Lords Sitting of 1 December 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.
Lord Gerard—Took the Oath.

Homosexuals: Civil Service Pension Rights
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy that homosexual employees of the Government should be able to nominate another homosexual of the same sex to enjoy the rights accorded to spouses in occupational pension schemes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that the phrase "employees of the Government" refers strictly only to civil servants. The Civil Service pension scheme pays survivors' pensions only to legal spouses and to dependent children. Lump sum benefits arising on death in service or death in deferment are paid to a person nominated by the member.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. Is there any proposal to change that situation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has given authority for officials to start negotiations with the Civil Service unions about possible changes to the Civil Service pension scheme. But it has been made clear at all times that any changes which would cost money would be at the expense of members rather than at the expense of the taxpayer.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many couples of the same sex live together in a stable and supportive relationship and that in such a case the policy mentioned in the Question would be eminently just and morally and legally justified?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the question of what changes might take place as a result of the discussions has not yet come to the surface. The negotiations (if indeed they are taking place yet) are at a very early stage. My noble friend is right in implying that in some private pension schemes provision for survivors' pensions to be paid other than to legal spouses is made. That might apply also to stable same-sex couples.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us wonder just exactly how
1172
this new arrangement, if it is ever agreed to, would work out? For example, if the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who asked the Question, and I decided to set up home together, would we be eligible to transfer our pensions between each other, or would we have to declare a sexual relationship before we could do so? How would we be required to prove that it was a sexual relationship and not a platonic one?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is way ahead of the game. Negotiations are at an early stage. All the questions that he raises will no doubt be taken into consideration.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, for how long do a couple of the same sex have to live together in order to qualify as a permanent arrangement?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that, again, would be one of the considerations for any negotiations.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government have no intention to downgrade the honourable state of marriage?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question is about pensions. I do not think there is any question of downgrading the honourable state of marriage.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that two brothers, two sisters or two siblings who live together are often dependent on each other in terms of finance? If it is going to go wider than marriage, it should certainly include people of that type.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I hope I have made clear, the Government have no intention of preaching or prescribing any particular family structures. However, the wider one casts the net on survivors' pensions, the more it costs.

Romania: NATO Membership
2.40 p.m.
Lord Sudeley Lord Sudeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the extent of their commitment towards Romania's membership of NATO.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we and our NATO allies agreed at the Madrid Summit in July to invite Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to begin accession negotiations with NATO. We expect those negotiations to conclude this month and for new members to accede to the alliance in 1999. The Madrid Summit also agreed to review the enlargement process in 1999. No commitment has been made to any country about future invitations to join NATO.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply about Romania, which we let down at Yalta.

1173
Does she agree that the Government's definite commitment to backing Romania over the second wave of entry is much to be desired, bearing in mind that during the last elections Romania passed the test of democracy with flying colours? There is civilian control of the military, most of the population of Romania supports NATO and the Romanian Government are pledged to increase their defence expenditure.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government do not recognise any special cases over future membership of NATO. but the Prime Minister said in another place on 9th July, after the Madrid Summit, that the applications of Romania and Slovenia were especially closely considered even though there was no consensus to invite them to join on that occasion. Both countries have indeed made remarkable progress. As the noble Lord said, Romania's Government deserve particular congratulation on the steps taken since they took office last November. The noble Lord is also right that the Government are fully aware of the commitment by the Romanian Government to NATO and the popular support in Romania for NATO membership. We are encouraging the Romanian Government to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the new Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the enhanced Partnership for Peace further to deepen Romania's ties with NATO.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's understanding that this is not the last enlargement of NATO and that after 1999 there will be further stages of enlargement to take in a number of other countries. among which Romania clearly has a very strong claim?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, there will be a review in 1999 so the door to future membership is certainly not closed. If Romania continues to make economic and political progress it will be an excellent candidate for any future enlargement. But enhancing the security of Europe as a whole will also be part of that decision. The credentials of individual countries are certainly part of the picture. It will also be a question of how the accession of individual countries affects the security of NATO as a whole.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have taken into consideration the financial consequences of a country like Romania, and other Eastern European countries, joining NATO at the same time as having to meet the costs involved in joining an enlarged Community?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we all recognise that bringing new members into NATO will indeed incur costs, as my noble friend suggests. The forces of the countries joining NATO will need training in communications, in NATO methods and in the use of English. Their communications, air defences and military bases will also have to be brought up to
1174
NATO standards. NATO forces together have to be able to deliver on the alliance's guarantee of defence for the new members. NATO is currently analysing the costs involved in these objectives.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, will the noble Baroness comment on the recent statement by the Russian Federation that it wants the Baltic states and the northern Scandinavian countries to join its security pact? Does the noble Baroness agree that there is an even stronger case to accept the three Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—into the NATO organisation as quickly as possible, bearing in mind the recent steps of the Russian Federation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Madrid Summit communiqué recognised the progress achieved in a number of the Baltic states towards greater stability and co-operation. Of course, we are aware of a number of different moves around the Baltic states at the moment in relation to Russia. But at the time of the Madrid Summit we made it clear that in future no applicants would be excluded on the basis of their geographical location and that, of course, includes the Baltic states.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, given the disagreements between the United States and France on the question of the timing of the accession of Romania and Slovenia to NATO, do the Government envisage that that will cause future problems and delays for NATO expansion? Furthermore, what specific actions have the Government taken to reassure Romania of the United Kingdom's commitment to its future accession, given that the Government supported the American model of limited enlargement at the NATO Summit in Madrid in July?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government strongly support the open door policy which was outlined at Madrid. Indeed, the Madrid declaration did not prejudice future enlargement decisions, which will depend, as I said, not only on the credentials of the individual candidates, such as Romania—specifically mentioned by the Prime Minister in his speech in another place—but also on the wider security background and the need to maintain NATO's effectiveness. As regards the future timetable, we have to wait until 1999, when the next review will take place. That will be the time for sorting out when future accessions can be accepted.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as regards the answer which the noble Baroness gave to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, does she agree that the two absolute priorities for Romania, and indeed the other countries of the former Soviet Union, are, first, defence through NATO and, secondly, access to the European single market? Does the Minister further agree that access to that market need not necessarily involve membership of the Treaty of Rome with all the damaging bureaucracy which that inevitably brings?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords. I had imagined that I was answering questions about

1175
NATO and not about EU enlargement. However, should there be further access to either the EU or NATO, I am sure that those accessions will be dealt with on their merits and in the proper way.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, as Romania is so often bracketed with Bulgaria, what is the Government's view on Bulgaria's future membership? Will Bulgaria be included in the second wave?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will be asking that question in due course and then I may have a full range of briefing with which to answer it. However, as I said, in 1999 there will be a review of those countries which wish to accede to NATO. Bulgaria will then have the opportunity of making any case that it wishes at that time.

North Sea Oil Taxation
2.49 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknishasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made on the review of North Sea oil taxation, and when they expect the review to he completed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the Chancellor said in his pre-Budget report on 25th November, the review of North Sea oil taxation, which was announced on 2nd July, is not yet complete. Oil industry representative bodies, oil and gas producing companies and others have provided their views both in writing and at a number of meetings. Various analyses have also been undertaken. No decisions have yet been made about any changes which might emerge, but the review is expected to be completed in time for the spring Budget.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that classic parliamentary Answer, which tells me what I already know and nothing that I do not know. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord this: what is the motive behind the review? Is it to increase development in the North Sea and at the Atlantic margin and thus provide more jobs, particularly in Scotland, or is it to increase the tax take for the Treasury at the cost of jobs in the North Sea and the Atlantic margin?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my Answer told the noble Lord what he already knows. And it told him all that I know. As I said, the review is not yet complete. When it is complete, the results will emerge in the spring Budget. On the noble Lord's second question, the purpose of the review, as the Financial Statement and Budget report makes clear, is to ensure that,
"an appropriate share of North Sea oil profits are being taxed while continuing to maintain industry interests in the future of the UK's oil reserves".
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord inform the House whether Her Majesty's
1176
Government have entered into any obligation, express or implied, which would prevent them from increasing taxation on North Sea oil?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I have made clear on a number of occasions in this House, questions of taxation and expenditure are matters for this country. I assume that my noble friend is referring to any obligations as a member of the European Union and possibly even to future obligations as a member of European monetary union. Our right to set our own tax regimes still stands.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, how far are the costs involved in dismantling platforms and other undersea installations driving the need to review the tax regime for the North Sea oil industry?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right; they certainly form part of the considerations. The North Sea oil tax regime is extraordinarily complicated. Indeed, I wish that I had not asked for a full briefing on it, because it took me a very long time to read. Questions relating to decommissioning are among those which will he considered in the review.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether our freedom to decide our own rates of taxation extends to the freedom to introduce new zero rate bands or to remove items from the standard rate and put them into the zero rate band? Have we still got that freedom?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. The noble Lord is well aware of the VAT regime and the House has been reminded of it very recently. The sixth directive makes clear that there are limits on the extent to which we can vary the value added tax regime, but that regime is entirely separate from our other taxation policies.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will at some stage tell us when this country should leave the European Union.
Noble Lords: Now!
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, against the background of existing North Sea oilfields paying a total of 68 per cent. tax, do not the Government agree that any attempt to tighten and increase the fiscal take on new fields may result in new oil companies leaving the North Sea?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want it to be thought that the result of the review will inevitably be an increase in tax. The review may result in no change or, I suppose, even in a reduction in tax. However, the noble Lord ought to consider two factors. First, as I said, our petroleum tax regime is extraordinarily complicated and has developed over time so that fields approved before 1st April 1982 are subject to royalties based on the landed value of the oil. Those

1177
approved before 16th March 1993 are subject to petroleum revenue tax, which is a tax on profits, and new fields are subject to corporation tax only. Secondly, the noble Lord may like to bear in mind that although international comparisons are very difficult, petro-consultants who conduct an annual survey on this subject have concluded that our tax regime is second only to that of Ireland in its attractiveness to the oil industry.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he practised a popular deception when, in answer to his noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, he referred to EMU as "European monetary union"? Is the noble Lord not aware that EMU stands for "European economic and monetary union" and that it is the "economic" bit that will do the damage to which his noble friend referred?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should be wary of answering questions from either my noble friend Lord Bruce or the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, when every single question that they ask in this House comes down to Euro-scepticism. I went too far in responding to my noble friend Lord Bruce; I shall not go so far as to respond to the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answers have not, I am afraid, reduced my suspicion that the Chancellor may be looking at the oil industry in the same way he looked at the pensions industry—that is, as a suitable place from which to pull more tax? However, does the Minister accept, and will he pass on to his right honourable friend the Chancellor, the fact that the oil industry, especially on the Atlantic margin, is involved in some ground-breaking, world-beating innovation to deal with the problems of extracting oil and that that, in addition to the jobs that that provides directly at the Atlantic margin, has made Britain a world centre for oil development technology? That is very important. So can the noble Lord tell us that the Chancellor will bear those important points in mind?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that there is very much that I can do to relieve the noble Lord's psyche. He is congenitally suspicious of this Government and nothing that I can do will change that. However, the simple answer to the noble Lord's second question is "yes". The Chancellor will bear those points in mind. We are well aware of the importance of a successful oil industry for this country and particularly for the Scottish economy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was kind enough to refer to me,
1178
will the Minister accept from me that the question that I addressed to him was not intended to have any European implications whatever?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I express my apologies and my astonishment.

Middle East Peace Process
2.57 p.m.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauldasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken since 1st May to promote the Middle East peace process.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have worked hard with the US and our EU partners to keep the peace process on track. We have taken strong positions on terrorism, Israeli settlements, and the need for all sides to fulfil their commitments.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will she assure the House that, following Mr. Netanyahu's visit to London, everything possible will be done to promote final status talks between Israel and the Palestinians?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Israeli Prime Minister was in London on 13th and 14th November, when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary made clear to him the extent of international concern at the current difficulties in the Middle East peace process and our commitment to the negotiating framework. They also urged Israel to implement full commitments under existing agreements, including further redeployments. Her Majesty's Government have supported Mrs. Albright's insistence on full security co-operation and a freeze on unilateral action such as settlement building and the confiscation of Palestinian identity cards in Jerusalem.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a former Minister at the Israeli Foreign Office said yesterday that the bottom line was that the present Israeli Government were not implementing the signed peace agreement? Since that is the view of one of the authors of the peace agreement, can the Minister give the House an assurance that, especially during the UK's presidency of the EU, Her Majesty's Government will take a robust attitude to the failure of the Israeli Government to implement that signed peace agreement?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I give the noble Lord the assurance that, together with their EU partners, Her Majesty's Government will work assiduously for the implementation and furtherance of the peace process. We all recognise that serious negotiations must proceed urgently without overlooking the equally important issue of a freeze on settlements and other outstanding elements of the interim agreement.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will

1179
continue to make clear to the Israeli Government that their claim that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of that country is not accepted by either the British Government or the United Nations, and that Her Majesty's Government will continue to resist any proposal that embassies should be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the status of Jerusalem is to be determined in the final status talks. Neither side should pre-empt those talks. Her Majesty's Government have condemned Israeli policies aimed at altering the demographic balance in East Jerusalem, including settlement building, the confiscation of Palestinian ID cards and house demolition. Pending the agreement, we recognise de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem but consider East Jerusalem to be illegally occupied. We recognise no de jure sovereignty over the city as a whole.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this matter is one of peoples as well as of governments? Can one seriously expect a rational policy on the part of the Government of Israel while the Israeli people live under the daily threat of chemical and biological warfare? Does the Minister agree that the best contribution that Her Majesty's Government can make to the peace process is to act with other members of the international community to ensure that Saddam Hussein is deprived of these weapons of mass destruction as soon as possible?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have made clear from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions that Her Majesty's Government attach the highest priority to ensuring that Saddam Hussein does not have weapons of mass destruction at his disposal. The question of the Middle East peace process, like so many other peace processes around the world, involves the human element. It is always important to ensure the security of both parties when negotiating any peace settlement.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, with regard to the attacks made on the Government of Israel from time to time in this House, does the Minister agree that, while democracies sometimes elect absolutely splendid governments, there are occasions when they elect governments for whom none of us would ever vote? In those circumstances, does the Minster agree that, Israel having elected a Government, we must deal with that Government and help in any way we can to ensure that both they and the Palestinians reach an agreement which is permanent, fair, and one with which both sides can live?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in your Lordships' House I do sometimes reflect on the governments that people from time to time elect. On this occasion one is dealing with a government who have got into difficulty in terms of international opinion. It is important that the rights of both the Palestinian and the Israeli communities are fully recognised in the peace
1180
process. That is what Her Majesty's Government are striving for in concert with our friends in the United States and our European partners.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that friendly Arab countries are distancing themselves from US foreign policy in line with popular opinion? If she accepts that, is she concerned that the United Kingdom is losing its friendship with those Arab states that closely identify this country with that same foreign policy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have seen reports in newspapers which reflect the position that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, puts forward. I believe that those reports have in large part reflected what some people perceive as double standards. For example, some perceive the United States Government as having failed to bear down sufficiently forcefully on the Israeli Government on the question of settlements. I do not believe that that perception is a fair one. We and like-minded countries have repeatedly pressed Israel about the need to implement the agreement into which it entered under the Middle East peace process. I hope that our allies and friends elsewhere in the region recognise the efforts that we have made to persuade the Israeli Government that what they have been doing in relation to those settlements is wrong.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the Minister recall the moving occasion when, five hours before he died, Sir Isaiah Berlin dictated a very short memorandum about the situation in the Middle East in which he said that Israel must be prepared to give up territory on the West Bank but that Jerusalem must inevitably, as a quid pro quo, become the capital of Israel, with very strict safeguards for the Moslem holy places and population of that city?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that a number of noble Lords in this House wish to put forward ways in which the Middle East peace process may be taken forward. But we all recognise, following so many press reports over the weekend about what is happening over the Middle East peace process, that the best course is to wait for the final status talks so that all these issues can be considered together, rather than that one particular strand of the peace process should be singled out and lit upon. All of them need to be considered.

Public Processions etc. (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause I [The Commission]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("and other expressions of cultural identity").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is one of a number of consequential amendments which are required if Clause 3 of the Bill is to be deleted.

1181
I believe that it is helpful to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 3 and 19 which achieve that effect. I am sure that there are other consequential amendments that have not been put onto the Marshalled List. We would facilitate those provided that the main amendment, Amendment No. 3, to delete Clause 3 of the Bill were to be accepted by your Lordships' House.
I started off by being sympathetic to what I understood to be the idea behind Clause 3; namely, to put parades into context. With the clause included, the Bill is widened from what to some people seems a simple anti-parades Bill into an anti-offensive action Bill of all kinds since the clause brings in all kinds of other matters that may be offensive to people. I believe that that is now an unwise thing to do. I believe that the Bill should be a parades enabling Bill; that is, a Bill which makes it easier for parades of all kinds to take place without giving offence. I include not only the traditional parades in Northern Ireland with which we are all familiar, held by people from both communities, but also protest marches and the other kinds of marches we see.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable marches and parades of all kinds to take place without giving offence. The more one looks at the intention of the clause, which is to widen the Bill and the duties of the commission so as to include other expressions of cultural identity, the worse it looks in practice.
It became evident in Committee that the Government did not have a clear idea of the other outdoor manifestations of cultural identity at which the clause was intended to be aimed. We pressed a number of possible manifestations of cultural identity to which the clause might be aimed and which the commission might consider, but, for various reasons, all were unsatisfactory.
There is no doubt that people who want to be difficult—and there are plenty of those on all sides in Northern Ireland—would soon find issues in which to enmesh and entangle the commission. There is a danger that people who are so ill inclined will try to use the Bill to make a fuss about processions which would otherwise take place. Under Clause 3, the commission would become involved in many more problems, thereby weakening its authority.
It was suggested in Committee that the clause should refer to sporting occasions. There can be occasions, particularly involving the Gaelic Athletic Association, which cause offence to other people. However, for reasons best known to the Government, sporting occasions are specifically excluded from Clause 3. On the other hand, religious services held in the open air are not excluded from the clause. We all know that religious services in Northern Ireland are or can be an expression of cultural identity, probably the most fundamental expression of cultural identity. They can also be, and sometimes are, occasions which cause offence to people from other communities.
We pressed the Government on whether painted gable ends and kerbstones might be regarded as outdoor expressions of cultural identity. Of course they are. If you have a building with a picture of King Billy painted
1182
on it, your cultural identity is clear. The same applies if you have a picture of the Pope. Sometimes the paintings are of paramilitaries exalting or praising one of their organisations. Clearly, they are expressions of cultural identity and are deeply offensive to people of the opposite culture; indeed, to some people of the same culture. However, to involve the commission in dealing with gable ends and kerbstones painted red, white and blue, or green and orange, is difficult and is not what is intended or desirable.
I believe that the clause should be deleted from the Bill and that consequential changes should be made to the Title and in other small respects. It is at the least a clear case of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". In Northern Ireland, it is not a sound idea to create opportunities which will escalate grievances. There are enough already. I believe that the parades commission will have plenty to do, given its responsibility for parades of all kinds, and that Clause 3 makes its task more difficult. I suggest that it should be deleted from the Bill. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that it would be sensible to deal with Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 19 together, considering that they are interrelated. I took the view in Committee that as the legislation was proposed precisely because of expressions of cultural identity, it would not be realistic to pretend that such expressions did not exist. However, by the time the Committee considered Clause 3, with its two references to the phrase "cultural identity", it was clear that the phrase could become the deciding factor in decision-making by the Secretary of State, the commission and the chief constable. It was also apparent that there was little support for the phrase within your Lordships' House or within Northern Ireland generally.
As regards Amendment No. 3, the same concessions will apply to this debate. In Committee, during the debate on whether Clause 3 shall stand part, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, drew attention to the impact of the Human Rights Bill superimposing as it does European law on British law. Those of us who recently participated in such debates in your Lordships' House will remember that we suddenly realised the wide-ranging impact of the Bill on British law.
It will not be a matter of achieving compromises between the two sets of laws because the Bill, which has yet to go to another place, requires that where incompatibility arises, the UK Parliament must immediately bring our laws into conformity with European law. Therefore, even if Clause 3 is withdrawn, one can visualise Northern Ireland Ministers continually bringing forward to your Lordships' House a stream of Orders in Council for the purpose of amending this Bill at the whim of a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights.
I note that if Clause 3 is withdrawn, with it will go the rule of the Parades Commission in regard to events which are wholly or partly open to the air. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I did our best to discover what

1183
was meant by letting in fresh air to certain events. He and I could give examples where that might be desirable.
Your Lordships will remember that in Committee I stressed the need for the control of so-called festivals designed entirely by paramilitary bodies for the sole purpose of intimidating and threatening law abiding residents by name, employing, as they do, amplifying equipment with a range greater than one mile. I asked the Minister whether that atrocious behaviour could be dealt with under existing public order legislation or whether we needed to include a provision in the Bill. Perhaps he will indicate the results of his inquiries.
Lord MonsonMy Lords, I support the amendment. There are many precedents in Great Britain and other democratic countries for exercising some control over marches and parades along a public highway. Unless the marchers are few in number, their rights conflict to some extent with the rights of non-marchers to move from A to B in order to keep appointments, to catch trains and aeroplanes and so forth. Provided that such control is exercised sparingly and sensitively, there can be few objections on libertarian grounds.
However, to try to restrict what might be described as static expressions of cultural identity is a different matter. Of course there is a need for a balance between the sentiments of the different communities. For some time, the ratchet effect of repeated concessions to what might he described as anti-British sentiment has been working to the disadvantage of the wider unionist communities. But that necessary balance can be achieved better, in my opinion, by agreeing to this group of amendments and by supporting Amendments Nos. 4, 6 to 14 and possibly Amendment No. 17.
Lord AlderdiceMy Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. I I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 19, for effectively we are dealing with the removal of Clause 3 and the other amendments are consequential.
It may be useful to give ourselves a brief reprise on how we have reached this position. As noble Lords will be aware, processions and parades have been a matter of conflict and difficulty in Northern Ireland for a long time, but in recent years they have been seized upon to build on and create greater difficulty. No one should be under any illusion that any legislation which we pass or any commission established will solve all the problems in relation to parades or anything else in Northern Ireland.
However, when the matter of parades became contentious, particularly on the Lower Ormeau Road and the Garvaghy Road two or three years ago, my colleagues and I went to the previous government and said that we believed that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was being placed in an invidious position because it was being asked to make decisions on contentious parades and then to implement those same decisions. That is putting the police in the position of both judging and implementing. The RUC was being attacked, as I said, not just on both sides but, quite frankly, on all sides. Therefore, we proposed that a tribunal be established.
1184
The previous government decided, in their wisdom, that there was no necessity to move on that front but when the following year matters became worse, and others began to agree that such a proposition was worth while, the previous government decided not to put in place a commission but to set up a commission to study the possibility of putting in place such a commission. Dr. Peter North, a very eminent and distinguished gentleman, was asked, with a number of colleagues, to look at the matter of public processions and to advise accordingly.
Dr. North gave an extensive report. He consulted widely not only with leaders of the community but, by opinion polls and other surveys, with the community at large. It was quite clear that there was overwhelming support for a commission which could give rulings and which would remove the requirement for the police to both make a decision and implement it. But the government did not move ahead on that. They decided to postpone the matter.
When the matter came to be looked at again by a new Government they found that they had committed themselves, quite rightly, to implementing the North report in full. But over the summer period they found difficulties arising yet again because the commission had not yet been established with the legal powers which Dr. North had recommended. The introduction of Clause 3 in respect of cultural identity came about quite clearly because a deal was done between the new Government and the Orangemen which would, in the event over the past summer, defuse the situation and make the Orange Order feel that the Bill was not an anti-parades Bill (which it was never meant to be) but was, in fact, a balanced Bill.
I was almost going to say that, like many deals arrived at, it was done in the heat of battle and, frankly, over the summer it often appeared that way. Such decisions are rarely well advised and the full consequences are very rarely considered. And so indeed it was, because when the matter of Clause 3—the inclusion of all other aspects of cultural identity coining under the remit of the commission—began to be considered by my colleagues and myself it was clear that that was very foolish indeed. When that became apparent a number of noble Lords and I spoke against it on Second Reading.
What has become striking is that as the community and its representatives in Northern Ireland have considered this matter more and more fully the agreement that Clause 3 is ill advised has become remarkably widespread. During previous stages of the Bill your Lordships will have noted that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was very clear in his remarks. It is quite striking that at a recent party conference the SDLP, with which the noble Lord was previously very much involved, came out very strongly against Clause 3 and the power contained in it. It is clear also that the unionist community has begun to realise that the clause could well be a complete boomerang for its part. Your Lordships will notice that not only do we have the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, in the Chamber but we also have the noble Lord, Lord Eames—the

1185
Archbishop of Armagh—who spoke powerfully in Committee against the foolishness of including the clause.
If this House is for anything, surely it is for the proper consideration of such matters in detail. During the full consideration of Clause 3 it has become apparent that it is simply a mistake. There is no shame in making a mistake when it is made, as I believe to be the case, with all good intent to defuse the difficulties throughout the summer period and to create some kind of equitable approach to the problem. Therefore, there is less shame than ever in a mistaken decision taken for the best possible reasons.
When one recognises that a mistake has been made and has an opportunity to put right that mistake with no loss of face and no damage done, then shame enters in when one does not take the opportunity, seize it with both hands, and, in this case, removed the offending Clause 3. I know that the Government have considered this matter carefully and I urge them to take on board the advice coming, almost remarkably, from all quarters in Northern Ireland and to remove Clause 3. That clause is of advantage to no one but is a very real risk and threat to our community.
Viscount BrookeboroughMy Lords, first, I apologise that I must leave the Chamber at 3.45 for another event. However, I support the removal of Clause 3. For the benefit of some of your Lordships, for whom this may be a first exposure to parades issues, I should like to say that when one mentions parades to people in England they all say, "Parades, what about them? Why are you parading? What's up? Parades cause problems". Great Britain is one of the very few countries in Europe, and perhaps in the world, which does not have national parades to any great extent. France has Bastille Day, America has 4th July and Spain seems to have parades almost every day in the streets. Throughout the remainder of the world parades are considered to be an every-day event. Many parades have been like that in Northern Ireland.
When people in Great Britain see a parade, unless it is the Notting Hill Carnival, it is generally either a ceremonial or protest parade. That is not so in Northern Ireland. Although there have been problems with certain parades—and it is hoped that this Bill will address many of those problems—people here should understand that, as a whole, the parades are not troublesome. I support the removal of Clause 3 for all the reasons that have already been given. Virtually everything that one does in Northern Ireland, whether it is going to watch a Gaelic football match or flying a certain flag, is bound to be an indication of cultural identity. Whether you have "IRL" or "GB" on the back of your car may indicate cultural identity. It goes a very long way. Therefore, and I do not want to be contentious, it is possible to create arguments about very simple issues. I ask the Government to consider removing this clause before the commission becomes embroiled in some extremely petty issues which will take a long time to sort out.
Lord GlentoranMy Lords, I too support the withdrawal of Clause 3. I spoke to that effect in Committee while sitting beside my noble friend the
1186
Archbishop of Armagh. I do that for reasons similar to those advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, but I pay attention also to the difficulty of interpreting the law once it is in place.
This matter of parades will require a great deal of concentration. It is an extremely serious issue which needs to be addressed by this Bill. Anything else in this Bill will be a red herring. The inclusion of that clause will cause the commissioners great difficulty and may create an excuse to avoid the main issues. I ask the Government to withdraw Clause 3.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McConnellMy Lords, I believe it is a fundamental principle of legislation that it should be clear and easily understood. The expression "cultural identity" could mean anything that anyone wants it to mean. It could lead to more argument, more ill will, and, possibly, more litigation in the courts as to what it really means. For example, the flying of the Union Jack is an expression of cultural identity. Will that be prohibited under the legislation?
For many years, people of different cultural backgrounds in Northern Ireland got on very happily with each other's expressions of identity. But recently, troublemakers, often connected with terrorist organisations and calling themselves "residents' associations", have used threats to persuade some of the peaceable people in their area to protest. This is a gift to them. They need not confine themselves to processions: indeed, they could say, "Oh look, 'cultural identity', you have to protest about that." I am convinced that the provision could lead to a great deal of trouble within Northern Ireland. We have a lot of that, so let us do away with this rather ill-thought-out piece of legislation.
Lord FittMy Lords, rarely can there have been such unanimity in relation to Northern Ireland as has been witnessed here today in this Chamber. Everyone who has participated in the debate has spoken clearly about what this disastrous clause would mean if it were included in the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, will have had some experience in relation to parades in Northern Ireland because, as a former Minister of Home Affairs, he would have had quite a lot to say in relation to parades. The noble Lord will be very much aware of just how explosive certain parades can be in Northern Ireland.
I fail to understand how the Government allowed themselves to be persuaded to put such a clause in the Bill. It is quite obvious to anyone who has any experience of Northern Ireland that every sore head, every agitator, everyone who believes that he has a grievance of some sort, would have used the clause to justify his opposition to the Bill. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said; indeed I have found myself in the same position. In all the contacts I have made in Northern Ireland since the Second Reading of the Bill, I have not encountered one who disagrees with the deletion of the clause from the Bill. I have never seen such unanimity in the House and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, within the general community in Northern Ireland.

1187
The Bill will eventually go to the House of Commons where there are elected representatives. Some of them may be persuaded by how many votes there are, and are not, as regards the attitude they adopt. I hope that they will consider the debates which have taken place in this Chamber on Second Reading, in Committee, and today on Report, and realise that it would be to the advantage of everyone in Northern Ireland if the clause were deleted from the Bill.
Lord HyltonMy Lords, I apologise for having arrived slightly late. We have all listened with care to the rather grave warnings uttered about Clause 3. However, as I asked in Committee whether the difficulty might be overcome by having a later commencement date for the clause, I would be interested to hear whether the Government considered that suggestion and what conclusion they reached in that respect.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I express my support for the removal of Clause 3 for a very simple reason. Expressions of "cultural identity" should be a matter of respect between people and, in days gone by, I believe that they were. It is only in recent times that they have been found to be an effective excuse for causing trouble. That is why, right across the cultural differences in Northern Ireland, it is now accepted that the less we talk about them and argue about them the better. There is a very simple reason why they should be removed from the Bill: so as not to have another reason to cause trouble.
Lord StewartbyMy Lords, I do not wish to repeat any of the arguments deployed by those who have much more recent experience in such matters as I have not been engaged on that score for nearly 10 years. However, I hope that the Government will accept that there is a serious risk that Clause 3 could produce more opportunities for mischief makers as opposed to those who want to keep the peace. Today's short debate has been remarkable, as a number of noble Lords have said, because of the unanimity displayed in all quarters. I suspect that the unanimity of approach to the amendment will also be noted. For my part, if the Government were to withdraw Clause 3, or take on board the comments of this debate by responding in a different way but with a similar effect, I believe that it would not be a case of anyone rejoicing in the Government's discomfort but, indeed, one of congratulating them on their common sense.
Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, in my limited experience, there is no part of the United Kingdom where memories are longer than is the case in Northern Ireland. I am very much afraid that, if the commission starts with the millstone around its neck which Clause 3 obviously is—a view clearly expressed from all parts of the Chamber—it will effectively be killed off. This is a very bad provision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)My Lords, Clause 3 provides that the commission shall keep under
1188
review, consider and make its determinations in relation to the law and practice relating to expressions of cultural identity which appear to the commission to have, or to be likely to have,
"an adverse impact on relationships within the community".
Our intention in including Clause 3 in the Bill was to recognise the feeling which many had expressed that the Bill was exclusively targeted at only one side of the community. I believe that that point has been well understood. According to my arithmetic, 13 noble Lords had actually contributed to the debate before I stood up to reply.
Perhaps I may briefly digress from the main argument to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. He asked a specific question about the use of loudhailers at community festivals and that type of conduct. We agreed that we would look at the matter when we discussed the point in Committee. I can now confirm that the sort of behaviour described by the noble Lord is already covered by existing legislation. Intimidatory behaviour of that type might be prosecuted under a Public Order order (Article 9 on intimidation) or under Section 1 of the Protection of Persons and Property (Northern Ireland) Act 1969. We are satisfied that we already have the powers to deal with such behaviour.
I return to the specific points raised by the amendment. In drawing up the Bill and designing the new structures we have been keen to stress our commitment to even-handedness, and we remain receptive to suggestions as to how that could be achieved in practice. Far from being a blunt instrument aimed at the other side of the community as part of some crude quid pro quo, the proposed extended remit of the commission was designed to build on our commitment to taking steps to tackle issues which might have a seriously damaging effect on community relations. I think that it is generally accepted that parades are hardly the only manifestation of cultural identity which could have a damaging effect on community relations.
It is fair to say, however, that the proposals as drafted in the Bill have raised fears on one side of the community and are not considered useful by the other. We have listened carefully to the debate as it has developed through discussions in Committee stage. I have listened carefully to the 13 contributions—perhaps unanimous contributions—that we have heard this afternoon. The developments in the arguments have confirmed our belief that it was right to put these measures through the full parliamentary scrutiny of a Bill rather than simply an Order in Council.
We accept that Clause 3 does not have the kind of cross-community support which it will need if the commission were to be able to play a useful role in this area. Accordingly I inform your Lordships that the Government intend to remove this clause at a later stage. We are not removing Clause 3 at this stage for one reason only, and that is because a number of consequential amendments need to be made to the Bill in addition to those which have already been tabled this afternoon. Some have been identified by your Lordships

1189
in their amendments, but for convenience's sake we thought that it would be better to sweep them all together in a series of government amendments which we hope to bring before the House at Third Reading. On the basis of that assurance I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment this afternoon.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, it is extremely agreeable for me as a brand new Member of your Lordships' House to find such unanimity on this occasion with the views which I expressed. Coming from another place I am not quite used to that! Nevertheless the Minister and his colleagues have been extremely wise to take the decision which he has just announced to the House. I make no complaint at all about his doing the deed as it were, or the collection of deeds, by tabling the necessary amendments at Third Reading. That is entirely acceptable. I just hope that the unanimity we have achieved so far this afternoon continues throughout the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Functions of the Commission in relation to public processions]:
3.45 p.m.
Lord Alderdice Lord Alderdice moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) In making a determination in respect of a particular proposed public procession the Commission may take into account the known or likely pattern of processions in the same locality.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, another issue which has been to the fore from a fairly early stage is the value of having the commission look at the pattern of processions over a period of time when considering parades and processions. One of the reasons that is so important is because when there is to be agreement about the conduct of a contentious parade, almost inevitably there will have to be some negotiation and discussion, and some kind of compromise will have to be reached. Sometimes a compromise is achieved as regards the re-routing of a parade. If it takes a different route, it may be more acceptable to the community as a whole. Sometimes a compromise may be reached on the conduct of a parade. For example, when an Orange parade passes through a nationalist area a compromise may be reached in that there will be no playing of music, and in particular no playing of party tunes if the procession passes a Catholic church. There are various ways in which compromises can be arranged which make parades possible and more acceptable.
Given the number of parades that pass through particular areas, for example, the Lower Ormeau Road or Garvaghy Road—those are two of the most contentious areas—one compromise that has been found to be acceptable in the past is to reduce the number of such parades over the period of a year. Whereas five or six parades may not be acceptable to the local community, one or two are acceptable. When we discussed this matter in Committee, the Minister
1190
indicated that as far as he was concerned such power or advice was already implicit in the Bill in the powers of the commission. He may well be right about that. Certainly in the guidelines that have been drawn up by the commission there seems to be some indication that that is the case.
However, I find it somewhat troublesome that the Minister said that if we were to make the provision explicit in the Bill it may come in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. I find it somewhat astonishing that it is recommended that we accept the provision as being implicit in the Bill, but that if we make it explicit it would contravene the European convention. I do not believe that that is a reasonable position to take. I speak as one who strongly supports the incorporation of the European convention. Therefore I have returned with a changed amendment which seeks to indicate on the face of the Bill that the commission,
"may take into account the known or likely pattern of processions in the same locality".
I believe that it is important for the commission to have that opportunity.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I know that he has considered this matter. I know that he appreciates that the principle to which I advert is important if we are to achieve compromises. It is valuable to have that on the face of the Bill because then we shall not have any disagreement on the part of those who would query whether or not the commission had the power to address the matter in the manner in which I have described. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am not quite sure that this amendment is directed at the right part of the Bill, or that it is perfectly drafted from the point of view of the commission on human rights. I realise that both those objectives are difficult to achieve judging from the debates that were held in Committee. However, I most certainly support the sentiment that lies behind this amendment. Clearly a parade once or a few times a year is much more tolerable than parades taking place every few weeks down the same road. There is nothing surprising in that. If one's neighbour holds a noisy party once in a while to celebrate some special family occasion no one complains, or not much. However, if one's neighbour holds noisy parties every weekend or at frequent intervals, that becomes intolerable. The same principle can apply to parades in certain parts of Northern Ireland. It is not the case in Northern Ireland that it is only local people who are concerned about this; some people travel quite long distances in order to be offended by a parade. Nevertheless we need to consider those who live in the areas where parades take place, particularly if those parades are held frequently. Therefore I support the sentiment behind this amendment. I shall be interested to hear how the Minister is progressing with the drafting to ensure that the measure is explicit and can work.
Lord Desai: My Lords, at Second Reading I said that it would be a mistake to make this into a big problem. There are few parades. If one can establish legislation to give the commission the flexibility to compromise on

1191
the few parades which are known to cause problems, that would be the solution. As I have said before, it is not that this is not "broke" but the breakage is small. To fix it we must apply a small remedy and not dismantle the whole machine and try to put it together again. It is important to avoid general statements and to allow for every contingency. The commission has been appointed and is doing a good job. It should be allowed full flexibility. The less said on the face of the Bill from that point of view, the better.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, at an earlier stage I expressed some reservations about how the laudable objective of achieving balance could be secured by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I contrasted the position with regard to processions using a main arterial road as a legitimate and sensible means of getting from A to B—which would entail use of the road by several traditional or customary processions organised by several different organisations over the years—with, on the other hand, processions taking place in a small village or hamlet where there are perhaps no more than three such events in one calendar year. In Committee I asked whether the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, had in mind some form of rationing of processions. The noble Lord explained that his objective was to persuade the commission to look at the broader picture. I do not take issue with that. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, we sometimes have 100 years' notice of certain parades which have been held on an annual basis on a fixed, traditional date and a fixed, traditional route. I assume that such a factor would be given due weight, perhaps in conjunction with the common sense view that insistence on processing through housing estates should be discouraged and the residents of such estates should be protected from such intimidation outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I refer to the pressure applied to them to rise from their beds before seven o'clock in the morning and, complete with their children and other persons, to proceed to a traditional arterial route to be offended by a procession lasting some 15 minutes; and then, it is to be hoped, they go back to their beds.
I gathered from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that he did not have in mind a rigid directive, even in a limited area—no equivalent to what I call a Heathrow air traffic slot. If that is the case, I shall feel much easier in my mind.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I fully share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for the commission to take a broader view. Perhaps I may say how grateful I am that the noble Lord is present this afternoon. I know that he has had difficulties because of the talks. I am glad that he has managed to be, as it were, in two places at the same time—at the talks on some days and in the Chamber this afternoon. Perhaps I may also say how pleased I am to see my noble friend Lord Callaghan. I know that he has a lot of experience of this issue. It is a pleasure to have him with us.
I listened carefully in Committee and today to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. But I am satisfied that the Bill as currently
1192
drafted enables the commission to do that which the noble Lord requires. The amendment would make it clear that in making decisions on individual parades the commission can take account of the broader view in the area. For example, no matter how innocuous an individual application may he, if it is requesting the 27th parade in the past couple of weeks in a major flashpoint area, this is clearly a factor which the commission should be able to take into account.
As we discussed in Committee, the North Report wanted to go further if possible, and recommended that the commission should have power to set out its determinations for a particular area for the entire marching season, and even for years ahead. We do not believe this is practicable for the reasons I described in Committee.
But it is entirely clear in both the guidelines and the procedural rules which the commission has already issued in draft form that the frequency of parades in a given location is a factor which can be taken into account. The commission will be working very hard to ensure local accommodation, not just on individual parades which have caused trouble in the past, but will be seeking to broker agreement in flashpoint areas over a longer period. Indeed, not only will the commission be seeking to broker voluntary agreements, but in the draft procedural rules it makes it clear that the Parades Commission will be setting out its preliminary views on the forthcoming marching season well in advance.
Many noble Lords will have heard the chairman of the Parades Commission, Mr. Alistair Graham, on Radio Ulster's "Talkback" early last week, in which he announced that it was planning to publish a preliminary view by early April; that is, before the marching season begins. This preliminary view will attempt to set out what the commission is achieving, taking into account the broader pattern of parades.
Therefore, I believe that the commission has made it clear that it will meet precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, wants it to do without the requirement of this binding amendment. In the circumstances, I do not believe that the proposed amendment is necessary. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Alderdice:My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, first, for his kind remarks about my attendance, but more particularly for his explanation of the Government's views of the matter.
In terms of what we all aim to do, I do not think that we are far apart. I believe that there is an appreciation that these matters should be available to the commission in coming to its determinations; and that it should be able to give a form of guidance. As noble Lords know, my main concern is that there should be no dispute about whether or not the commission has the power. It would be greatly disadvantageous if shortly into its proceedings the matter was taken to judicial review or some other form of legal process. That would only diminish the commission and its laudable work.
I realise that the Government have given considerable thought to this matter and for that I am grateful. It is clear that as the Bill has proceeded through this place it

1193
has achieved some refinement of a fairly considerable order. It will, of course, go to another place where further refinements may take place. I am much reassured by the Minister's undertaking to deal with Clause 3 and other matters before the Bill leaves this House. That is extremely important.
That being the case, I shall be content for the present to see how matters move along while keeping an eye on this issue as the Bill continues its passage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Functions of the Commission in relation to other expressions of cultural identity]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 4: [Code of conduct]:
Lord Cope of Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 26, at end insert ("or a counter-demonstration to a public procession").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 4 provides for the commission to issue a code of conduct providing guidance to persons organising a public procession. That code of conduct has already been issued in draft by the commission. It lays down in great detail what parade organisers should do, how people should behave, dress, and so on, when taking part in a parade, what tunes bands should play on certain occasions, and many other details. But there is no code of conduct, and no indication of what should be done, for those seeking to arrange counter demonstrations to a parade.
The idea underlying the Bill is that people should be able to express their views, traditions, and so on, by processing within a framework of acceptable rules of conduct. The code of conduct forms a large part of that aim. Similarly, those who take an alternative view to that being expressed by a procession should be able to make their alternative view clear within acceptable rules of conduct. Frankly, no procession leads to a great deal of trouble with the police unless there is a counter demonstration. It does not seem right or sensible to lay down elaborate rules in a code of conduct for the organisers but no rules for the protesters who are likely to object to the procession taking place.
I believe that this omission is an example of why the Bill looks to some people like an anti-parades Bill, despite the Government's protestations. I believe that those are genuine protestations and that the Government do not deceive us by saying that they do not intend it to be an anti-parades Bill. But the Government should take account of some of the points which make people believe that it is an anti-parades Bill. There is a lack of a code of conduct for those who wish to make clear that they do not agree with those taking part in the procession. I believe that this is an instance where the Government could make such provision. That is why I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Lord Molyneaux of KilleadMy Lords, if the amendment were accepted, Clause 4(1)(b) would state:
"The Commission shall issue a code … regulating the conduct of persons organising or taking part in a public procession or a counter-demonstration to a public procession".
1194
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, indicated, that achieves exactly the right balance. The provision is not so much in the Bill for its legal implementation as for the code of conduct. However, the fact that it is designed to influence and give guidance to those who will be operating the code of conduct—namely, the commission—indicates that a degree of flexibility can be shown. I think that Parliament has a solemn duty to give the commission guidance on this matter.
4 p.m.
Lord MonsonMy Lords, as I said when speaking in favour of Amendment No. 1, this amendment seems a much better way of achieving the necessary balance between the communities than the soon-to-be-deleted Clause 3. This is because, as I understand it, the majority of counter-demonstrations are launched against parades which are broadly unionist in character.
Lord AlderdiceMy Lords, I simply want, in the briefest way possible, to indicate that I agree with noble Lords in their comments. As I said in Committee, there are other ways of achieving balance. This does seem to me to be part of the issue. Of course it is only a matter of giving guidance regarding counter-demonstrations which are notoriously difficult to deal with, even with the giving of guidance, although guidance would be welcome. My colleagues and I believe that it is important to give our support to this proposition.
Lord FittMy Lords, I wish to support this amendment as well. It is evident from the sentiments expressed in the House this afternoon that all noble Lords are determined to try to put on the statute book in Northern Ireland something of relevance to the whole community in Northern Ireland. Counter-demonstrations have been part and parcel of parades in Northern Ireland since the onset of the civil rights movement in 1968, particularly in the city of Derry where many counter-demonstrations in 1968-69 led to a great deal of trouble.
I believe that this Bill is of great importance. It should be seen in Northern Ireland that the Members of your Lordships' House are trying to the best of their ability to ensure that Northern Ireland legislation is in the interests of the whole of the community there. It would be a very sad occasion if the House were to divide on amendments such as we have opened up today. I do not believe that there is any need for division. If we show unanimity, understanding and compassion, the legislation will have the effect that we want it to have.
Lord DubsMy Lords, one of the gratifying aspects of debates on Northern Ireland in this House is that so many noble Lords bring great experience to bear in trying to solve the problems we are discussing. Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to say how delighted I am to see the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, here, given that he was the first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and therefore has a particular place in the history of that part of the United Kingdom.
The idea of a code of conduct was one for which the North Report found considerable public support. Many believe that it is often not the parades themselves which

1195
cause trouble but the behaviour of some of those participating in them and of their "hangers-on". The same has often applied to counter-demonstrations, which can vary from dignified and peaceful protests by the side of the road to highly provocative, intimidatory and sometimes violent and unlawful protests.
This amendment seeks to give the Parades Commission the responsibility for a code of conduct which would cover not only those organising and participating in a parade but also those organising and taking part in demonstrations against a parade. We understand the thinking behind the amendment but we are not sure that this is the right way to go about it. The North Report itself considered the possibility of a code of conduct for counter-demonstrators but recommended that the police should give serious consideration to applying a similar code to counter-demonstrators.
The North Report did not believe it would be appropriate for the commission to have the ownership of such a code for the very good reason that the commission would not be responsible for monitoring or imposing conditions on such demonstrations. Under the new legislation, the power to impose conditions on counter-demonstrators remains where it was in the Public Order order—in the hands of the police. Moreover, unless there is a legal obligation on organisers of the counter-demonstration to notify these demonstrations in advance it is not easy to see how the code could bind such organisers, or indeed in some cases how the organisers could be identified.
The code of conduct is not legally binding in the sense that those committing breaches of it are not guilty of a criminal offence. While the Parades Commission is able to take account of the past misconduct of parade organisers and participants in setting future conditions on parades, it is hard to see a corresponding sanction which could apply to counter-demonstrators. Having said that, we will give serious consideration to the possibility of a code of conduct for counter-demonstrators although in general we believe that the problems they pose are normally straightforward public order problems which the police already have the power to deal with in particular through Clause 14 of the Bill, the subject of which is the breaking up of public processions.
However, the Government have considered this matter in detail and I believe that the outcome of our further consideration will be most appropriately dealt with when the Bill reaches another place. On that basis I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, that was not exactly an acceptance of the amendment but it was an acceptance of the possibility of thinking further about it, and that encourages me to withdraw the amendment. However, I have just had time in the last few moments to look at the summary of the conclusions of the North Report. It states:
"We recommend that a Code of Conduct should be introduced covering the behaviour both of participants in a parade and of protestors".
1196
I believe therefore that we should be heading towards a code of conduct in some form for the protestors as well as for the participants in a parade. However, in the light of the helpful attitude expressed by the Minister towards this particular proposal I beg leave, at this stage at any rate, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Advance notice of public processions]:
Lord Cope of Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 38, at end insert ("or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine, or to both").
The noble Lord said My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which brings us to Clause 7 of the Bill. The last subsection provides for penalties for a person guilty of the offence of holding a procession without having given due notice of it: that is to say, an illegal procession. Another amendment, Amendment No. 16, relates to Clause 14 and addresses itself to the punishment available for those who break up or attempt to break up public processions.
The purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the fact that there are stiffer penalties available to the courts for someone who breaks the conditions laid down for a legal parade, whether he is the organiser or somebody taking part in a legal parade. Someone who breaks the conditions for a legal march is faced with potentially stiffer sentencing than the person who attempts to break up a public procession or, for that matter, someone who organises a wholly illegal march. That does not seem to me to be balanced: nor indeed does it seem to be sensible.
Apart from anything else, there is an incentive, at any rate of a sort, to someone thinking of organising a protest march of some kind not to give notice but just to hold an illegal protest march, knowing that the maximum sentence that can be given is six months' imprisonment, whereas if he organises a legal march, gives notice properly, has conditions laid down and then breaks the conditions, he can be sent to prison on indictment for up to two years: a much longer sentence for that offence. So there is a small incentive to hold illegal parades rather than legal ones as a result of the disparity in the punishments available. It is not fair that the legal organisers of a parade or those who legally take part in a parade but find that it goes wrong should face higher sentences than a group of people who are protesting and trying to stop that legal parade and trying to break it up.
It seems to me unwise to have different sets of penalties available to the courts for these two very similar offences. In addition, it sends a message that the Bill is an anti-parades Bill rather than an anti-protestors Bill. I believe that that is not the message that the Government or this House wish to send. It is not how we expect that the commission will behave in practice. I therefore hope that the two sets of fines and sentences of imprisonment will be brought into line for the different offences. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of KilleadMy Lords, most of your Lordships will have noticed that, earlier, I tabled

1197
an amendment on similar lines. However, I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is more effective and likely to be more easily understood. For that reason, I warmly support it.
Lord AlderdiceMy Lords, when this matter came before your Lordships at Committee stage there were, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, said, two amendments. One was to equalise up, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested, to two years; the other was to level down, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, suggested, to six months. The key point is to achieve a degree of equity. It seems unfair to penalise more severely those who digress on legal parades than those who wilfully digress on illegal counter-demonstrations, and I believe it would send an unhelpful and inappropriate message. For my part, I would take the line of making it six months for both rather than two years. It may be that the Government wish to consider the matter and strike a bargain on 12 months. For me, equity is the issue, not the length of sentence. The issue is an important one and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Lord HyltonMy Lords, it occurs to me that there must be a misprint in Amendment No. 5 as printed on the Marshalled List. The word "on" appears twice, in relation to both conviction and indictment. I feel it would be valuable to have a distinction between summary conviction, on the one hand, and indictment, on the other, so that the charge can be brought in the appropriate court and an appropriate level of penalty can be imposed if the charge is proved.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may explain to him, with regard to the question of "on" appearing twice, that the amendment is drafted in the same terms as subsection (9)(b) of Clause 8 at the bottom of page 5 which deals with offences and punishments in the case of those who organise or take part in processions and break the conditions. I followed entirely the precedent with which I wish to balance the punishments. That is why "on" appears twice. I also think it is better English.
Lord DubsMy Lords, I have some sympathy with the thinking behind these amendments. In drafting the Bill, we carried forward the existing penalties set out in the Public Order order. I recognise that there is an anomaly here, with those organising illegal public processions and those seeking to break up legal public processions facing a lower maximum penalty than those who fail to comply with conditions imposed on the procession or those failing to comply with a banning order. It is generally agreed that these are all serious, or potentially serious, offences. At all times a balance needs to be struck between demonstrating that the rule of law must be respected and ensuring that sentences are proportionate.
I note that at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, took the rather more liberal line— I hope I am not damaging his reputation by accusing
1198
him of having been liberal—of proposing that all the maximum sentences in the Bill should be reduced to make them punishable on summary conviction only. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, took a more robust line in wanting the possibility of convictions on indictment throughout the Bill. I wonder how the noble Lord, Lord Cope, brought the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, round to his sterner way of thinking.
We are still considering the questions sent to us, and I apologise for the fact that we have not yet made a final decision on which way they should go. There is a difficult balance to be struck. I am sure that many of your Lordships would share my reluctance to see disproportionate sentences for offences under the Bill. While there is the potential for conviction on indictment for offences in the Public Order order, such as defying conditions set by the police, in practice the summary procedure has been seen as the most appropriate way of pursuing offenders.
We also need to ensure that penalties remain in line with those for comparable public order offences. Increasing the maximum sentence to two years on indictment for offences which do not involve violence, such as organising a parade which has not been notified, could well seem disproportionate if offences such as disorderly conduct—which normally involve violence, or at least the threat of it—were still punishable with a maximum of six months on summary conviction only.
I can assure your Lordships that we shall consider how best to bring sentences into line. We are reminded at this stage to look seriously at Lord Molyneaux's original, rather more liberal line. If we conclude that we can adopt this approach, we shall seek to introduce government amendments as soon as practicable, perhaps at Third Reading. On that basis, I urge your Lordships to withdraw the amendment at this stage, on the understanding that we shall consider most carefully the thinking behind it.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, that seems to be another wise decision by the Minister and his colleagues. As to whether the sentences should be equalised up or down, while I am not entirely indifferent, that is a secondary question which I am happy to leave to the judgment of the Minister. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on this matter and agreeing that at a later stage the punishments for the different offences will be brought into line throughout the Bill. On the basis of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Secretary of State's powers to prohibit public processions]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 33, after ("procession") insert ("or likely counter-demonstration to a proposed public procession").
The noble Lord said My Lords, Clause 11 deals with the Secretary of State's powers to prohibit public processions. It is worth pointing out to those who have not followed the debates closely that the commission has no power, and is not due to have any power under the Bill, to ban a public procession. It can lay down

1199
conditions about the route, and so on, but it cannot ban it; only the Secretary of State can do that. The Secretary of State's powers to prohibit public processions already exist in the Public Order order but have been used extremely rarely.
The Minister made clear in Committee that—obviously depending on circumstances—it is hoped that the powers will not be used any more extensively in the future than in the past. One hopes that, if the parades commission satisfactorily takes some of the anger and steam out of parades, the power to prohibit parades will be used even less in the future than it has been in the past. Nevertheless it is important that the powers to be given to the Secretary of State should not be weakened by comparison with the powers he already enjoys under the Public Order order. In my opinion, they are weakened a little in two respects. The main one we shall discuss under the next group of amendments, headed by Amendment No. 7. So far as concerns Amendment No. 6 and the amendments grouped with it, Amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 13, the intention is to make sure that, before banning a public procession, the Secretary of State considers the effect of counter-demonstrations.
Generally speaking, no procession, when it is not a counter-protest, will create trouble. The big trouble occurs only when there is a vigorous counter-demonstration as well as the procession itself. It therefore seemed to me right that we should write into the clause the reference to counter-demonstrations for which Amendment No. 6 and the others provide.
It would mean that the Secretary of State, in the case of any proposed public procession or counter-demonstration, should have regard to possible disorder, damage and to the other matters laid down in the Bill. It is obvious that the Secretary of State will consider counter-demonstrations in deciding whether or not there is likely to be damage, disorder and so forth. It is probably better, therefore, to put that on the face of the Bill rather than it should be implicit. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of KilleadMy Lords, I am happy to report that on this occasion there was no conflict between the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and myself. We each tabled our amendments on the same lines and on the same points in the clause. It may have been a case of great minds thinking alike, but we are at one on this issue. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Lord DubsMy Lords, we are now dealing with the power of the Secretary of State to prohibit public processions. It would appear that the intention of these amendments is to ensure that there is a parallel and balanced system for dealing both with public processions and with proposed counter-demonstrations to those public processions.
I recognise that there has often been considerable violence associated with counter-demonstrations to parades coming from both sides of the community. Clause 11 is not intended to put parades in a disadvantageous position compared with such counter-demonstrations. Indeed, the Secretary of State already has powers to tackle the potential violence and
1200
the burden on security force resources which can result from violent counter-demonstrations. Those provisions are set out in Article 5 of the Public Order order. Schedule 3 of this Bill amends those powers to bring them broadly into line with the corresponding power in Clause 11 to ban public processions. In addition, the amendments would not actually enable the Secretary of State to ban counter-demonstrations. In order to achieve that, the words "or likely counter-demonstration" would need to be inserted after "procession" in line 44 at the end of the clause but such an amendment has not been tabled; but perhaps I should not be so helpful to the noble Lord in making that suggestion.
I feel that the practical effect of these amendments might be the opposite of what noble Lords intend. The amendments as drafted would in practice require the Secretary of State, when considering whether or not to ban a parade, to have regard to the disorder, damage to property or adverse impact on community relations which would be caused by a demonstration against the parade. In other words, a threat of violence from counter-demonstrators might result in the banning of a parade. That would not seem a just outcome, and I am sure it is not what noble Lords are intending to achieve. Indeed, these amendments might have the effect of giving those opposed to a procession an incentive to threaten violence, disruption and relationships within the community.
This Government fully recognise that the violence associated with parades is not always the fault of the organisers or those participating, but can result from the actions of those protesting against the parade. I therefore urge your Lordships to reject this amendment, however understandable the motives underlying it.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, the Minister is being extremely helpful, even when he does not agree with us, in the sense that he is hinting what we may do on Third Reading or perhaps in another place to improve our amendment.
The noble Lord made a shrewd point, particularly at the end of his remarks, in relation to the possibility that if the amendments are included in the Bill they may produce an effect opposite to that desired. It would therefore be better for me to withdraw the amendment and I beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 35, after ("any") insert ("serious").
The noble Lord said My Lords, in moving the previous amendment I referred to changes in the threshold which must be reached before the Secretary of State bans a procession. The threshold provided in the Public Order order was that the Secretary of State had to consider whether it was likely that there would be serious disorder if the procession took place, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community and so forth. But when the provision was redrafted so that it could be included in Clause 11, the word "serious" was omitted throughout.
As the Bill is drafted the Secretary of State must have regard to,
"any public disorder or damage to property … any disruption to the life of the community … any impact which the procession may have on relationships within the community; and any demands which the procession may cause to be made on the police or military forces".
To lower the threshold which has to be reached before the Secretary of State can impose a ban is a mistake. It implies—probably wrongly—that the Secretary of State will ban parades more frequently on less evidence of less trouble in the future than has been done in the past. That is not the signal the Government wish to send. On the contrary, it would be better to maintain the word "serious" in the various subsections and that is what this set of amendments seeks to do.
I am speaking primarily to Amendment No. 7. Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 12 and 14 insert the word "serious"—or in one case "undue"—in the relevant parts so as to achieve the changes I wish to achieve and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of KilleadMy Lords, the question for me in this modest set of amendments was to maintain and respect the terminology currently used in the legislation now in force. It does not seem to be helpful to omit words which have a great deal of significance. I strongly support the amendments.
Lord MonsonMy Lords, as the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Molyneaux, explained, these amendments would ensure that the Bill conforms to the words of the existing 1987 Public Order order. The wording in that order was surely wisely chosen. If the words "serious" and "undue" are not included, there is a danger that a parade which has been taking place for 100 years or more may be banned on the grounds that a couple of youths might throw empty lager cans at the parade as it passes or it requires the attendance of an extra constable. That surely would not be acceptable.
Lord DubsMy Lords, I fully support the thinking behind these amendments. Clause 11 sets out the Secretary of State's power to ban public processions. We have already discussed the proposal that this clause should be extended also to cover counter-demonstrations. It has, however, been noticeable in discussion in Committee that many believe the change in wording between the Public Order order and the Bill is a sign that the Government are intent on lowering the threshold at which parades can be banned. In some eyes that may seem to confirm the impression some appear to have that this Bill is intended to be "anti-parades". I can assure your Lordships that that impression is mistaken, and perhaps it would be worth explaining in a little more detail than I have done so far why there have been changes in the language since the Public Order order.
Article 5 of the Public Order order sets out the Secretary of State's current powers to ban both public processions and open-air public meetings. Under Article 5, if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that,
1202
"the holding in any area of place of any public procession or any open-air public meeting is likely to cause: (i) serious public disorder, (ii) serious disruption to the life of the community or, (iii) undue demands to be made of the police or military forces"
she may make an order prohibiting such a procession. Your Lordships will notice that those criteria are overwhelmingly public-order based. A high threshold of disruption, disorder etc. is set, but after that threshold has been reached, the Secretary of State may make an order.
One of the main insights of the North Report was that the exclusive reliance on public order factors in the current legislation has provided a perverse incentive to disorder to both sides. The North Report calls instead for public order factors to be balanced against the wider community relations picture, both in deciding whether or not to impose conditions and whether to impose bans on public processions. What the report proposed was that the authorities should be able to take all the factors into account and balance them one against the other. That meant, however, that the current provisions in the Public Order order needed to be restructured. As they are set out at the moment, they are effectively criteria. If any one of the criteria, for example, serious disruption, serious disorder and so on is fulfilled, the condition imposing or banning provisions can immediately be activated. What the report recognised, however, is that there may be circumstances in which the various factors point in different directions. It would be for the parades commission and, in the case of the banning power, the Secretary of State, to balance those various factors and come up with whatever decision is best overall in the public interest.
Accordingly, we thought it would be better for the Secretary of State to be able to take into account all of the factors, even when they are relatively insignificant. All disruption might be relevant, not just serious disruption, although if the disruption is not serious clearly as a factor it will not weigh very heavily in the Secretary of State's thinking. What Clause 11 does not do, however, is reduce the threshold for which the banning power comes into force. After all, in the Public Order order, if any of the criteria applies the Secretary of State is immediately empowered to take action. In Clause 11, however, the factors of disorder, disruption and so forth, are not in themselves enough. The Secretary of State must believe, having regard to all of those factors, that it is necessary in the public interest to impose a ban. That is wholly in line with procedure in Strasbourg when measures are challenged under the European convention. The Government need to demonstrate that any infringement of civil liberty, of which banning a parade is a clear example, must be demonstrated to be necessary and proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
We recognise that banning parades is an emotive subject. As I made clear in Committee, the power to ban parades is serious, raising fundamental questions of civil liberties and rights. The banning powers have only been needed in exceptional circumstances in the past, and I can assure noble Lords that that will remain the case and nothing in the drafting of Clause 11 was intended to detract from it.

1203
We do, however, recognise that Clause 11 as drafted is open to misunderstanding. We want there to be no doubt in anyone's mind, whether they be organisers, objectors or indeed those applying the law, that the Bill is not seeking to make the banning power an everyday tool to deal with contested parades. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Bill is to put structures in place to avoid our ever needing to use last resort powers such as banning. I am therefore happy to accept this amendment in principle. We will look once again at the wording to see whether that proposed in this amendment is the most appropriate, and bring forward government amendments, preferably on Third Reading.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for accepting once again the wording that we have suggested. I was slightly surprised by some of the arguments that he used, because he said that, as a result of the insights in the North Report, it was thought wise to take all the factors into account, not merely public order factors, when considering what action to take in connection with a parade. I accept that entirely. That is what has been put in place as regards the commission, and the decisions that it has to make about rerouting, and so on.
However, when, in Committee, I sought to move another amendment, which I have not pursued at this stage of the Bill, to add "traditionality" as one of the conditions in this part of the Bill for the Secretary of State to take into account in deciding whether to ban a parade, the Minister rejected it on the grounds that one should not look at "traditionality" when considering whether to ban a parade; it was such a serious decision that one should look only at what I can summarise as being public order matters. That is the opposite argument to the one that he has just been using. However, as he agrees with the amendments, I had better not quibble about that, at least at this stage. I do not claim that the drafting is necessarily perfect, and I am happy to leave the Minister to reorganise it, if he so wishes. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 14 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Control of alcohol at public processions]:
Lord Alderdice Lord Alderdice moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 9, line 24, at end insert?
("( ) Where a person to whom subsection (1) or subsection (3) applies fails to comply with a requirement imposed on him under subsection (1) or subsection (3), a constable may use such force as may be reasonable in the circumstances to seize or dispose of any intoxicating liquor in the possession of that person.").
The noble Lord said My Lords, in Committee—it is referred to in the Official Report at col. CWH 78I raised with the Minister the powers of the RUC should it be confronted with a minibus load of people attempting to take part in a procession who had chanced to bring along with them a number of cans of intoxicating liquor. I ask him what would be the position of the police if they tried to remove the offending cans on the reasonable assumption that if the marchers were
1204
to proceed without the alcohol they would he likely to be less disorderly than if they proceeded with the alcohol.
The Minister clarified the position in the following column. He pointed out that the police could remove the offending alcohol, but only with the power of arrest. That leaves the RUC in an invidious position. I shall look briefly at the type of circumstances that the police are likely to find, particularly around the time when parades are commonly held. We may find large numbers of minibus loads and carloads of Orangemen and others descending upon a particular locality, and, usually, to protect themselves against the vagaries of Northern Irish weather and to provide themselves with a little amusement, they bring along some sustenance, and, indeed, something with which to wash it down.
If the police were to stop such a minibus load of attempted paraders, and point out to them that it would not be in anyone's best interests for them to bring those large consignments, and they frequently are large consignments, to the field—as it is often described—it may be that those normally law-abiding citizens would immediately consent, and indicate to the police that they would happily convey themselves to the nearest police station on the following day to collect the cans of lager, or whatever, and consume them in a more appropriate place.
On the other hand, in certain circumstances the would-be paraders might not accede so readily, particularly if they had already opened the consignment and had gone some way towards consuming it. There are a number of possibilities for the police. First, they could accept that they were unable to remove the lager, and they could proceed to issue a summons at a later stage. That does not seem to be helpful in terms of dealing with the immediate problems of the day of the march, because the police know well that if they remove the alcohol they would probably remove the danger of a problem arising.
The police could, of course, just arrest them on the spot. That would be likely to put that particular minibus load of paraders out of action for the day, but they are frequently accompanied by colleagues, who may come in minibus loads behind. If one bus load is stopped and arrested, one might be sure that their colleagues would make clear their view that that was not well-advised action by the RUC. What started as an attempt to remove some danger from the situation would create a greater danger. However, if the police were to have the possibility of simply removing the cans of lager, or whatever it might be, and telling the paraders that they should proceed on their way, and quickly too, or they would be late for the march, it would be much less likely that either they or their colleagues coming behind would create anything like so much trouble. The police would thus have the power to defuse the situation rather than be forced to use the power of arrest, which is much more likely to inflame the situation.
I have explained the amendment in some detail because I readily accept that there is a degree of inelegance in the terminology I have struggled with. However, I think the House will understand the point

1205
I am trying to make and the power which I hope will be made available to the RUC. I believe myself, although it will be for others to make a judgment, that this would be a useful power to confer on the RUC. It has frequently been remarked on that when paraders are entirely sober they are often easier to deal with than when they have consumed one or two, and on occasion more, cans of lager. Arrest is using something of a sledgehammer to crack the nut. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of KilleadMy Lords, I know that, through no fault of his own, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is not as yet a member of what people refer to as the Loyal Orders. Perhaps I may correct any impression, particularly as one of the right reverend Prelates is present, about one of those main institutions which I have the honour to lead. They are under strict instructions, and have been for many years, that if it is reported to me or any of my senior officers that they have been transporting intoxicating liquor to, or consuming it at, the venue, in the field or recreation ground or in the vicinity of such, the unit concerned—whether it be the lodge or the band—will never walk again in my lifetime. I hope that that will entice the noble Lord to apply for an application form, which I would be very happy to supply.
Lord FittMy Lords, anyone who knows Northern Ireland would have to question the sentiments expressed by the mover of the amendment, and particularly the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I have lived in Belfast for most of my life. It may be that noble Lords will not understand the geographic designations. The parade takes place on 12th July. It starts off at Carlisle Circus. It passes by Donegall Street into the main arterial road of Royal Avenue and Donegall Place. At the beginning of the parade the vast majority of the people taking part are sober. They then proceed to the field. If I were to believe what I do not believe and accept what the noble Lord. Lord Molyneaux, said about drinking at the field or in surrounding areas, there would be mass expulsions from the Orange Order. There would be very few of them left.
Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that when they go to the field they have already established their traditionality and what they are there for. They have paraded to the field. They have then to stand there and listen to the most boring speeches they have heard all year. There will be all kinds of resolutions—loyalty to the Queen, loyalty to the Crown and loyalty to all kinds of other people—and religious acclamations as well. One has only to look at the pictures in the Belfast Telegraph that evening to see the expression of terrible boredom on the faces of those people who are unfortunate enough to be there to listen to the awful speeches being made. What else are they going to do during the interminable one or two hours there?
I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, what they do. They set about opening up these cans and consuming them to the best of their ability as the speeches come through the loudspeakers. Is that an offence? The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, says that it
1206
is. I do not believe that it is against the law for people to take part in a parade and sit down in a park, a field or wherever it may be, and consume alcoholic liquor. It is not an offence; nor should it be an offence. If the police apprehend a minibus or van which is taking some cans of lager or perhaps something stronger and the occupants of that minibus or van are stone-cold sober—this is the beginning of the parade and they have not heard all the boring speeches that are liable to drive them to drink—the police will then speak to the occupants who are there to do their traditionality without causing offence to anyone. It would be terribly wrong for the police to say, "You haven't got that there for decoration. You are going to take it somewhere and drink it." That is exactly what they are going to do.
What is more worrying about Clause 11 is that it says that the police can confiscate the alcoholic cargo and dispose of it in whatever way they think fit. That puts a great onus on the police. There will be quite a lot of police present. They will seize lots of cans of lager. They could confiscate it in their own interests. That would cause quite a lot of trouble in Northern Ireland. I can see people turning up at the police station to say that six, and not two, cases of lager had been confiscated.
I do not think it should be an offence for Orangemen to drink at the field. They have been doing it for many years. They continue to do it. I do not think it would be right to place a legal restriction on them. They will have marched five or six miles. They bring their wives and the female members of the family. Some of the women I know who take part in the parades are just as big drinkers as some of their husbands or boyfriends taking part in the parade. I do not think that any restriction should be placed on people who are obviously sober. I hope that that gets me in well with the Orange Order.
4.45 p.m.
Lord LyelIMy Lords, it is difficult to try to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I shall make a humble attempt so to do. Those of your Lordships who attended the Committee will remember that I moved a somewhat mischievous amendment to subsection (5) about what would happen to the alcoholic liquid in cans. Are they called alcopops or something of that nature? I suggested that some members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should take responsibility for the disposal of the liquid. I paid close attention to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, will go by the name of "Mineral Water Molyneaux". I served for six happy Orange occasions in Northern Ireland and I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that many of the parades were official Orange parades. I was quickly disabused of that notion by being told that there were all kinds of unofficial and independent Orange parades, let alone the Apprentice Boys, who were more militant than many of the others. I just wonder whether there is a more serious aspect to the amendment.
Seventeen years ago I was in the position of the Minister, having to move amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill 1980, dealing with what might be in the context of this Bill something akin to a cultural

1207
identity. which was confiscating large amounts of alcohol moving about Scotland—indeed, past my home—on arterial routes. Members of the warring tribes, if I may call them that, north of the Border, were attending matches where their favourite football team was playing. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has it absolutely right. It was not necessarily the content of the alcohol. In Scotland we call them "controlled containers". One can throw them and make use of them. That applies even to mineral water or alcopops, let alone what had been taken by the participants in these cultural identity parades and football matches before anyone even arrived at them.
It seems to me that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, gives a grain of flexibility to the police and the Royal Ulster Constabulary to take action swiftly, on the spot and without further ado. In moving the amendment it was suggested that there could be problems. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, went on to ask about what happened to the can of lager which was not the one that was sent along. It was a different one and there would be an argument about that. There was a grain of good sense in the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. The Minister very kindly put me in my place when I moved an amendment which was akin to the one that we have today. He very tactfully and kindly said at an earlier stage that he could perhaps look on the amendment favourably or might give some argument as to the flexibility which perhaps the RUC and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, are looking for.
Lord Howie of TroonMy Lords, perhaps I may take my normal place astride the fence, being neither for nor against my noble friend on the Front Bench. I was greatly impressed by the speech made by my noble friend Lord Fitt on the virtues of strong drink, to which I adhere. I was also greatly impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I was drawn to my feet by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who recalled our debates of some years ago on the Scottish situation where we were dealing with quite a different matter. We were not dealing with marches devoted to religious or quasi-religious, political aims, but with football hooliganism. It was thought that the Scots were given to strong drink and therefore to unreasonable behaviour. I found that a very odd idea for people to adhere to, but it seemed to be widespread. We have had debates in this House about alcoholic drink. That is exactly what my noble friend Lord Fitt was talking about—namely, the confiscation of alcoholic drinks before football matches and events of that nature. It was thought that the Scots were likely to become unseemly in their behaviour. I cannot see why that should be thought, but it was.
In the course of those debates my late lamented friend Lord Ross of Marnock, whom the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will remember with affection, argued very strongly against the confiscation of drink as an interference with civil liberties. But if we look at the situation as it has developed since the distant days of about 10 to 15 years ago—I cannot quite remember, being in my declining years—we shall find that the
1208
atmosphere in Scottish football as regards alcoholic drink and other quite desirable refreshments has changed. Scottish football supporters are renowned throughout the whole of Europe, and possibly throughout the world for all I know, for their abstemiousness and good behaviour. That partly derives from their own good nature and possibly from the prohibition. It may well be that prohibition has turned out to be advantageous in that limited sphere. The Scots are, I am quite sure, much better behaved than the Northern Irish. What brought the Scots—I shall not say "to heel"—to better behaviour might be applicable to Northern Ireland. I do not wish either side in Northern Ireland the slightest harm and I hope that I have not annoyed any of them in any way by entering into this debate.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, I had the pleasure, while a Minister in Northern Ireland, of seeing a parade of the Royal Black Preceptory in Carrickfergus, I believe it was. A more sober and respectable group of gentleman on parade I could not imagine. Therefore, I leap to the defence of my noble friend Lord Molyneaux as regards that group.
However, I saw a parade on 12th July which was towards the end of the marching part of the day. It was about to reach the field which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, described so vividly a few moments ago. By that time the parade was moving relatively slowly and not evenly. There were long pauses because of confusion up ahead. That always happens when one has many people and vehicles in procession. I noticed that some members of the Orange Order were taking the opportunity given by the pauses to go into local hostelries, which happened to be open nearby, even before they got to the field.
The only conclusion that I draw from the two experiences, among others, of watching parades in Northern Ireland is that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will need to carry out the powers that it is given in the clause with great discretion and care. I note that the constable is being given the opportunity to confiscate alcohol rather than the duty to do so on the various occasions provided for. The RUC will need to use it with discretion.
Lord FittMy Lords, this is a serious matter that could lead to trouble. Clause 12(5) says,
"A constable may dispose of anything surrendered to him under this section in such manner as he considers appropriate".
That leaves the situation wide open to abuse. If there is no abuse there will be allegations of it. The RUC will be charged by all kinds of ill-intentioned persons of behaving in a way which is not appropriate. After the constable has taken the drink away it should be clarified as to what he is to do with it.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Lyell drew specific attention to that in Committee. It seems to me that if the RUC is to have this power it needs to be a practical one which it can use with the minimum of difficulty. The points that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made in moving this amendment

1209
suggested to me that it, or something very like it, is necessary to enable the RUC to use the powers which it has rightly been given by this clause.
5 p.m.
Lord DubsMy Lords, a few moments ago the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, gave us a very entertaining insight into what might happen on a hot afternoon in Northern Ireland in the middle of July. It is not for me to comment from the Government Front Bench on whether the speeches on such an occasion will be compelling or tedious. That would be inappropriate. However, the noble Lord asked what the marchers would do when they got to the field. Having looked ahead in my diary, I believe that 12th July is the day of the World Cup final, so I wonder what will happen with regard to the competing attractions on that day.
I turn now to the serious issue raised in the amendment. The Government recognise that alcohol is often the cause of many difficulties experienced at contested parades in recent years. Indeed, the North Report's recommendations in this field were so popular that the previous government moved to implement them early to ensure they were in force in time for the last marching season. In drafting the powers in this Bill we bore in mind comparable legislation on the confiscation of alcohol from under-age drinkers, and provisions for those travelling to sports events in Great Britain.
In Clause 13 as it stands the police have a power to require the surrender of alcohol from those at the vicinity of, or on the way to, a public procession if they reasonably suspect that such a person is consuming intoxicating liquor. Failure to comply with an instruction is a criminal offence, and a police officer can arrest without warrant. What this amendment proposes is that the police should have an additional power to use force to seize alcohol.
Although I sympathise with the wish to tackle the problems of alcohol, I believe that giving the police seizure power would not be appropriate in these circumstances. For one thing, it would take this legislation out of line with comparable UK and GB legislation. More importantly, it would be quite unprecedented for the police to have powers of seizure in cases where possession of alcohol is not a criminal offence. We have considered making possession an offence, but feel that it would be quite disproportionate and extremely difficult to draft. One would not want to see a circumstance where somebody walking back from the off-licence and passing a public parade inadvertently committed a criminal offence. We believe the power to arrest without warrant is already sufficient to deal with this problem, and I urge the House to reject this amendment.
Lord AlderdiceMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It is clear that the Government have considered the matter and that they have encountered something of the same difficulty as I encountered when trying to draft an amendment. I hope that the Government will continue to look at this because it seems to me that on this matter (as on so
1210
many others) the experience of Northern Ireland is a little different from experience in the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that such a power would be of some advantage to the RUC.
The Minister has been extremely helpful. I am struck by his advice, which will no doubt be transmitted by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, to the Orangemen for 12th July next year. Perhaps extra large television screens should be erected at the field so that the Orangemen can participate both in the 12th July and observe the World Cup final. From the noble Lord's comments, I gather that instead of singing "You'll never walk alone", they will sing "You'll never walk again".
I am grateful for your Lordships' consideration of this matter which, although amusing, has also been serious. I know that it has received full consideration. Given the somewhat inelegant nature of the amendment and the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that I still have some way to go to reach full accomplishment in the art of the parliamentary draftsman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Breaking up public procession]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Interpretation]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 11, line 13, at end insert ("and includes cavalcades or processions of motor vehicles along any public highway").
The noble Lord said My Lords, the previous debate was most satisfactory from a recruitment point of view and I shall remember to bring a stock of application forms with me at the beginning of next week.
The amendment is intended to close what I regard as a serious loophole in the existing law and in this Bill. Cavalcades are a fairly recent innovation among paramilitary bodies. They get around the restriction on marching feet where no notice whatsoever will be given if they are mobile. In some respects, the cavalcades have the capacity, by reason of their mobility, to stir up apprehension, fear and reaction in a matter of hours and over wide areas of the Province—in fact, right across the Province—almost simultaneously.
I give an example of what has horrified me. On one occasion two years ago, in the late afternoon when the bereaved relatives of a chap who was shot by terrorists were attending the grave in the cemetery, seven motorcars appeared adorned with certain flags and those inside hurled insults in the name of the organisation which had assassinated the deceased. That incident and others like it are what I have in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said—I agree with him—that it is somewhat illogical to build into the Bill controls over walks while ignoring the far greater menace of motorised columns. When I raised this point in the Grand Committee the Minister undertook to look at the need for some changes and possibly to introduce an amendment at some stage. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, this seems a sensible amendment. It arises from the definition of

1211
"public procession" which is given on page 11 of the Bill, just before the place where this amendment is to he inserted. It states:
"'public procession' means a procession in a public place".
One wonders why the draftsman bothered to define the phrase if that is its only definition. However, that definition of "public procession" differs from that given in the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which the Bill replaces. The order states:
"'public procession' means a procession in a public place, whether or not involving the use of vehicles or other conveyances".
I must admit that before I read that part of the order alongside the Bill I had assumed that as it was not stated that "'public procession' means a procession on foot in a public place", it probably included vehicles. However, whoever drafted the order found it necessary to make it clear that the definition included processions involving vehicles and I am sure that we all want to include processions involving vehicles as well as processions on foot in the provisions of this Bill. There are some important examples, including some connected with the sporting events which take place in Northern Ireland.
There are also examples relating to protests. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, drew our attention to what happened in May 1974 when a cavalcade of vans, tractors and other vehicles descended on Stormont and had a very decisive political effect. That was obviously a perfectly legitimate protest, but it was a cavalcade or procession of the sort that should be covered by this Bill. In addition to its provisions relating to processions on foot, it is important that the Bill also covers that point. I believe that it would be better if the Bill covered it specifically, as did the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order, rather than leaving it to be implied in the wording.
Lord MonsonMy Lords, I have great sympathy with this amendment, particularly in the light of the terrible incident in the churchyard to which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred. My only worry is this: what about motorised funeral processions? They can often be political or quasi-political in nature, and not only in Northern Ireland. Many years ago I found myself in a self-drive car stuck behind the massive funeral cortege of a Mafia boss. It consisted of at least 50 large, mainly black, shiny cars which were being driven very slowly. It was obviously meant to intimidate the inhabitants of the many mountain villages through which it passed. It was made quite clear to me by the locals that it would be extremely unwise to try to overtake it. That was an example of a funeral procession and a political procession rolled into one. Having said that, I recognise that trying to regulate funeral processions of any nature is a highly delicate matter and I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.
Lord Alderdice:My Lords, this appears to be a reasonable proposition on two counts. First, I do not believe there is any reason why in terms of the regulations there should be any distinction between parades on foot and cavalcades in motorised vehicles when effectively they are for similar purposes. Secondly, by the removal of Clause 3 we have sought
1212
to find other ways to ensure that the Bill is seen as a balanced measure. I believe that this is, together with other amendments that have in effect been accepted, another way in which that can be achieved. I look forward to the response of the Minister in regard to this amendment, which we on these Benches support.
Lord Dubs:My Lords, I am grateful that this amendment has come back. As I mentioned at Committee stage, we accept that the existing definition of public processions in the Bill is not as clear as it might be. We want to ensure that it covers this kind of cavalcade with vehicles to which the noble Lord referred. We shall introduce an amendment at a later stage, possibly at Third Reading and if not in the other place, although it will probably not be along the lines proposed. What we intend to do—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, got it right—is to restore the definition in the 1987 Public Order order which describes a public procession as,
"a procession in a public place, whether or not involving the use of vehicles or other conveyances".
I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead:My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic consideration. I am happy to agree with his suggestion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Provisions relating to code of conduct, procedural rules and guidelines]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 15, line 4, leave out ("paragraph 4") and insert ("paragraphs 4 or 9").
The noble Lord said:My Lords, we now come to Schedule 2 to the Bill. The particular provision to which this amendment is directed is that which provides for the way in which alterations to the code of practice, the procedural rules and the guidelines—three separate documents—are brought before Parliament. The Bill provides that the original documents shall be brought before Parliament under the affirmative procedure but that when amendments are made to them they shall be subject only to the negative procedure.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation of this House looked at the Bill as a whole and drew the attention of the House to this particular provision. The committee recommended that the House should,
"consider whether the Bill should be amended to allow Ministers the option of using either the affirmative or the negative resolution procedure for variations [to the documents]".
I have tabled this amendment in perhaps a slightly "overkill" manner. It provides that all amendments shall be subject to the affirmative procedure. As a matter of fact, that is not my intention. My intention is to carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee, but that is very difficult to draft. Initially it seemed to me to be better to bring it before the Committee in the form in which it appears in the Marshalled List today. As I was given an assurance at that time that the Government would amend the provision as recommended by the

1213
committee in respect of the guidelines, it appeared to me that by this stage a draft would be available to implement what the committee recommended, at least in respect of the guidelines. The committee made its recommendation in respect of the guidelines, the code of conduct and the procedural rules—all three documents—although the current undertaking from the Minister relates only to the guidelines.
The Select Committee does not make recommendations on these matters lightly. I believe that this House should take very careful note of the recommendations that it has made about this particular provision. All that my amendment seeks to do is to bring that recommendation of the Select Committee before your Lordships in the hope that the Government will say what they propose to do about it. I beg to move.
Lord DubsMy Lords, I am reassured that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, means something different from his amendment. To be serious, I have sympathy with the drafting point to which he refers. I am grateful for this amendment which touches on the very important issue of parliamentary scrutiny of statutory documents issued under the Bill. As explained in Committee, in drafting the Bill the Government needed to strike a difficult balance. On the one hand, we recognised that documents like the code of conduct, guidelines and procedural rules were potentially of great interest and deserved maximum parliamentary scrutiny. But, equally, changes of a fairly technical nature might need to be made to them in future. We do not want to waste parliamentary time by requiring a full debate, save for minor changes in the procedural rules of the Parades Commission. We therefore propose using the affirmative resolution procedure for the first issue of the document and the negative resolution for any subsequent amendments.
However, we had before us the work carried out by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. For that I am most grateful. That committee came up with a very interesting suggestion as to how the Government could deal with amendments to the statutory document. It proposed that the Government should retain the option of affirmative or negative resolution procedures; namely, to use the affirmative procedure for matters of substance and the negative procedure for minor matters or matters of a purely technical nature. We have a good deal of sympathy with that proposal and we are considering it very carefully. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment so that we can have a little more time to consider how to proceed.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, in view of the helpful nature of the Minister's reply and indeed his helpful responses throughout today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]

Sudan
5.16 p.m.
Lord McNairasked Her Majesty's Government what is their attitude towards the recent moves to end the civil war in the Sudan, the historic links between the United Kingdom and the Sudan, and the case for an end to sanctions.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the subject of Sudan and to bring some of the recent developments within that country to the attention of the House. I declare an interest in this debate. I have visited Sudan on a number of occasions as a guest of either the Sudanese Government or the Sudanese Parliament.
Britain and Sudan have a long history of association. That history includes the fact that Sudan is one of the few countries to have defeated the British Army in battle. As a result, there has been mutual respect over a number of years. My Question covers three distinct points: peace, historic links and sanctions. Before I discuss these points perhaps I may point out that I have one pleasure and one sadness in introducing this debate. The pleasure, and indeed honour, is that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford has chosen to make his maiden speech in my debate. I welcome his contribution and the measured views that I am sure he will express. My sadness is that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has chosen not to speak in this debate. No debate on Sudan would be complete without a contribution from the noble Baroness, but I am sure her point of view will be ably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks.
I believe that there are four contentious issues that emerge from any discussion of Sudan: political repression, religious persecution, slavery, and the training and harbouring of terrorists and the allegation that Sudan is exporting terrorism. I should like to touch on each of these matters because it is possible that noble Lords who follow me in this debate may try to undermine what I believe to be the most important matter that we should discuss—the call to progress the peace process. Indeed, I have organised a seminar which will take place tomorrow. Various people, including people in opposition, will attend to discuss the peace process.
I shall deal first with the issue of political repression. One index of a country's state of political health is the number of political prisoners. Despite the fact that Sudan has been involved in a civil war for almost 40 years, the US State Department, in its latest report on the Sudan, stated that although the Sudanese Government denied having any political prisoners it believed that there were several. I believe that, after 40 years of civil war and a coup eight years ago, compared with many other countries in a similar state of political and economic development Sudan has a good record.
I am particularly sensitive to issues relating to religious tolerance. I have therefore been interested to visit Christian churches and to speak with Christians wherever and whenever I have travelled in Sudan. While there is undoubtedly competition between the two major

1215
religions in Sudan—the Christian and Islamic faiths—in the parts of the country I visited I heard or saw nothing to substantiate the claims of religious oppression. I recently visited north and south Kordofan.
I found it interesting that in 1995 the Roman Catholic Church recorded with some pleasure that 6,000 adults were baptised at St. Matthew's Cathedral in Khartoum on Easter night alone. That is quite a throughput. I also note that between 1989 and 1993 500 new churches were built in Khartoum State. Many consist of only one room, hut they serve their Christian communities among the millions of southern Sudanese who have flocked to the capital. Anyone who has visited the refugee and squatter camps which surround much of Khartoum will see dozens of such small chapels scattered around the settlements. That is all in the heart of northern Sudan.
Furthermore, 4 per cent. of the Sudanese population is Christian. Christians make up 15 per cent. of the population of southern Sudan, with a similar percentage being Moslem and the majority being animist. Christians are disproportionately prominent in Sudanese affairs. The Vice-President of Sudan and several federal Ministers are Christians. One of those Ministers is also an Anglican bishop, Bishop Gabriel Rorich. There are scores of Christian members of the federal parliament. Christians are prominent throughout the administration and the army. Those are simple facts.
I turn to the issue of slavery. I wish to touch on it as an example of the misrepresentation of the human rights issue in Sudan. I refer to the allegations, heard on a regular basis in this Chamber, that the Government of Sudan are either sponsoring or conducting the taking of slaves and are party to some kind of slave trade in Sudan. Those are strong allegations. In October I travelled 1,500 kilometres in central and western Sudan, within Kordofan and the Nuba mountains, in the course of investigating allegations of slavery and slavery-like practices. I was a guest of the human rights committee of the Sudanese parliament and I was accompanied by a southern Sudanese Pentecostal minister. I found no evidence whatever of the allegations of slavery.
It is ironic that the very conditions that have seen a resurgence of abductions and ransoming are brought about by the very gunmen who some in this House unconditionally support. In any instance, these conflicts and this behaviour is unacceptable, but it does not constitute slavery. Many in this House would appear to have accepted at face value views and statements by groups such as Christian Solidarity International which have subsequently been dismissed by professional human rights activists as misinformed. Mr. Alex de Waal, the director of African Rights, has, for example, described the claim of Christian Solidarity International in respect of slavery as "over eager" or "misinformed". He has further added that such claims have played upon lazy assumptions to raise public outrage. For the record, Alex De Waal has clearly stated that there is no evidence for centrally organised, government-directed slave raiding or slave trade.
Perhaps the oldest human rights organisation in the world, Anti-Slavery International, in its 1997 report on Sudan, stated that the charge that government troops
1216
engage in raids for the purpose of seizing slaves is not backed by the evidence. The Anti-Slavery International report also stated that a rigorous inquiry into claims that the Khartoum government were engaged in a slave trade would not be able to demonstrate a policy of slave trading.
Perhaps I should also touch on the Baltimore Sun expedition. It related to a visit to Sudan to areas not controlled by the government which was organised by Christian Solidarity International. Journalists from the Baltimore Sun claim to have bought two slaves out of captivity. That received coverage around the world. Both African Rights and Anti-Slavery International have been critical of such claims. De Waal stated that the journalists were in fact paying a ransom to a go-between in a scheme where families pay, through a middleman, for their hostage children to be redeemed. They were not in a slave market. It is a horrible practice, but it is not slavery. De Waal accused the activities of such American newspapers of supporting sensationalist stereotypes.
Both Anti-Slavery International and African Rights warned that such sensationalist expeditions run the risk of inflating the ransom for kidnap victims beyond what local Sudanese families can afford and may even create an incentive for further raiding and abductions. Anti-Slavery International quoted a southern Sudanese closely involved in retrieving hostages and kidnap victims as saying that such outside intervention with big sums of money may make matters worse and can encourage others to capture and facilitate the retrieval of more children for economic motives. That is what the Sudanese would call a harmful traditional practice. This member of the Dinka retrieval committee was saying that westerners were making the situation worse. That is one example of how Sudan's human rights record has been grossly distorted by groups and individuals outside Sudan.
The present United Kingdom Government have said that the observance of human rights is to be the key element of British foreign policy. I welcome that, but in Sudan human rights is a very complex issue. The biggest need of most of the population is for a just end to the civil war. Attention to human rights, although correct in itself, must not be allowed to absolve the Government of the need to think clearly in the search for a political way forward to stop the war.
That leads me to the issue of peace. I must again declare an interest. I am unreservedly committed to the cause of peace in Sudan and I will do everything that I can to help to bring peace and justice to that country. The political and constitutional problems that have beset the people of Sudan, and which lie at the heart of the civil conflict that has blighted Sudan since before independence in 1956, are in a large measure the result of British colonial policy when the British Government ruled Sudan as two separate countries and then tried to stitch the two together at independence.
Every government since independence have been caught up in the civil war in the south. From 1972 to 1983, there was peace in Sudan. The peace resulted from the granting of autonomy to the south. which is in

1217
fact very similar to the measures proposed under the general peace agreement signed in April 1987. The peace ended when Nimeri revoked the arrangement for various internal political reasons. It was that act and not the subsequent imposition of Sharia law which caused the civil war to start up again. That war has cost probably a million Sudanese lives.
My Lords, I apologise, but I was told by the Government Whips' Office that I should have 15 minutes in which to speak. However, it seems that that is not the case and I must wind up. I feel very strongly that the position which Her Majesty's Government are taking on the issue of sanctions is rather transparent and unhelpful. If one looks at what happened in relation to the attempted assassination of President Mubarak and the subsequent events, any clear-sighted examination of that issue will indicate that the British Government and the United Nations are asking the Sudanese to do something which is quite impossible; namely, they are asking them to extradite people who are not in their country. It seems to me that the British Government, possibly following the American Government, simply do not wish to see an end to the war in Sudan and an end to the problems in that country.
5.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of BradfordMy Lords, I am profoundly grateful that this opportunity has arisen to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House. My first wish is to thank very sincerely all those—not least the Officers of your Lordships' House—who have offered extremely necessary and welcome encouragement and support.
I too have had the privilege of visiting Sudan and I work in a diocese with very strong links with Sudan. I am among those deeply concerned about the agonising situation for the whole country and not least for the Christian community and the people living in the south of Sudan.
It is almost impossible for most people in this country to imagine the suffering inflicted in a civil war which lasted from 1955 to 1972 and in the renewed warfare of the past 15 years. I believe that that is the longest running war this century. It is in a country which is the size of a continent; which borders on nine other African countries; and thus having considerable implications for the regional stability of the Horn of Africa and East Africa.
It is difficult to obtain reliable data on the number of deaths due to three decades of war. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, may have been slightly on the conservative side in his estimates. I have seen estimates ranging between 1.5 million to 2 million. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there are about 2.5 million displaced people of whom about 1.8 million live in or around Khartoum. Like the noble Lord, I too have visited many of those townships—Jebel Aulia and others—and have seen the suffering and also the attempts to provide aid in those townships. There are also 450,000 refugees in neighbouring countries.
1218
At a meeting on 13th November, the New Sudan Council of Churches stated:
"Our heart-felt distress is that the escalation of fighting. hostility and war continues to cause death on an immense scale, massive social displacement, famine and hunger and devastating psychological, social and material damage. We express concern that the war may escalate to unimagined levels of killing and violence.
That is a chilling prospect for a country which already has had so much suffering and warfare.
As always, it is the children and women who have borne the brunt of that suffering. It is little wonder that when I journeyed both in the Khartoum area and in the Nuba mountains, in towns and villages alike, the universal prayer of everyone I met was for peace. To be wholly dependent on others for food and drink, for shelter and medicine and to have to place your life wholly in the hands of other people is to be vulnerable indeed. Stories of appalling violence abounded and accusations were made against both the government forces and those of the Sudan People's Liberation Army.
Church leaders who have visited the Sudan, including the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury twice in recent years and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry and others, would not normally impress your Lordships' House as being military strategists, political analysts or diplomatic specialists. I make no claim whatever in any of those fields. Nevertheless, the Churches and development and mission agencies in that and other countries have a long-term commitment to all the people of Sudan and we can articulate some of the anxieties of the people in between—that is a phrase worth pondering, "the people in between"—the fighting whose main concern, indeed, whose whole concern, is simply that of survival.
It is a long-standing and complex conflict. As the noble Lord, Lord McNair, indicated, it is most certainly not a war between Christians and Moslems for there are people of each faith fighting on both sides. There will be no speedy resolution and certainly not from outside. The situation, however, cannot continue; it cannot wait until the killing ceases. The people, particularly of southern Sudan, need development aid from governments such as our Government have provided within the framework of Operation Lifeline Sudan. They need the continued support of the aid agencies, the Churches and other people with good will.
Debt relief is also needed. Sudan carries a heavy burden of debt but I believe that must be done in a way which does not mean that more funds are available for the purchase of arms. There is, I suggest, a need for a fully water-tight international arms embargo going beyond the European Union arms embargo which the Government rightly support.
The people in Sudan want peace but not peace at any price. The great fear which was articulated time and time again in tiny villages in the Nuba mountains and in Khartoum itself is that they will be forgotten by governments and people in the rest of the world. After all, there is so much suffering. It is my wish, in all honesty, to be able to say to people in Sudan when I hope to meet them next month, "You are not forgotten". Today I look for assurance that I can say that, and say it in good faith.
5.40 p.m.
The Earl of SandwichMy Lords, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford for injecting a note of good sense, sincerity and wisdom into our debate. I hope that we shall hear from him many times in the future. It was indeed a wonderful speech. I must mention the fact that the right reverend Prelate started out as a messenger boy with Unilever. I hope that he will not mind me singling that out because he was obviously at a cornerstone of the Empire, as it was in those days, and had much to do with the Sudanese economy.
I am especially pleased to follow the right reverend Prelate because he has been concerned with the ecumenical world for so many years. For 14 years he was the diocesan ecumenical officer and bishop's adviser in ecumenical affairs in the Newcastle diocese—a post which he held until 1978. He was Bishop of Maidstone in 1987 and worked closely with the then Archbishop of Canterbury in that diocese. I hope that we shall hear again from the right reverend Prelate on this and many other subjects related to ecumenism and overseas aid.
Sudan deserves a better response from Britain and the European Community. This great country, sprawled along the Nile with many different peoples and thousands of miles of semi-arid bush, is obscured by as much prejudice and negative image as it is by natural geography. It also furnishes many instant experts like myself who, from one unforgettable visit, are able to spin a one-day web of profound experience.
The country seems to attract much expertise and to have two debates on the subject in one fortnight may be some small compensation for our neglect of a country with which we have had many associations. We owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for introducing this debate. I am sorry, too, that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is not present here to share in our discussions. In fact, I registered my disappointment with the Whips' Office on Friday that two debates on the subject had been tabled. If we cannot gather two or three of our prominent speakers on the same subject in the Chamber, how can we expect the two sides of the Sudanese civil war to come together in one room in Nairobi?
There is a great deal of wishful thinking about the imminent fall of President al-Bashir along the Laurent Kabila model. Over the past few years peace and war have succeeded each other like yo-yos across the battle lines of the southern south-eastern and eastern frontiers. As we speak, the SPLA commanders are threatening to attack Juba. Moreover, as we speak, the Ugandans are preparing to contain the Lords Resistance Army and the northern coalition is bracing itself for further government bombing in the Nuba mountains and along the Eritrean border. On the face of it, there is nothing really new. Yet I accept that there has been a shift in government policy and that there are elements in the April peace agreement which hold out hope for the thousands of citizens who have
1220
already suffered the loss of their families in violent massacres and human rights violations perpetrated by both sides over many years.
I must declare an interest in that I was on the staff of Christian Aid from 1974 to 1986, and later worked with Save the Children and CARE International. I am also a new council member of Anti Slavery International, but I do not see the word "slavery" on the Order Paper. I shall, therefore, pass on that one today.
When I fist joined Christian Aid there was a strong sense of optimism after the Addis Ababa agreement in which the Churches played a prominent role: would that the same conditions prevailed today! A few years later I travelled the whole length of the country and saw for myself some of the effects of the war in areas of the south which were potentially rich.
In the Upper Nile I was especially impressed by a health programme. Ironically, this was at Bentiu, the very spot on which Chevron was expecting to turn the semi-desert into the South's greatest asset—but that has been one of Sudan's longest and cruellest mirages. I there learned not to write off communities which were so poor that it seemed impossible for them to survive on their own. This is still the case in many parts of Sudan, where a lot of positive work is being done despite the civil war. That is often because of the resilience which comes with sheer survival.
It is nearly seven years since we, the United Kingdom, suspended our development aid programme early in 1991. I do not have any quarrel with our Government's renewed support for sanctions under the most recent Security Council resolutions on terrorism. Sudan's diplomatic isolation, albeit under considerable American pressure, is understandable as long as President al-Bashir maintains his unholy alliance with Iran, Iraq, Libya or whoever will pay for his crippling civil war and debts to the IMF. Nevertheless, in such a hostile environment it now seems that there is a difficulty in funding the most basic kind of development aid. That is the dilemma with which I take issue: the dilemma between the securing of real aid to the poorest people and the safeguarding of human rights as presented by the new White Paper.
I do not suggest that we put more money into giant agricultural schemes and plantations. However, given our historic role, we ought at least to be able to do better than the French and find ways to promote trade at the right level and cultural exchanges such as those which the British Council continues to organise. I hope that the Minister will refer to some of those more practical forms of private aid and investment—that is, aid for appropriate technology, for example, which benefits the local economy and the poorest people at the same time. I am thinking of things like water pumps, agricultural tools and stoves.
However, I understand that there has been a more serious move away from that kind of development aid. Until recently the non-governmental organisations believed that this Government were committed to humanitarian aid in Sudan. But it appears from my conversations with at least two agencies that the European Community has begun to hold up food aid allocations

1221
even to the non-governmental organisations on the grounds of sanctions. I shall quote from a letter received by an NGO from Brussels only last week, dated 24th November. It states:
"The situation in Sudan, in particular the position taken by [a] Government which is not conducive to resolve issues relating to the food security in the country, does not provide the proper frame for meaningful food aid interventions by the European Commission".
I am sure that the authors of the White Paper would not want to discourage aid through our most experienced NGOs to people who desperately need it. In fact, my information from the dozen or so agencies in the Sudan, both British and international, is that, on the whole, they are operating well and have enjoyed good working relations with the Sudanese Humanitarian Affairs Commissioner and with the regional.governments where they work. The difficulties are in Europe and the United States, not in Sudan.
Apparently, this year even the world food programme only had 1,000 tonnes of grain to spare for western Darfur, an area of particular need, and the EU has been unable to make up the shortfall. There is even some uncertainty as to whether ECHO or DG8 has responsibility for it. In one case there was near farce when an early warning system received funding to ascertain that there were acute shortages but not the actual food. This is a critical situation, given the fact that next year we may see Sudan on the danger list.
There are also some wider but related concerns. Support for the NGOs in the past few years has fallen drastically as official donors have squeezed them towards the emergency end of the spectrum. One agency, Care International, had to cut its programme by nearly two-thirds in 1994-1996. This not only hit some of its best work but it threatened the viability of the entire programme which goes under the heading of humanitarian assistance. This is the work which I believe is described in the White Paper and is part of the Government's central objective.
NGOs with DFID support have been able to carry out highly imaginative schemes almost in spite of the civil war, such as guaranteeing water supplies through rain catchment and hand-dug ponds, offering small business credit and even healthcare in areas where there are already food security and emergency food distribution projects. All I ask of the Minister is that she gives an undertaking that, in principle, those programmes should not suffer and that the DFID staff continue to apply flexibility wherever possible. The workers in the field are best placed to decide whether a programme is benefiting the people. Strange as it may seem, even in the midst of civil war and demonstrable human rights violations, the NGOs are often the only means of meeting human need.
I declare one more interest as a member of the Anglican Church in Salisbury Diocese, which next year celebrates a 25 year link with the Episcopal Church of Sudan. The link is essentially Christian but it shows no prejudice towards traditional Islam. In my experience, there is a particular effort among the Churches to build bridges with Moslems who reject Sharia law and respect Christian traditions too. The Churches have close relations with
1222
leaders on both sides of the conflict, north and south, and any final settlement is likely to benefit from their close personal ties which transcend religion and politics.
There is no way that we can know about all the various emergencies which occur in Sudan, but where we know about them and can help it is surely important to keep people alive. I should be grateful to hear from the Minister that Britain also supports Sudanese refugees in Kenya and Ethiopia and ensures that help arrives in time. The best hope, as we all know, is a long-term solution to the civil war through the IGAD process, but in the meantime we must encourage the existing efforts of our non-governmental organisations and aid agencies who bring direct aid to those who most need it.
5.25 p.m.
Viscount BrentfordMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for introducing this subject today. I propose to concentrate on the peace issue and not branch off on to slavery. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his fascinating speech. We appreciate that he speaks from personal experience, having visited the country. He made an interesting speech. I look forward to hearing from him again on many occasions. Reference has been made to the absence of my noble friend Lady Cox. I believe that I read that she had to be in Russia at the present juncture as she had a commitment that she could not break and she was sorry not to be able to participate in this debate. She is not absent for any reasons of churlishness. As I said, she has to be abroad.
I believe that I am the first speaker in this debate who has never visited Sudan. I confess that grievous sin to the right reverend Prelate. However. I have a great many connections with East Africa. I have discussed the Sudanese situation with people who travel in and out of Sudan from time to time. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord McNair, quite rightly said; namely. that this is in no sense a religious war. There are many Moslems fighting against the government forces. It would be much more apt, or nearer to the mark, to suggest that this is a genocide by the Arabs of black Africans. However, that is a gross over-simplification of the situation. Certainly, Moslem leaders who are not supporters of the government plead with Moslems not to fight for the government forces against the southern Sudanese and others with whom the GOS is fighting.
It was a pleasure to have the presence of His Excellency the Sudanese Ambassador at the National Prayer Breakfast last week. That is undoubtedly a Christian prayer event. However, he is a charming Moslem and his support of the breakfast was welcome. The April peace agreement, to which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, referred, is, I believe, pretty ineffective. The war has continued irrespective of that because, as the government admitted, the SPLA was not a party to the agreement.
I wish to mention three key concerns of the Christian Churches at the present time. First, there is the question of human rights. The Churches are active in checking and publicising any breaches of human rights whether by the government forces or by the SPLA. The Churches do this in an even-handed fashion. The Churches will publicise the actions of anyone who breaches human rights. This

1223
step is effective with regard to the SPLA. Certainly, Mr. Garang has made great efforts to try to discipline his people as he does not wish to incur the bad publicity which would arise if the Churches publicised breaches of human rights by his people.
Secondly, there is much concern about intimidation of and pressure on the Churches and the Sudan Council of Churches in Khartoum in the wake of the American sanctions. The government appear to be venting their anger at these sanctions on the Churches. I shall return to the question of sanctions later. A third concern is the repeated reports of the production of poison gas and the possibility of its being deployed by the government. There have been reports of this in the Sunday Times. The Churches fear that possibility at the present time.
I turn now to three recommendations. First, the IGAD process is the only viable peace move at present in the eyes of the Churches. IGAD is the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development. A round of talks took place last month. Cannot they be resumed before April, the date given by the noble Baroness in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lady Cox of 24th November? Is there no way in which our Government can bring influence to bear for the resumption of talks at an earlier date than April? If a date were given for early in the new year, that would surely be an encouragement to people who are working for peace. A regional solution is required, not the limited "peace from within" of the GOS policy. Certainly the British Government have authority and influence to bring to bear. I hope that they will continue to do so.
Secondly, I return to the question of sanctions. Although the Churches are suffering because of the sanctions they believe that the sanctions are positive in that they maintain pressure on GOS and encourage more flexibility in negotiations. Therefore at the present juncture the Churches do not want the American sanctions to be eased. "Please let us talk" is what they are saying. Thirdly, I make a plea for strengthening the role of the Churches in the peace negotiations. As the noble Lord, Lord McNair, rightly pointed out, the Churches are flourishing in these difficult times. The Anglican Church, as well as the Roman Catholic Church, is growing both in numbers and spiritual maturity, despite the appalling difficulties that are faced at present. Do the Government consider that the Churches are being used adequately in the peace process?
East Timor is another country with a difficult human rights situation. Bishop Belo has played a prominent part in peace negotiations in East Timor. I quote from Timor Link:
"What is needed is a mechanism for consulting far greater numbers of ordinary East Timorese people, particularly women. A peacebuilding initiative that works from below, complementing the top-down approach, would be timely and could have a lasting effect. although no one should underestimate the difficulties".
There could be great support for the peace process if those working for peace through the IGAD principles were able to consult people at the bottom so that there could be a growing consensus to work for peace upwards from people at the grassroots as well as those working from the top down. I hope that the Churches, Christian people and
1224
Moslem people from the ground upwards could be more involved so as to bring about the peace and justice for which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, rightly asks.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Cocks of HartcliffeMy Lords, I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about the way these debates have been arranged, because the more we debate situations such as those in Sudan, the better it is. To have two debates so quickly is not at all a bad thing, because the situation is serious.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, said that I might he speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I liaise closely with the noble Baroness. whose work I greatly admire, but I am speaking for myself tonight, and I know that he will accept that. I join in the congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford, whose speech I greatly welcomed. The participation of the Bishop's Bench in debates of this nature is extremely welcome, because only today I came across the information that a report published in July revealed that the persecution of Christians is thriving around the globe. That report was produced by the US State Department.
An author, Paul Marshall, stated that maltreatment was widespread:
"I would say in the last five years there has been persecution of Christians in 40 countries. By persecution I mean there may be physical beatings, imprisonment, church burnings, maybe death, I don't just mean discrimination".
He went on to say that the persecution of Christians was most common in Islamic countries and countries that remain under strict communist rule. The report was prepared on behalf of the US Congress, which demanded a detailed summary of US policies in that field. I understand that the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, has instructed her delegations and embassies throughout the world to be especially vigilant on this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, mentioned allegations in this Chamber with regard to slavery. He was not terribly flattering about Christian Solidarity International. Let us therefore go to other authorities which might carry a little more weight with him. Dr. Gaspar Biro, the UN rapporteur on human rights in the Sudan said in February 1996:
"There has been an alarming increase in the number of reports…of slavery, servitude, the slave trade and forced labour. I regret the total lack of interest shown by the competent Sudanese authorities".
More recently, in November this year, the UN Human Rights Committee lambasted six nations, two of them in Africa, for their poor human rights records. One of them was the Sudan. The committee held sittings for some three weeks. It produced its report, and the abuses in the Sudan which it listed included the crucifixion of convicts, slavery and the press-ganging of children into the army. The committee's chairwoman, Christine Chanet, said:
"Sudan's failure to respect international human rights agreements 'cannot be excused by custom or domestic laws—.
She was speaking after 18 experts had examined Sudan's record of respecting civil and political rights. She singled out extreme cases of abuse such as corporal

1225
punishment, the crucifixion of some convicts sentenced to death, abductions, disappearances, torture, slavery and the forced call-up of children into the army. She said that she welcomed the resumption this week of the peace negotiations between the Islamic military junta ruling Sudan and the Southern rebels waging the 14 year-old civil war in the country.
That is a question of the human rights of individuals. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, mentioned the report in The Sunday Times of 16th November. This matter is so serious that it merits a little more detail than he gave the House. The article is headed:
"Behind women and children Iraq making lethal gas in covert Sudan pact".
Earlier this afternoon, in relation to a question about the Middle East, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to the Israeli people living under the threat of chemical and biological warfare. We are all aware of the recent inspection crisis with regard to sites in Iraq, and how that now appears to have been resolved. If the report is correct, Iraq is apparently moving into the Sudan. The article states:
"Iraq is manufacturing poisonous gas at a secret location in Sudan. Bypassing the ban on weapons of mass destructions which the United Nations imposed on Baghdad after its defeat in the Gulf War …"
The report gives the location of where mustard gas is being stockpiled, production having been said to have begun in 1995 under a clandestine deal between the Khartoum and Baghdad Governments to circumvent the UN's military and trade embargo on Iraq.
If that is true, the situation is appalling. It should be brought to the attention of the international authorities. The article concludes:
"Sudan is internationally isolated for dabbling in terrorism and for human rights abuses—"
those already referred to—and in particular it is a rogue state in the Middle East because it harbours terrorist movements and was involved in the attempted assassination of President Hosni Mubarak. That is a serious situation, and one which should have detailed and urgent attention.
Early this morning, quite by chance, I was watching the estimable BBC 24-hour news service. As the vice-chairman of the BBC, I have to say that, but the programme is actually extremely good. I saw an interview and report on the recent visit to Egypt of Colonel John Garang. He is the leader of the Sudan People's Liberation Army. He was invited to go to Egypt to see the president—it was his first visit—because President Mubarak wished to find out more from Colonel Garang about his attitude towards the situation in Sudan. He reported that he talked of his commitment to the unity of Sudan: that there was no wish to create two separate countries: that there should be unity, but that it should be a unity which included all citizens on the basis of the incorporation of their various diversities and creeds. He explained that the real threat the country faced was the insistence by its Islamic rulers that there should be no tolerance of other ethnic groups and religions. I believe it is helpful that Colonel Garang
1226
has now had this meeting. He said that the president and officials showed great understanding of the position that he had outlined.
It is my hope that the situation can be resolved. Sudan is an enormous country in physical area. I believe that it is some 20 times the size of this country, although the population is only about half ours. If there is more effort and more goodwill, I believe that conditions may become more tolerable. I hope that our small contributions in this House will give encouragement and hope to people outside the House when they read and consider them.
6.10 p.m.
Lord AveburyMy Lords, I endorse the congratulations already expressed to the right reverend Prelate on his remarkable maiden speech, and on the way he painted in such vivid colours the agony of the people of Sudan in what he described as the longest running war of the century. I wish also to express my warmest appreciation of the positive recommendations he made. The first was that the embargo on arms supplies to Sudan should be made universal. Secondly, the right reverend Prelate said that we did not want peace at any price. I shall come to that point later, if I may. The contribution that the right reverend Prelate made to our debate was significant. We hope very much to hear from him again, not only on Sudan but on other matters relating to human rights in Africa and other parts of the world.
We are also grateful to my noble friend Lord McNair for having initiated the debate. It gives us the opportunity to look at those human rights situations and the peace process in Sudan. We have more than enough to do in discussing one or the other. As the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, said, it is no bad thing that we shall have another debate later when we can perhaps discuss in a little more detail some of the human rights issues on which my noble friend touched.
My noble friend was good enough to send me a copy of the report he made on a visit he paid to North and South Kordofan as the guest of the Sudanese Parliament. He is right to emphasise that that body is not independent. It is an organ of the state, whose primary concern, I believe, is to deceive the international community about human rights in Sudan.
My noble friend described the meetings he had with people in North and South Kordofan and his review of the literature from which he concludes that there is no slavery in those areas. He misses out some important sources, in particular the report of the special rapporteur on Sudan, Dr. Gaspar Binó whose most recent report was presented to the third committee of the General Assembly in October. The special rapporteur takes note of the denials of slavery in the Nuba mountains area but points out that in previous years the reports of these practices were mostly from the south, in particular from areas under government control to which neither my noble friend nor the special rapporteur have gained access, such as Al Dein and Gogrial. The special rapporteur states that for the past eight years international NGOs have been forbidden to go into these

1227
areas. He quotes the Special Committee of the Government as saying that it, too, was unable to gain access to these places, or to Nyamlell and Aweil. Those places are all in the province of Bahr El Ghazal in the south-west of the country, bordering on the Central African Republic.
The special rapporteur makes a number of recommendations in relation to the activities of the Special Committee on Slavery in Sudan, but says that none of them has been implemented. He promises that he will report on the issue in detail to the Human Rights Commission next spring, but that in the meanwhile there is enough evidence to show that slavery and slavery-like practices are alive and flourishing in parts of Sudan, as the United Nations General Assembly found. The UN Human Rights Commission, too, said that it was,
"deeply concerned about continued reports of slavery, servitude, the slave trade and forced labour, the sale and trafficking of children and their abduction and forced internment, often at undisclosed locations".
However, in the time that remains for the debate, we should concentrate perhaps on the peace process. Not being part of the Government, my noble friend and I are at liberty to offer some observations on the dispute. Once again, on this subject I am afraid that we shall have to disagree. I believe that our support for the peace process does not mean that we have to endorse the formula that has been presented by the regime and embodied in an agreement between the Government of Sudan and some of the smaller factions in the south, in particular the South Sudan Independence Movement of Commander Riek Machar. Last year I asked Riek Machar's organisation whether he and others were allowed to form political parties. I also asked the ambassador whether those people would have offices in Khartoum or parts of the south-east. I asked also about the co-ordinating council which was to be established according to the declaration of April 1996. Would it have a secretariat? Where would it be located? The new agreement again provides for a co-ordinating council consisting of a president, 13 ministers and 10 Southern Sudan governors, but there is nothing in the agreement about how those people are to be elected or selected, and what their powers are to be.
The agreement says that there is to be an internationally monitored referendum in four years which will give the people of the south the choice between federation and independence. "The south" is not defined, and wherever the boundary may be drawn the agreement does not give people on either side of the boundary any separate right to choose whether they would prefer to be part of the north or south. That could be of material importance if the south decides in the end that it will secede.
The agreement is also silent on how the south will be administered in the four years leading up to the referendum. If the SPLA lays down arms and submits to the NIF in the regions it now controls, how can it be sure that there will be freedom of expression and of assembly during the transitional period so that the arguments for the two constitutional proposals can be thoroughly explored? To make this part of the agreement work, should there not be a neutral
1228
administration in the south for those next four years? The co-ordination council, to judge from its name, will not have power to regulate law enforcement or to determine the limits of political freedom. That was one of the sticking points in the IGAD talks because the SPLA wants the NIF regime to stand aside and to yield to a government of national unity in Khartoum.
I understand that at the very last moment in Nairobi the regime offered a federal system during the period of transition, but the SPLA held to the confederal proposals which they had agreed, and from which they cannot depart because it is part of their pact with the northern parties in the NDA. Either way, the co-ordination council would have to be replaced by an elected authority for the south, but to make free elections possible it means that the NIF forces would have to withdraw. Given the political will, they could be replaced by peacekeeping forces supplied by IGAD just as ECOWAS provided peacekeeping forces in Liberia, for example, leading up to its peace process. Though some bad mistakes were made in that process it led in the end to free democratic elections.
Ultimately, according to the Khartoum agreement, freedoms of movement, assembly, organisation, free speech and the press are guaranteed in accordance with the laws in force in the country and with "relevant international treaties". Formally, that is already the case throughout the country, but in practice there are no remedies for detention without trial, torture and many other violations of fundamental human rights, in the north as well as in the south. Mention has already been made of the latest phenomenon: the press-ganging of school leavers. No fewer than 65,000 of them were conscripted into the army, according to the Foreign Minister of Sudan. He makes the excuse that only 1 per cent. of them complained. That is 650 children who were conscripted violently into the army against their will. I take a serious view of that. It led to large demonstrations in October in Khartoum which were viciously repressed by the state.
Sudan is prepared to engage in dialogue with the international human rights agencies, and an extension of this transparency so as to allow unrestricted access of NGOs and reporters to the whole country would be very welcome as a further contribution towards peace. There is still some distance to go but I hope that the difficulties which stand in the way of a genuine peace will be resolved through the continuation of the IGAD process, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, mentioned, and through careful attention by the government to the advice given by the Special Rapporteur, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Commission and all the thematic rapporteurs.
6.20 p.m.
Lord MoynihanMy Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for initiating this debate. I congratulate too the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Bradford on his maiden speech, a moving, sincere and eloquently expressed contribution that appeared spontaneous whatever text he may have

1229
had in front of him. It was, if I may say so, deeply sensitive in respect of all the people caught up in the Sudanese crisis.
From the contributions we have heard today it is apparent that we are talking more about a tragedy than about a country. The heart of the tragedy is a state which promised prosperity to its people when it was founded but is now racked by civil war, natural disasters and both political and economic failure. The two most recent events to affect Sudan are the failure of the recent peace talks to secure an end to the civil war in the south and the decision by the United States to impose sanctions on the government. If I may, I shall come to those issues later.
I am pleased that today's debate asks us to take note of Sudanese history and Britain's contribution to it. Many of the geostrategic decisions taken in the past have a continuing validity today. In many respects, for the United Kingdom then you could substitute the United States and the United Nations now. Britain was drawn to the Sudan because of our relationship with Egypt. The stability and well being of Egypt is as important to the western world now as it was when Britain first ventured there to defeat Napoleon. In 1821 all the northern and central districts of the Sudan were taken under Egyptian control and the country, as we know it today, took shape.
When British interests were threatened by a nationalist coup in Egypt the government bombarded Alexandria, defeated the Egyptian army at Tel-el-Kebir in 1882 and effectively took over the running of the country. With the government of Egypt came responsibility for the Sudan, and in the Sudan there was a popular religious-based uprising against the Egyptian government led by the Mahdi. The first British response was one which we have all heard before: depart and leave them to get on with it. The Liberal Government of the day dithered—today we would say that they were carrying out a review of their Sudanese policy—and as a result British forces embarked too late on one of those heroic but futile campaigns for which politicians rightly receive the blame.
However, Sudan's strategic position means that the country cannot and must not be ignored, let alone the humanitarian consequences, which should come first. The actions then of the Mahdist government, which included attempted invasions of both Ethiopia and Egypt, brought home this fact. So too did the scramble for African colonies and the widespread belief that France was going to seize control of the Nile waters, holding Egypt to ransom. These were the spurs for the Anglo-Egyptian invasion and indeed the conquest of Sudan, which culminated in the battle of Omdurman, so vividly described by Sir Winston Churchill in his book The River War.
The theme then, as in today's debate, is that the combination of instability and tyranny in the Sudan is not in anyone's interest. I hope the Minister will agree with this analysis and renew the pledge of the previous government to work for a settlement between Sudan and its neighbours and indeed within the country itself. One of the key problems for the Sudan is that the vast
1230
cultural differences between the north and the south seem unbridgeable. The predominantly Arab-Moslem north and the primarily black non-Moslem south had been carefully isolated from one another, not least by the British, but are now expected to work together in the new state. It is an academic question to ask whether the task to find an acceptable constitutional compromise would have been easier if the Sudan had stuck to a democratic system of government and the rule of law. However, the succession of military governments and authoritarian regimes has deprived the people of the Sudan of the opportunity to test the theory. The tragically divisive decision by Nimeri in 1983 to introduce the Sharia—Moslem law—was another example to the southerners of perceived northern arrogance and this, alongside regional and tribal grievances, re-ignited the civil war.
What has come through this debate to me is the fact that the civil war is a complicated mosaic of competing interests and personalities. One good omen is that the Government of the Sudan and the rebels have both indicated that they are unlikely to achieve a military solution. However, as the recent negotiations show, that does not mean that they can break the military stalemate with a political settlement which suits all sides. Matters are further complicated by the fact that the rebels themselves are divided. There are those who support a unified secular Sudan and those whose aim is secession. It becomes even more bizarre to me when leading secessionists are now allied with the Khartoum Government to pursue a vendetta against rival southern factions.
The key division is between those who believe that the Sudanese Government is sincere in offering a federal constitution and guarantees for the participation of southerners in federal institutions and security arrangements and those who do not. No fewer than six factions signed up to a peace agreement with the government earlier this year; but two of the most influential, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement and the umbrella National Democratic Alliance have reportedly not. I would be grateful if the Minister could give more details of the recent talks in Kenya between the SPLA and the government. Can she confirm that the stumbling block was not the Sharia but the Khartoum Government's opposition to a confederal constitution for Sudan, and can she give the Government's view of the sincerity of the Khartoum Government's proposals?
The next complication is international. When the Sudan People's Liberation Movement and the National Democratic Alliance launched their offensives this year they did so from Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda. They did so with support from those countries. In return, the Ugandans allege that the Sudanese Government is backing the somewhat inappropriately named Lords Resistance Army. Wars by proxy are unpleasant and destabilising and they make the resolution of what was a civil war even more difficult. In Sudan the opposition is certainly divided—to the point that some opposition leaders talk of the complete disintegration of the Sudan, following in the wake of Somalia. That would be a

1231
major disaster for Africa as a whole. It is not in our interests or those of the continent to create new fault-lines for potential conflict and instability.
However, the sad experience of Somalia is still fresh in people's minds and there is no appetite for intervention. That is probably for the good, and I am sure the Minister will agree that the United Nations should not intervene because it does not have the consent of the warring factions and because straightforward intervention under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter would be untenable in logistical terms.
So what should the United Kingdom's role be in all this? As was pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, the previous government championed the 1994 European Union arms embargo and tried to help the peace process by using the Intergovernmental Authority on Development's Partners Forum. One of the problems of IGAD is that it contains many of the countries which the Government of Sudan complain of invading it. Therefore does the Minister agree that confidence-building measures should be the first steps and, once they are agreed and implemented, that a complete ceasefire in the region should be the next?
The humanitarian crisis has dominated your Lordships' debate, and it is right that it has. It will not have escaped the House's notice in the context that the political initiative is based on IGAD, which is a development authority. This shows how desperate the economic situation in the Sudan is and how long it has gone on. The economic infrastructure of southern Sudan is in ruins because of the civil war, while the northern part of the country is ravaged by inflation and commodity shortages. Millions of people are dependent on aid as their lives are disrupted by the war. Some have livestock stolen and crops destroyed, while others are forced to flee the fighting and live as refugees. All of this is on top of the challenges of farming in a region which is prone to drought and desertification.
The previous government suspended all but emergency aid for the Sudan in 1991. I very much hope that the Government will continue this policy and will ensure that the aid is disbursed by NGOs and the United Nations' "Operation Lifeline Sudan". Can the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to increase the current levels of humanitarian assistance to this region? Can the Minister also say what steps are being taken to ensure that aid is not used as a tool of war by the different factions as they manipulate the flow of aid to complement their military strategies?
Even if an end to the war can be achieved, there remains much to be done before the Government of the Sudan can shake off their pariah status. Everyone agrees that freedom of speech and religion is seriously restricted in Sudan. Amnesty International is rightly outspoken in its condemnation of the Khartoum Government, which it says runs a policy of,
"detention without charge or trial and the ill treatment of political prisoners in the North—
Can the Minister confirm that hundreds of political opponents of the government have been imprisoned in this way, with the most recent mass detentions taking
1232
place at the beginning of this year? Will the Minister also take advantage of the debate today to join me in praising the work of organisations such as Amnesty International which campaign for the release of these prisoners?
The Sudanese Government's actions should remind the House of the real nature of the regime. The presidential and parliamentary elections held in 1996 were not free or fair. Does the Minister agree that the most serious abuses of human rights are related to the civil war and that there is overwhelming evidence that both the government and rebel forces are using brutal methods to achieve their aims?
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, a special rapporteur from the UN Commission on Human Rights investigated reported abuses and recently reached some conclusions. I will not rehearse the rapporteur's recommendations, which were so ably and competently outlined to the House by the noble Lord this evening. Can the Minister tell us the Government's position on those conclusions and update the House on the rapporteur's most recent work?
The question of terrorism and United States sanctions is very important and well known to the House. British trade with the Sudan is small, but has the Minister received representations from British firms doing business in the Sudan? Can she confirm that they will not be penalised at a later stage by the US Government should those firms conduct business in the United States?
I believe that this debate has served a useful purpose. It has enabled many Members of this House to show their deep commitment to the Sudan and its people. I pay tribute, for example, to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who has worked tirelessly to bring the world's attention to the country and its sufferings.
I remind the Minister that the UN General Assembly resolution sponsored by Britain and condemning the Sudan has not, to my knowledge, been tabled. It would be a strange turn of events for a government who inform the world of their foreign policy with an ethical dimension at its centre to forget to condemn the Khartoum Government in the way that their predecessors did.
Finally, we all hope that one day we shall be able to send messages of congratulations to a democratic, peaceful and stable country. In the meantime it is incumbent on the Government to continue to work with international partners to bring relief to those who are suffering, to help pave the way towards the resolution of the civil war and to let the Khartoum Government know that we shall keep up the pressure until it accepts democracy and respects human rights.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, I too add my thanks to those of other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for introducing the debate this evening. I also add my congratulations to those extended to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford on his very fine maiden speech. I thought it was clear-sighted and compassionate—two highly

1233
prized virtues in speeches in your Lordships' House. I am sure that we all look forward to many more such powerful and impressive contributions from the right reverend Prelate in the future.
The current situation in Sudan is tragic and complex, but regrettably not new. Nor is the suffering in that country new. The revolt by much of the south of the country, Christian, Muslim and Animist, against the north has, in its latest incarnation, lasted now for 14 years. Today, the main southern rebels, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, control much of the south. There is a general expectation that they will soon try to capture Juba, the principal city of the south. That may well unleash further human suffering in a region which has already seen too much of it.
The revolt in the south was sparked by Nimeri's abolition of the south's regional government and the imposition of Sharia law, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. But its roots lay in the persistent refusal of the north of Sudan to treat the south of the country fairly, going back to the time of independence.
The conflict has been complicated, first, by tribal and other divisions between southerners, and also by the coup which brought the current regime to power. The parties of the previous democratically elected government have formed, with the Sudan People's Liberation Army, the National Democratic Alliance, of which your Lordships' House has often heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. The National Democratic Alliance has undertaken military operations against the current Sudanese Government in eastern Sudan. The conflict has thus become more than simply north versus south, although it was never really that.
There have, of course, been a number of attempts to stop the war. The most recent initiatives have been on two tracks. The Inter-Governmental Authority for Development, as it is now called, launched an initiative in September 1993 to mediate an end to the civil war in southern Sudan. Five meetings with the parties were held in 1994 and two in 1995. In May 1994 IGAD adopted a Declaration of Principles for the settlement of the conflict, including the right of self-determination for all Sudanese and separation between religion and state. The Government of Sudan rejected the Declaration of Principles. The previous administration, along with the governments of the Netherlands, Norway, Italy and the United States, formed the Friends of IGAD to support IGAD's efforts.
The IGAD process ground to a halt in May 1995 in the face of the Sudanese Government's rejection of the Declaration of Principles. The Friends of IGAD, and latterly the IGAD Partners Forum, has continued to encourage the IGAD process but has not attempted to replace it. The IGAD Partners Forum has repeated the offers of material assistance to the IGAD secretariat.
The Government of Sudan has meanwhile pursued a separate track of "peace from within". In April 1996 it signed a political charter with a number of the smaller southern armed groups. It followed this with the Khartoum Peace Agreement of April 1997 to which the
1234
noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred. That agreement promises respect for human rights and a referendum on self-determination after an interim period of four years.
Under military and diplomatic pressure, in July of this year the Government of Sudan agreed to renewed IGAD talks on the basis of the IGAD Declaration of Principles. The first round of such talks was held in Kenya from 29th October to 11th November. A further session is scheduled for next April, with contacts continuing in the meantime. I was asked during the course of the debate whether we had to wait until April next year. I assure your Lordships that the contacts are continuing between November and April.
We believe that the regional approach offers the best chance of a comprehensive settlement to the conflict in Sudan that the people of Sudan need so much. I say "a comprehensive settlement" because the conflict in Sudan is about more than north versus south. A number of ethnic groups, including the Nuba and Beja, have joined the struggle against Khartoum. A settlement that did not take into account their position and that of the other parties in the National Democratic Alliance would be unsatisfactory. The Government therefore continue to support firmly the IGAD process.
My honourable friend the Minister of State made clear our welcome for the renewed talks in the IGAD framework on 30th September. We were a party to the EU statement of welcome and encouragement at the start of the talks. We have been in touch with the parties to those talks, urging that they approach the talks constructively and in good faith. We applaud the renewed engagement of President Moi and the Kenyan Government in the search for peace in the Sudan.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, said that he is a supporter of the peace agreement signed in Khartoum in April. Indeed, he has organised, as he said, a seminar to promote that agreement, to be held tomorrow. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked for the Government's views.
I agree that the April peace agreement contains some positive language. Those southerners who have signed it believe that it offers a good settlement, with a referendum on independence after four years, as the noble Lord indicated. But it is not yet an agreement with the Government's main opponent. The SPLA prefer to negotiate through the IGAD process. That caution is perhaps understandable in the light of the history of disappointed hopes from other peace initiatives.
The British Government and the international community viewed the April agreement with interest. But we have yet to be sufficiently convinced by the April agreement to advocate it warmly. The Government made it clear to the Government of Sudan that the parties to that agreement must implement its provisions on human rights and improve its treatment of southerners if they wish to convince the international community that their intentions are genuine rather than tactical. Unfortunately, we remain to be convinced.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, asks also about the historic links between the United Kingdom and the Sudan. There remains, an abiding affection in Sudan for the UK and concern about our opinion; continuing links

1235
of history and language that should make us natural partners. In the United Kingdom there is a continuing interest and concern for the Sudanese people, as your Lordships' contributions this evening have evidenced. That can be seen in the activities of the many Church groups interested in the Sudan; in the continuing efforts of the Sudan Pensioners Association to raise funds for the Sudan over 40 years after independence; and in the large mailbag about human rights and the civil war in Sudan which my department receives in spite of limited media coverage on the subject.
But such relationships, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us, are primarily about peoples, not necessarily about governments. We would be betraying the trust of the majority of the Sudanese people, who have not chosen their government, if our relationship with the government of Sudan was uncritical. I must say frankly to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that to do so we would have to ignore our grave concerns and those of many noble Lords who have spoken in our debate this evening about the human rights abuses in Sudan, north and south, and about the Sudanese Government's refusal to countenance multi-party democracy; about that government's involvement with terrorist groups and regional insurgencies that threaten its neighbours; and about the aggressive way that the government of Sudan has pursued the civil war.
We cannot do that. We have made clear our concern about those issues and our need to see real improvements if bilateral relations are to improve. Our concerns are shared by our EU partners: there is an EU arms embargo on Sudan and EU partners have joined us in co-sponsoring resolutions on human rights in Sudan at the United Nations.
But there is no question that we have in any sense abandoned Sudan. We maintain an Embassy in Khartoum where our Ambassador works hard to maintain links and also to report and lobby on human rights issues. There is a British Council office and library in Khartoum. There is a Department for International Development providing relief assistance to those in greatest need in Sudan, north or south.
Indeed, the United Kingdom is one of the biggest donors, giving £135 million to Sudan and Sudanese refugees through Operation Lifeline since 1991. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked whether we intended to increase that aid. We are willing to consider increases, should they be necessary, and are supporting the interventions through a number of NGOs mentioned in your Lordships' House this evening, particularly Oxfam, Care, the British Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières. We will continue to keep that under review.
Moreover, a senior official from my department visited Sudan in July for discussions with the Sudanese both for and against the government. We keep open links also with the Sudanese opposition. My honourable friend the Minister of State has, in the past seven months, met former Prime Minister Sadiq al Mahdi and NDA leader Muhammed Osman al Mirghani as well as the Sudanese Ambassador. And we maintain links with NGOs with an interest in Sudan and with the UN Commission for Human Rights about the proposal to establish a UN human rights monitors in Sudan.
1236
The United Nations Security Council last year introduced visa restrictions on members and officials of the Sudanese Government and of its armed forces. We have abided conscientiously by those restrictions. We of course make exceptions for humanitarian and compassionate reasons; and to facilitate contacts designed to bring about an end to the civil war. The historical relationship means that those targeted by the sanctions are sometimes particularly anxious to travel to London. Our implementation of the UN restrictions means that they cannot. That is not a negation of the historical relationship. Rather it is both an example of the importance we attach to the Security Council and a mark of the seriousness with which we take state involvement with terrorism.
Many noble Lords mentioned sanctions. The UN sanctions on Sudan are diplomatic and visa sanctions. There is no humanitarian impact. The case for an end to the sanctions rides solely on the issue of compliance. The Government of Sudan have complied neither with the demands to hand over three suspects nor, substantively, with demands that they cease support to terrorism.
We heard conflicting views from the noble Lord, Lord McNair, on the one hand, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, among others, on the other in relation to persecution of Christians and the possibilities of the Government of Sudan being involved with slavery. There is perhaps a way that we will get a little closer to the truth where we might all be able to use the same text. We remain concerned about the repeated refusal of the Government of Sudan to allow access to a number of locations in Sudan. The UK strongly supports the efforts of the UN to continue to press the Government of Sudan to lift their restrictions and allow humanitarian assistance to be delivered to all people in Sudan who are in urgent need. That would have the added merit of ensuring that we were able to see first hand what is really going on in relation to some of the points where your Lordships' House has not been able to agree.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked a number of questions. I am afraid the clock is against me and perhaps I may reply to the noble Earl in writing on the important points he raised on Kenya and the effect of sanctions on humanitarian aid, though I believe I was able to cover some of those in my reply so far.
The noble Lord's Question is wide-ranging, but in essence he would like Her Majesty's Government to be more sympathetic to the Sudanese Government. We would certainly like to have political relations with Khartoum commensurate with the historical relationship between our two countries; but that is very difficult while the authorities in Khartoum pursue policies that are so much at odds with our legitimate concerns.
I stress that the Islamic nature of the government in Khartoum is not a problem: the Government are keen to build understanding between the West and the Islamic world. But the policies of the government of Khartoum towards their own citizens, and towards neighbouring countries, make it very difficult for us to build that stronger relationship.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before seven o'clock.