. He represents—maybe not always with votes, but with the subconscious support of—the intelligent, moderate and reasonable people of all persuasions. This group is fed up with the posturing, the obstructions and the delaying tactics which have often dominated the talks to date. A sense of urgency and purpose has been so painfully lacking.
I have lived for much of the past 30 years in Northern Ireland. I had, as a journalist in both Dublin and the North on the staff of that great organ, the Irish Times, a taste of the normality, the co-operation and the progress in the late 1960s; a time when we in Northern Ireland were in command of our destiny and of our relations with our neighbours in the South. That situation must again be the way forward and an objective of any new structures. After that period of hope I had to endure the strife and chaos of the next 20 years. For the last eight years I was chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and was able to participate in reconstructing a new, modern and thriving tourism industry. I celebrated the 1994 ceasefire and saw tourism grow by 67 per cent. in 1995, but I was devastated by the end of that brief period of peace and particularly by the events of Drumcree last July. I wish I could relate that the wheel had turned full circle in those 30 years. But it has got stuck.
I am sure that the Minister, who is responsible for the economy and for tourism—indeed, many noble Lords have mentioned how much the noble Baroness does, and I would like to associate myself with those remarks—was as outraged as I was, and many others, by the return to violence this year. It was clear that the tensions which led to Drumcree were so much worse than in 1995
1436
because Sinn Fein/IRA had gone back to violence. There are many who conclude that Drumcree was planned and orchestrated by Sinn Fein/IRA. There may also be those who criticise the chief constable for not having thought through the issues which led to disastrous decisions.
But the Government must ultimately bear the responsibility for their miscalculations. To many it was, at the least, disingenuous for government to pass off as an operational matter what was, by consensus, the most significant single political event which has landed us on a giant snake in what has become in recent years a game of political snakes and ladders.
Drumcree has infuriated, and even made extreme, all moderate people of both persuasions. It has polarised many communities and created no-go areas and boycotts. It has produced a poisoned atmosphere and feelings on the ground worse than I can ever remember. But there remains a hope that after that brief experience of peace in 1994–95 there is an overwhelming desire to return to normality and to support whatever it may take to bring us there.
Two lessons have been learnt: first, nothing cements peace more than a return to economic normality. The momentum of inward investment, unfortunately, has been stalled. Drumcree did enormous damage to the confidence factor so essential to inward investment. We must restore confidence. The announcement last week, in which the Minister participated, of the new Tourism Brand Ireland was an important step in that direction. I am glad that I was able to participate in the incubation of this project which gives Northern Ireland for a modest sum a piggy-back on a major £15 million campaign over three years plus to promote Ireland as a single destination, in partnership with the tourist boards North and South. What enormous benefits travel and tourism can bring both economically and politically. Travel in all its dimensions is a great healer and remover of prejudice for everyone involved.
Secondly, we have learnt that when you take away violence, you take away the border. Why cannot Sinn Fein/IRA learn that? The harmonious cross-border activity that surged during that busy period of peace, in particular in tourism, has been dissipated. The blocked roads and security controls have not returned, but the return to violence effectively brought the border back again.
Northern Ireland cannot be isolated economically or politically from the United Kingdom, of which it will remain an integral part, or from the Republic of Ireland, with which it is irrevocably interdependent. We cannot move forward to solutions towards living together peacefully unless we are economically closer; and all-Ireland tourism is an integral part of that process.
For a little place of 1.5 million people, Northern Ireland has produced a great number of highly dedicated, motivated and talented people. I do not refer just to Mr. Ferguson or Mr. Dunlop, to the dozen or more American presidents who have their origins in Northern Ireland, or to the many generals and field marshals of the Second World War—Alexander, Adair, Montgomery, Templer and others—but to many

1437
Members of this House and a few in the other place. I refer to people like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, who has presided over the reconstruction of Belfast as chairman of the inner-city development company, my noble friend Lord McConnell, and the right honourable Member for Wiltshire, North in another place, Richard Needham, who is also known to noble Lords as the noble Earl, Lord Kilmorey, from his Irish Peerage. Since 1986 he has been the architect of so much of the economic renaissance in Northern Ireland which the noble Baroness the Minister has been taking forward so gallantly. Our elected representatives owe it to all those people to make some fast and constructive progress in these talks; and at least I know that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, will play his part.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I have spoken so many times on Northern Ireland issues since I came to this House in 1983 that I sometimes weary of listening to myself. When I heard that so many noble Lords were to take part in the debate I had decided to listen and to say nothing. However, having listened to the debate I have been struck by the fact that had this debate taken place in another part of this building there would have been numerous interjections asking the honourable Member to give way. But this is a polite House. We can say what we believe without fear of interruption.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on his speech, and on his political stance in Northern Ireland—I cannot call it a career. No one could take offence at what he said. I agree with every single sentiment. As I sat on a Back Bench looking at his luxuriant head of black hair, I could not help thinking to myself that this is his first debate on Northern Ireland; he is a young man. When he has spent many years in this House he will either be very grey or very bald, and the problems of Northern Ireland will still be with us. Again, I congratulate the noble Lord. I do not dissent from a single sentiment that he expressed this evening.
Nor is there any dissension in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who introduced the debate, and my remarks. I took a note of what he said. He talked about the speech by Martin McGuinness in the Republic of Ireland and that by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The most important thing that he said, which encompasses everything about this debate, was that a 600lb bomb was found in Derry this evening. That is the story of Northern Ireland and its problems. Sinn Fein will say that they want talks. The Secretary of State, using coded language, may say that he wants talks, too. But the fact that there was a 600lb bomb there is indicative of what Sinn Fein is about. They want to intimidate, to force their views on Northern Ireland. There must be talk in Belfast and Derry tonight that they were trying to bring about what they call "a spectacular". Fortunately, tonight the bomb did not go off and did not kill people. But had it gone off, they would have said, "We are people of peace. If you don't want this to happen again you had better talk to us". Mention of the bomb was the most significant thing said in the debate.
1438
I listened to the remarks of other noble Lords who spoke, and particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan. I knew his father, who was the originator of the Alliance Party. He expressed exactly the same sentiments. To consolidate the noble Lord's remarks perhaps I may say that 1996 was the most dangerous year in Northern Ireland that I have seen in my political lifetime. This year, after Drumcree, we were on the verge of a civil war. It was far worse than 1974, when loyalist mobs brought about the downfall of the Sunningdale executive which we had so laboriously created.
That brings me to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. He referred to the fact that Catholics had not joined the RUC. They did not join for a very good reason. You cannot be a Catholic, live in a Catholic area and put on the uniform of an RUC officer. Nothing gives the IRA greater delight than to murder a Catholic wearing a uniform of the Crown.
That said, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, was a former Minister of Home Affairs in a Unionist administration in Northern Ireland which violently and vindictively discriminated against Catholics in Northern Ireland. I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament when that was happening. The legislation on the statute book of a Unionist administration in Northern Ireland at that time was totally discriminatory against Catholics.
In Drumcree the Unionist mobs once again took control of the streets, as they did in 1974. The RUC were placed in the impossible position of trying to assert the rule of law. What happened? Protestant policemen living in Protestant areas of Northern Ireland were subject to violent attacks from the Orange mobs. The chief constable of Northern Ireland had to leave his own home because of attacks by Protestant mobs. So let us not put all the blame on the IRA.
I notice that the Government Chief Whip is making signs to me; however, I wish to say this. I said then, and I say now; I repeat and will continue to repeat—the last elections that were held in Northern Ireland were deliberately designed to bring murderers into the election process. I said that in this House at the time. The Government should never have engaged in an exercise to bring murderers into the democratic process. Those people have been guilty of the most atrocious murders. Now, it makes everyone sick to see them walking into 10 Downing Street with their briefcases and pinstripe suits.
I have been an opponent of the IRA all my life, and will continue to be an opponent of the IRA. But if John White, the murderer of my close friend, is welcomed into Downing Street, I have to agree, although it goes against my every instinct, that Gerry Adams may be entitled to go there. At least he has 116,000 votes behind him. John White does not have that support. The Government should never have designed an electoral process that would bring murderers to the conference table.
Attacks have been made here on the IRA, with which I agree. But let us not forget that we talk about decommissioning, taking arms from the IRA, but there

1439
is also an arsenal of arms within the Loyalist community. We should take the arms from them and decommission across the board, including all the so-called Loyalist paramilitaries.
I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness, as does 100 per cent. of the population in Northern Ireland. I hope that she will not regard any of my comments tonight as being an attack on the Government's policy. I believe that she has done everything she can to bring together the various sections of the Northern Ireland community.
I am sorry to have taken so long but I must turn to what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said. The best and most hopeful experiment in Northern Ireland that we have ever had since the creation of the Northern Ireland state was at Sunningdale. There, the moderate Unionists and the moderate Nationalists, led by myself, went to Sunningdale. After many obstacles, we brought about the Sunningdale executive. I believe that at the end of the day that is the only answer to Northern Ireland's problems: moderate Unionism and moderate Nationalism.
I end with a note of warning to some of my former colleagues in the SDLP. There is talk now that at the forthcoming election, whenever it may be, the SDLP and Sinn Fein will do a deal on seats in Mid Ulster, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and the newly created seat of West Belfast. If there is any electoral pact or deal by Sinn Fein and the SDLP, it will do nothing but further divide the communities. I advise the party which I formerly led not to engage in that exercise. If we want to bring about reconciliation in Northern Ireland, let the moderates—Unionists and Nationalists—take a stand against the extremists.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for his notable maiden speech and, in all humility, for something of much greater value and worth—namely, his long labours in the vineyard.
The progress of the peace process is not to be seen as a simplistic matter. I absolutely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, said: the peace process must depend on immediate and long-term factors. It is important that it should take place on the basis of economic improvement. All credit to the Minister for her efforts. It must have been galling indeed to see Drumcree making inward investment slow, cautious, suspicious.
Perhaps I may give one example of where at the moment there is legitimate resentment in Northern Ireland about the treatment of beef farmers. Everyone taking part in the debate knows perfectly well that the regime of beef tracking, beef passports, in Northern Ireland is of such a different nature that a different solution ought to be carefully examined. There is a good deal of resentment in the important beef industry which is capable of spilling over and making the peace process more difficult in an indirect way.
1440
My belief and our belief on these Benches is that we must return to the Mitchell principles of last January. At the time, for some of us here—and certainly in retrospect it has become stronger—our feeling was and remains that the Mitchell principles were mishandled by the Government. That is not a reproach, it is a description. We need to know carefully, because these are delicate times, what indications the Government are getting from the United States about the continuing involvement of Senator Mitchell himself. If he is not to continue, what is to be the fate of the six principles? What is the United States indication to the British Government about what its continued involvement is intended to be? Those are very important questions which the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to ask and to have answered. What is the attitude of the present government in the Republic about the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of the Republic? We on these Benches and the two governments have urged the parties in Northern Ireland to proceed on decommissioning in line with the compromise proposals in Senator Mitchell's report. There is no way forward apart from compromise.
I believe that any suggestion that there should be decommissioning of arms before Sinn Fein is allowed into talks will simply mean that Sinn Fein will not take part in the talks—I believe that to be an objective description—and we shall be back where we were 12 months ago.
Another question, which is distinct because it gives rise to great suspicion, is what exactly is the basis of the alleged contacts between Sinn Fein and the British Government via the agency of Mr. John Hume? What exactly is going on? We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for this debate and I believe that it was he who spoke of the curiously orchestrated coincidence in time between the speech of Martin McGuinness and the speech of the Secretary of State. If those questions fester suspiciously in people's minds, I believe that that is by and large counter-productive.
One of the real problems is the looming imminence of the general election in this country and, to a lesser extent, the elections in the Republic in 1997. There is a very deep feeling in Northern Ireland—it may be right or wrong—that we are now seeing a drift in government policy: wait and see; wait for the election. There is a distinct and deep sense of a dynamic lost and energy dissipated.
Of course we on these Benches support the restoration of an IRA ceasefire. Of course we commend the restraint of the Protestant loyalist paramilitaries. I do not believe, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, that there is anyone in your Lordships' House who does not know that in recent years there have been more murders of Catholics by Protestants than the other way around. I myself do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, is entirely ignorant of modern Irish history.
I believe—despite the bomb today, which was an outrage, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, pointed out—and it is only a subjective belief, that there is a sensible prospect of an IRA ceasefire in the not very distant

1441
future. Of course it will be tactical. Most ceasefires are in these conditions. But the fact that your opponent takes a tactical step means that you need to take your own tactical steps, not simply to ignore it. If there is a ceasefire, we must not lose the offered opportunity a second time.
I reiterate the clear policy of the Labour Party enunciated as plainly as may be by Mr. Blair on a number of occasions: there will be no change in the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That is given; but we cannot simply stagnate.
Drumcree was an avoidable error. We had called for a review of parades since June 1995. On an earlier occasion—I shall not weary your Lordships again—I reviewed the correspondence between Dr. Mowlem and the Secretary of State, which continued for a year. Nothing was done, Drumcree was a disaster. The chief constable at that time was put in an impossible position and I believe that it was an unjustly impossible position. I welcome the appointment of Mr. Flanagan as the new chief constable. I find him—it is not patronising—to be of an intelligent and reflective mind.
There are many things outstanding. I shall not touch on matters which have been raised earlier by your Lordships in this debate. We have the review of parades—the North Inquiry—but that is not to report until next year. It will be an act of senseless irresponsibility if appropriate and acceptable arrangements are not in place in ample time before next year's marching season begins.
There is the question of the race relations order, bringing in—soon, I hope—effective anti-racist legislation in Northern Ireland. The Chinese inhabitants of Belfast are entitled to domestic peace as much as any Roman Catholic or Protestant. We have to grapple with the future of policing in Northern Ireland, which, even this evening in our brief, panoramic review, has caused much feeling to be aroused, as reflected in some of your Lordships' speeches. My belief is that it is fundamental to questions of trust and confidence and therefore of peace and harmony that the police service in Northern Ireland has as wide a public popular acceptance as possible.
It is very important that behind the peace process the rule of law stands; that terrorist crime is detected, prosecuted and punished on the basis of generally accepted standards. I welcome the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. It contains specific recommendations of enormous importance. The single most important recommendation is that the interception of communications legislation 1995 should be amended to allow intercept material into evidence as part of the prosecution case in a criminal trial. I have never understood why that was not the position and am happy to say that when Mr. Straw, Dr. Mowlem and I attended to give evidence to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that was the stance we adopted. Stopping, searching and questioning is to be subject to external approval if the noble and learned Lord's recommendations are upheld. The prohibitions on terrorist finance will be extended to foreign as well as domestic activity.
1442
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, recommends that internal exile should be discontinued; that the power of executive detention or internment be discontinued; and that the Diplock courts be phased out. Have the Government a concluded view on that? If the Minister says that it is too early because the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, only lately came to hand, I entirely accept that. However, I shall be grateful if she will write to me in the usual way.
My 10 minutes have come and gone and I shall not need any signal before sitting down in a moment. I want to say this. The Government can rely and continue to rely on the bipartisan approach which it has had from Labour these past years. But I reiterate in no spirit of partisan criticism that drift is dangerous. It is becoming increasingly frustrating to large segments of public opinion in Northern Ireland. There is a feeling—whether it is right or not in a sense is not the point—that pressing and legitimate needs in Northern Ireland are not being attended to because of the domestic run-up to the general election. That is extremely dangerous, whether the perception is right or wrong. I shall be grateful therefore if I may have as much precision as possible in the Minister's answers tonight, not for my purposes nor for your Lordships' purposes, but for the wider purposes of those who live in Northern Ireland.
9.33 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, this has indeed been an important debate and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right to draw attention to its importance to the people in Northern Ireland as well as to your Lordships in this House.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for moving this Motion, for affording us an opportunity for an exchange of views from the knowledge that is in this House and for arranging to loosen the corset so that those views could be delivered in depth—and in no greater depth than from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I was delighted to be in the House when he delivered his maiden speech. I congratulate him on it. I have had the opportunity in Northern Ireland to benefit from learning of the noble Lord's views on many occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is right to say that it is important that his work in Northern Ireland continues while he discovers the displeasures of shuffling backwards and forwards. It is extremely fortunate that he should now have the opportunity to address a wider audience. I know that was appreciated tonight.
I must confess failure. There is no way, without keeping the House here until midnight, that I can possibly answer all the issues raised. I shall try to cover as many as possible and noble Lords can be quite certain that I shall fully read Hansard and respond to any points I may miss.
I join noble Lords in condemning utterly the placing outside a police station in Derry of a very large bomb and I praise those who secured it and prevented any tragic consequences. There are many leaders working for peace: our Prime Minister—I thank noble Lords for their tributes to him—the Taoiseach and the President, who all believe that there is no future for violence and

1443
that the working together closely of the two governments of Britain and Ireland is an important part of that peace process. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that, whatever the impression, there is no sense of drift within the team of which I am a member. We believe, as many noble Lords have said, that waiting until the election for progress is much too dangerous a process to contemplate. I can assure the House that the number of hours which my colleagues—and I praise them—devote to trying to move forward the political process is enormous.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said that the process is difficult and slow, but I would draw his attention to the fact that we are rewriting centuries of history. That is not done easily and it is not, I fear, to be done without steps backwards as well as forwards. What is important is that we never give up and never lose heart. We note that many people in the community too often say, "Our leaders will have to catch up".
The Government's aim in Northern Ireland is to secure a comprehensive and widely acceptable political settlement which satisfactorily addresses all the issues of concern to the main participants. Recent security events only reinforce the urgent need for dialogue through the multi-party talks. I assure your Lordships that the Government will not be deflected from their search for a lasting political settlement. Progress in the talks has been slow at times—painstakingly slow—but they are complex and difficult negotiations. The Government welcome the progress to date. It shows that the determination to advance the process is there, but there is still a long journey ahead. Without the talks, there is no hope of constructive advances. If such hope were taken away, the consequences would be bleak.
There is a heavy responsibility on all participants not only to continue the talks but to move on to the substance of the issues. That has been brought forward. The talks process provides the best opportunity for a generation to reach a comprehensive and widely acceptable political settlement which could underpin lasting peace in Northern Ireland. I should like to pay tribute to the way in which the bipartisan approach is possible. The support of the Benches opposite makes that process so much easier. We appreciate the commitment that the noble Lord gave once again.
Sinn Fein continues to exclude itself from talks. A party which reserves the right to resort to violence if its demands are not met cannot be permitted into democratic negotiations, as my noble friend Lady Park so rightly said. It will be invited to take its place in the process if, but only if, there is an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire. And, following the breakdown of the previous ceasefire and the violent incidents since, your Lordships will readily understand that considerable reassurance would be required by everyone that any new ceasefire was truly unequivocal. The Government would need to examine carefully the wording of any ceasefire declaration, as well as events on the ground. Deeds matter as well as words.
The Government always wanted an inclusive process and the talks were set up to be inclusive. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, to the fact that
1444
part of that inclusiveness is the participation of women in the talks. I firmly believe that if more women were involved in the discussions the path to peace would be shorter. It is regrettable that Sinn Fein has chosen to exclude itself. That will not be allowed to block the process. Those currently participating in the talks represent 85 per cent. of those who voted in the election, along with the two governments. A valuable and workable agreement can be made in Sinn Fein's absence.
The progress made so far in the talks should not be underrated. Complex rules of procedure have been agreed and much consideration given to the critical issue of the decommissioning of weapons. That necessarily takes time, but I believe that there is an understandable concern across the community in Northern Ireland that we should aim to achieve more. There is a great wish for advance and all of us involved in the talks must be ready to respond to it. I join noble Lords in praise of the Loyalists' holding of the ceasefire. It may be difficult for some people and I understand that. However, the strain of the achievement shows greatly in their faces and their determination has been helpful to the people who live in Northern Ireland.
Several noble Lords questioned government contact with Sinn Fein. After the ending of the ceasefire in February the decision was taken that there would be no ministerial contact with Sinn Fein unless and until there was a full restoration of the ceasefire. The possibility of official level contact remains open, but there is no contact at present and we have no plans to meet Sinn Fein. Following the end of the ceasefire, the Irish Government took the same position as the British Government; that is, no ministerial contact but the prospect of official level contact left open.
As a major party leader in Northern Ireland, we would meet John Hume on a regular basis, and we are always interested in what he has to say, but there is no question of a secret deal with Sinn Fein. We have had no meetings with Sinn Fein or the IRA and while there is no ceasefire we do not anticipate any. Our position on the talks and a settlement is absolutely clear and on record and it is not open to negotiation with Sinn Fein or the IRA.
Decommissioning is understandably of crucial significance to participants in the talks. Because of the sensitivities surrounding this issue, at the end of last year the two governments asked the Independent Body, comprising Senator Mitchell, Mr. Holkeri and General de Chastelain, to examine how arms decommissioning might be achieved. The Government have made clear their support, along with that of the Irish Government, for the compromise approach to decommissioning put forward in their report and called The Mitchell Compromise. The parties were asked to consider an approach under which some decommissioning took place during the process of negotiation rather than before or after. During the past few weeks the parties at the talks have been putting forward their views on decommissioning. I wish to acknowledge the helpful and constructive efforts made by the party of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, towards the resolution of the current differences in the talks on decommissioning.

1445
I hope that they will contribute to an eventual resolution of those differences. We are doing all we can to find a way forward.
I stress that we are not looking, as some noble Lords suggested, for defeat or humiliation, but for the way forward. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, questioned the fact that there had been times when Catholics had not had the opportunities which he felt were their right. As we build a peaceful and prosperous future every citizen of Northern Ireland will benefit. The noble Earl apologised for his absence. Applications from Catholics to join the RUC in January 1994 were 12.3 per cent. of the total and in January 1996, 22 per cent. It is so important that the RUC has the confidence of the society in which it operates. I know that that is the aim of the chief constable.
It is very difficult to join the RUC. Many people from both communities have made four or five applications to do so. It is an organisation with high standards and it has opportunities for people for the future. The RUC is taking affirmative action, notably positive action advertising, to state that it welcomes applications from under-represented groups, by religion or gender. That is important.
My noble friend, Lady Park, questioned the relationship with the Republic of Ireland on security matters. We enjoy excellent co-operation with the Irish Republic on security. We have every reason to be grateful for the recent arms find by the Garda. There is an existing statutory provision for the trial in the Republic of those charged with crimes in the North in certain circumstances. As my noble friend rightly said, the commitment of the Taoiseach to this process cannot be doubted.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, questioned whether the future lay in dismissing the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is accepted by both the British and Irish Governments that that agreement will be looked at again in the light of the achievement of a negotiated settlement. That is set out in the framework document. I join the noble Lord in condemning the boycotting of community activities in any part of the Province. It does great damage to local community relations. The unfortunate appearance of such action does not help the future of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord put forward proposals for a new form of local administration. That was an issue confirmed by my noble friend Lord Glentoran. We come to the political talks with no predetermined plans for a settlement in Northern Ireland. If such a scheme is put forward in the talks it can certainly be considered as part of the settlement. Ultimately, however, a settlement will only work if it commands support in both parts of the community. The talks will aim for that.
As regards the better protection of human rights, we should recognise that the existing situation is highly effective. There is a vigorous and fearless legal system. We have a Statutory Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights which does much valuable work. We have long said that we would be prepared to enhance mechanisms for the protection of human rights under a future political settlement in Northern Ireland. In the current political talks the question of which rights need
1446
further protection and how that might be achieved will be open for discussion. No particular kind of solution is ruled in or ruled out.
I draw attention to the reason why there is a democratic deficit. It is for fairness. It is because there were situations where people were operating for the benefit of one section of the community only. It is important that we do not return to that situation.
I praise the partnerships, which are now working effectively. I praise also the economic development bodies which have been put together by councils. I ask only that my noble friend Lord Glentoran takes me off the list of visiting Ministers. I was well taught in my first week by the Reverend John Dunlop that when I left the mainland to return to England, that was an unfortunate event.
We are delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, took part in the debate. We admire the movement for peace in South Africa and we respect the individuals who showed such courage and bravery. We can always learn from them, but there are fundamental differences between Northern Ireland and South Africa. In South Africa, the majority of the population was denied democratic rights. I do not think that it is fair to the African National Congress to indicate that Sinn Fein is in any way to be compared with it. Perhaps I may also advise the noble Lord that there is much in the long and often tragic history of Ireland for deep regret and the British Government share in that regret to the full. There has been much pain in Northern Ireland and one cannot legislate for forgiveness. It has a personal timetable which people must reach for themselves. Many people do reach forgiveness in a way which is amazing and which restores one's faith in human nature.
The speech of the Secretary of State in Manchester was carefully drafted. This game is one of walking on eggshells, and we do it with great care.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about the current position with regard to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. It is in the framework document. The Irish Government envisage making changes to their constitution to reflect the principle of consent in the context of a settlement. Mr. Bruton, the Taoiseach, reaffirmed that position last month to the Dáil and indicated that more specific amendments to Articles 2 and 3 were being considered.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to statements made some time ago. I must confess that at that time I had not yet learned to read, but I do know that if one dwells in history, it can become the future—and that is not the way we want to look forward. I assure the noble Earl that no one is outside the law, although some would like to think that they are. We have no league tables for killing. We regret any wasted life.
Both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to the Sunningdale Agreement and suggested it as a model to follow. I acknowledge their vast knowledge of history, but it is nevertheless a fact that the arrangements associated with Sunningdale did not provide the basis of a lasting settlement. We now have

1447
to deal with the situation as we find it. The present talks process was constituted so as to permit the achievement of the widest possible degree—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, in what sense did not the Sunningdale Agreement provide the basis of a lasting settlement? It was sabotaged by the Ulster Unionists, but we have no reason to suppose that that would happen again. I would say that it did provide the framework for a lasting settlement. Therefore, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, with the utmost respect, why she said that it was not the basis of a lasting settlement, given that it was sabotaged.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, one may regret the fact that it was sabotaged, but it was not a lasting settlement. If it had been a lasting settlement, the people of Northern Ireland would be living happily and peacefully and we would have achieved what we continue to work to achieve.
It will be for all participants now, for the people of Northern Ireland and of the South in a referendum and for Parliament to decide what the elements of a settlement might be. The Government do not believe that they can impose a settlement.
I turn now to the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, with whom, as he so rightly said, we have had much pleasure in working to build the tourism industry. I must point out that that industry has been built up since 1989. Last year showed us what could be achieved in the future given a peaceful settlement, but tourism in Northern Ireland has been growing because the product is brilliant. He is right to point to the fact that the best cement for peace is provided by jobs. Inward investment is tougher but we are approaching the figures of the last record year. Moreover, I am delighted to say that our programmes for targeting social need within inward investment are working. Europe opened the borders and we opened the roads. The trade deficit with the South is disappearing, and I am sure that it will soon be gone. I believe that we should not look back to 1996. In November it is time to look forward to 1997.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, praised the farmers of Northern Ireland. I have reason to know them well, and I am grateful for their patience. I should point out that, as part of the United Kingdom, much money has been provided by the Treasury to support the beef industry in Northern Ireland. We are working to take forward a certified herd scheme to allow us to go back to market.
There was an urgency to the review of parades. The review team is operating to a very tight deadline and is expected to report in January. As noble Lords have said, it is important that we do not sit and look at the problem. The subject of race relations will shortly be coming before your Lordships and will also include measures to protect travellers in Northern Ireland, which is important.
We shall miss Senator Mitchell if he goes. He has rendered enormous service to Northern Ireland, and we are very grateful to him, but the Mitchell principles now
1448
go way beyond one man. I believe that they have the strength to survive. Having said that, I stress that we have no reason to know whether or not he is going, but that is the fear that people have.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the question of the Lloyd Report. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said, it was a very comprehensive report. It will take time to study, to consult upon and to make recommendations. I will write to the noble Lord in greater detail.
Noble Lords have been very patient, but this is a subject that demands patience and commitment. Several of your Lordships were kind enough to make personal courteous remarks about my performance. There is no more satisfying or challenging job in the world than this, and I count myself very fortunate to be doing it. I suggest that the debate that has taken up much of this evening is a political process that must move forward, but the peace process is in the hearts and minds of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. We have a democracy in Northern Ireland. There can be no end to a peace process in a democracy. After the ceasefire the people of Northern Ireland crossed the road and talked to and worked together with others. In many instances they continue to do so, showing restraint even in the most difficult situations and building upon that process for their children and grandchildren. We support them, praise them, work with them and have faith in them. I know that your Lordships' House welcomes the opportunity to send a message of support to those people. The future will be driven only by their consent, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for giving us the opportunity to debate the subject this evening.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to put a question. She referred to legislating in terms of an act of repentance or apology. Does the Minister acknowledge that the national day of prayer held during the war was not the subject of legislation but was organised on a national basis?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, if I have not made myself clear. I did not propose legislation. I believe that forgiveness and repentance are personal agendas. In recent months we have witnessed more ecumenical activities in Northern Ireland than ever before and have seen people taking part in prayer together.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, in her admirably comprehensive reply, the Minister managed to stop well short of midnight. Nevertheless, the hour is late, so perhaps I may just thank all noble Lords who took part in what has been an exceptionally rich and interesting debate, which I am sure we all look forward to reading carefully in Hansard. In particular perhaps I may again thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Alderdice on a most memorable maiden speech. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten o'clock.