Lords Sitting of 18 July 1997

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

Plant Varieties Bill [H.L.]
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to implement the 1991 revisions to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants—or the UPOV Convention as it is commonly known. I understand that in the other place UPOV was described as a French acronym. In fact, boringly, it stands for the Union for the Protection of Varieties. At the same time, it will align the standards of protection offered by the UK national system of plant breeders' rights with those already available under the parallel, but separate, European Community plant breeders' rights regime established in September 1994.
Plant breeders' rights are a form of intellectual property, similar to patents, which enable plant breeders to obtain protection for new varieties and an income, through royalties, on their commercial exploitation. They are underpinned at international level by the UPOV Convention. The UK played a major role in the development of the first UPOV Convention, signed in 1961, and was a founder member of the union which it established.
A vibrant and successful plant breeding industry committed to investment in developing new, improved varieties is vital to the success of the UK agriculture industry and the nursery trade. A robust system of plant variety protection is essential to provide the necessary incentives to investment in plant breeding in this country.
The plant breeders' rights regime established by the 1964 Plant Varieties and Seeds Act implemented the first UPOV convention. But technology has moved on apace since 1964 and this was the driving force behind the revisions in the 1991 convention.
As well as enabling the UK to ratify the 1991 convention, the Bill will bring our national system of protection into line with that provided by the Community regime. Plant breeders have a choice between national systems of protection and the Community system which offers a right valid in all 15 member states. The Bill will put an end to the confusion which can arise when two systems which are different, but each of which have the same users (plant breeders, nurserymen, farmers and seed processors), operate side by side.
Before I turn to the detail of the Bill, when it was debated in another place some concerns were voiced about the safety and environmental impact of plant varieties developed by genetic modification. It is of
1122
course essential that these matters are addressed. This is why stringent statutory controls already exist which govern the release of all genetically modified organisms into the environment. But I should like to emphasise that this Bill is concerned only with plant breeders' rights. It does not have any implications for the regulation of releases of genetically modified plant varieties.
The statutory controls on releases, which include releases of genetically modified plant varieties, are quite separate from the Bill. Their effect is that a consent must be issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment, if the release is in England, or the Secretaries of State for Scotland or Wales, as appropriate, each acting jointly with the Minister of Agriculture in matters of joint interest, before any genetically modified organism can be released into the environment. No consent can be issued without the agreement of the Health and Safety Executive.
The independent expert members of the statutory Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment—or ACRE as it is known—consider applications to release and market genetically modified organisms. ACRE advises Ministers whether a consent should be granted and which conditions should be attached to any consent. The Plant Variety Rights Office cannot undertake the tests necessary to establish whether a variety meets the criteria for plant breeders' rights unless and until the necessary clearance has been obtained. Nothing in the Bill alters or affects this position in any way.
Perhaps I could also emphasise that plant breeding is fundamentally about genetic change, whether that change is brought about through traditional methods of crossing and selection, or through genetic modification. The Bill does not favour or encourage one method of plant breeding over the other.
There are also concerns in some quarters about the development of genetically modified crops by multinational companies. There is an international dimension to plant breeding. This is recognised in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The WTO agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property requires member countries to protect plant breeders' rights by patents, or a separate effective system. The Bill provides an effective system of plant breeders' rights, but it does not favour one type of company over another. Instead, it seeks to provide the basis for plant breeders from large and small companies to obtain a fair return on their investments.
Specific concerns have also been raised about the development of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops and their management on the farm. MAFF published a discussion document on this subject on 10th July. This in my view is the more appropriate vehicle for dealing with this topic, not the Bill we have before us which is concerned only with intellectual property protection.
To turn to what is in the Bill, although it is a long one, many of its provisions do no more than re-enact and, where appropriate, clarify equivalent provisions from the 1964 Act. Given its length, I shall concentrate

1123
on describing the more fundamental changes it makes to the 1964 Act, rather than detaining the House with a clause-by-clause explanation of the detail.
The fundamental changes are in Clauses 6 to 10 which are about the scope of plant breeders' rights. The basic right in the 1964 Act is the exclusive right to sell propagating material of a protected variety, or produce propagating material for sale. The key change in Clause 6 is the much wider scope of things which a breeder can prevent others from doing with propagating material of a protected variety, without his authority. This includes, for example, any production or reproduction of propagating material, conditioning—which means preparing for planting—import, export and so on. Taken together, provisions in Clause 6(1) give the breeder control over all the things necessary to exploit a variety.
UPOV found it impossible to define "propagating material" in the 1991 Convention. The nature of plant material, and the technology, are such that a variety may be propagated from a much wider range of material than seeds or cuttings. Plant material which is commonly disposed of as the final product may be used as propagating material. For example, tissue culture techniques mean that a plant of a vegetatively propagated variety may be obtained from a cut flower. A whole plant or bush which is sold to the public may alternatively be used as propagating material to produce more plants. The Bill, like the 1991 convention, does not include a definition of propagating material - any material which is actually used as propagating material is propagating material for the purposes of Clause 6(1).
The breeder can authorise others to undertake any of the acts in Clause 6(1), and may make his authority subject to conditions. This is the basis for plant breeders' rights licences, which are the means whereby the breeder gives permission to others to exploit the variety, subject to payment of a royalty, while at the same time retaining overall control of it.
The control which the breeder has over his variety is-as with other forms of intellectual property-wide ranging, but it is not unlimited. Acts done for private, non-commercial purposes or to breed another variety, for example, do not come within the breeder's control. Above all, the breeder must act reasonably in taking commercial decisions on whether to issue licences and on what terms. If he does not do so, the controller has powers to issue a compulsory licence and to set the terms, provided that it is in the public interest.
In normal circumstances, as Clause 10 makes clear, the breeder's right is exhausted once propagating material is disposed of with his consent to produce a commercial crop. However, if material sold with the breeder's authority for a purpose which results in exhaustion of rights is used for another purpose, then the breeder's right may not be exhausted. For example, if a finished pot plant is used as source material for vegetative propagation of further plants, then the breeder's right is not exhausted.
The ability of the breeder to take action against infringement of his rights has been strengthened by extending his rights to harvested material which has
1124
been obtained from the unauthorised use of propagating material in those circumstances where the breeder has not had a reasonable opportunity to exercise rights against the propagating material before the point at which it is harvested.
(My Lords, when reading a brief such as this, I have the feeling that the original Sanskrit was probably easier to understand!)
The Bill also includes an optional provision from the 1991 Convention which allows Ministers to extend rights, by regulations, to specific products made directly from harvested material of particular types of varieties which have been obtained through unauthorised use of propagating and harvested material where the breeder has not had reasonable opportunity to exercise his rights at an earlier stage. I should add that Ministers will use the discretion to extend rights to directly made products only where they are satisfied that plant breeders are suffering significantly from pirating of a particular group of varieties with special properties of value, for example, for industrial use.
I should like to emphasise that the extension of rights to enable a breeder to act against harvested material and, where provided for in regulations, directly made products does not give plant breeders a choice between acting against propagating or consumption material. The breeder must always act against infringement of his rights at the earliest possible stage. The most obvious instance where a breeder might not have reasonable opportunity to exercise rights at an earlier stage is unauthorised use of propagating material outside the UK, in a country which does not offer protection to it, followed by an import of the harvested material or, possibly, a product made directly from the harvested material.
Clause 7 extends the breeder's right in a protected variety to encompass a second variety dependent on it. The 1964 Act already recognises that there is a form of dependency in production of hybrids which can only be obtained through repeated use of parent lines. The concept of essential derivation, however, is a new one, introduced to address developments in plant breeding technology.
It can take many years and a heavy financial investment to develop a commercially successful new variety using traditional breeding techniques. Newer techniques in plant breeding, or natural mutations, may result in very small changes to a protected variety in a relatively short time. The change may be only one characteristic of no commercial significance, but it may be freely commercialised in competition with the initial variety, without any acknowledgement of the contribution made by the latter.
Clause 7 provides that where the resultant change is sufficient to make the second variety distinct, but in all other respects the second variety expresses the same characteristics as the initial protected variety, then it may be essentially derived from the initial variety. Clause 7 extends the umbrella of protection in the initial variety to cover the essentially derived variety. In consequence, the breeder of the initial variety has the right to prevent anyone doing any of the acts in Clause

1125
6 in respect of the essentially derived variety. In other words—and your Lordships will be waiting for this!—he can prevent its commercial exploitation.
This enables the breeder of a protected variety to obtain a fair return on his investment. In practical terms, those working on a breeding programme which may result in an essentially derived variety can be expected to reach agreement on its commercialisation with the owner of the initial variety, otherwise there would be little point in their work. I can tell your Lordships that I did not expect a laugh a line while reading this speech!
I have already touched on the exceptions to the breeder's right in Clause 8 which enable the use of protected varieties for private, or other non-commercial purposes, or for experiments, or in a breeding programme. These are compulsory exceptions in the 1991 convention.
The 1991 convention also allows contracting states to restrict the breeder's right in respect of farm-saved seed, subject to safeguarding the legitimate interests of the breeder. I know that several noble Lords are interested in that aspect. Income from royalties is essential to encourage continued investment in UK plant breeding. Use of farm-saved seed without payment denies breeders income from their investment and restricts their ability to invest further in development.
In broad terms, Clause 9 exempts the use of farm-saved seed of species or groups prescribed in regulations from the breeder's right. But farmers who save seed of a protected variety or an essentially derived variety are liable to pay the breeder for that use. A similar provision permitting farmers to use farm-saved seed without the breeder's prior permission is in the Community regime and UK plant breeders have been collecting payment for the use of farm—saved seed of Community protected varieties since last autumn.
Ministers intend to exempt from the breeder's right all those species and groups which may be farm saved under the Community regime. Farmers will therefore be able to farm save seed of these species for use on their own holdings without the breeder's authority. But unless they come into one of the exempt categories, this will be balanced by a requirement to pay the breeder "equitable remuneration" which is "sensibly lower" than the royalty charged on certified seed of the same variety in the same area.
The requirement to pay will apply to varieties protected under the 1964 Act, as well as new varieties which come into protection after the Bill comes into force. But small farmers as defined in the Community regime are permanently exempt from the requirement to pay. There is a further exemption for farmers who have saved seed of a particular variety before the Bill comes into force, who may continue to save that variety, free of charge, until such time as Ministers discontinue this provision by order.
A similar "prior use" exemption is in the Community regime. This expires on 30th June 2001, though the Council regulation makes it clear that this date is subject to review in the light of a report which the Commission
1126
is required to make before then, and may he extended on a variety, group or species basis, depending on the findings in the report.
It is our intention to discontinue the prior use exemption at the same time as the corresponding provision in the Community regime is discontinued. This will not be before 30th June 2001, which means that the majority of farmers who have saved seed of older UK protected varieties before this Bill comes into force may continue to do so free of charge until 30th June 2001.
When the Bill was debated in another place, there was some concern at the absence of any reference in the Bill to the 30th June 2001 date. The reason for this, as my honourable friend the Minister of State made clear, is to ensure that the prior use exemption will not expire on 30th June 2001 if the corresponding date in the Community regime is extended.
Nevertheless, we recognise the concerns that have been raised on this point. The Government will therefore bring forward an amendment at Committee stage to put the 30th June 2001 date on the face of the Bill. I hope this will reassure farmers who save seed that they may continue to use varieties they currently save, free of charge, until that date. I understand, too, that the British Society of Plant Breeders has publicly stated that it does not propose to collect any payment on older UK protected varieties before 30th June 2001. I welcome this assurance.
I know that some sectors of the industry, particularly those representing the mobile seed cleaners, are concerned at the prospect of Ministers discontinuing the prior use exemption at any time in the future. It remains our intention to discontinue the exemption at the same time as the corresponding provision is removed in the Community regime. I hope the assurances I have given, combined with the amendment we shall bring forward in Committee which ensure the exemption will continue until at least 30th June 2001, will also give them some reassurance.
As regards level of payment, this is for breeders and farmers to negotiate, taking account of the requirement that the charge must be "sensibly lower" than the royalty on certified seed. The Bill gives guidance on what is meant by "sensibly lower" by reference to the Community regime. But it does not put any figure on it, and indeed the Government do not intend to intervene in what we believe are essentially commercial matters between breeders and farmers. I am impressed at the constructive way in which representatives of breeders, farmers and seed processors approached the farm-saved seed issue when it was first broached for Community protected varieties. I hope a similar constructive approach will prevail with this extension of the farm-saved seed provisions to UK protected varieties.
As your Lordships will realise, this is an extremely technical measure but it is of considerable importance to the agriculture and horticulture industries. I am aware that the National Farmers Union, the National Association of Agricultural Contractors and the British Association for the Representation of Breeders and others have views about particular aspects of the Bill.

1127
Because of the very technical nature of the Bill, I am more than happy to meet colleagues from all parts of the House with officials to discuss any relevant matters before we reach Committee stage after the Recess.
That brings me to the end of the most significant elements of this somewhat technically complex Bill. To summarise, it sets the framework for a national system of plant variety protection which should provide the basis for a healthy UK breeding and farming industry in the years to come. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Carter.)
11.25 a.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, your Lordships may be surprised to know that this is not the Royal Variety Show! I welcome this Bill with one exception. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has spoken of the negotiations which took place some time ago concerning the EU law relating to seeds and in particular to farm-saved seeds. As a MAFF Minister at that time, I was involved in the many discussions regarding that subject.
The principle that holders of plant variety rights are entitled to royalties was agreed as a result of the UPOV Convention of 1991 and by the European Union in the European Directive 8167/94 on 1st September 1994.
The directive also allows exemptions from royalty for small farmers, and limits the rights to newer varieties only. Difficult trade negotiations decided rates of royalty and collection methods. The royalty-free status of older varieties was an important element in those negotiations.
Clause 9(3) of the Bill seeks to extend the royalty scheme to all protected varieties, including the older ones which do not enjoy such protection under the European scheme. I am advised by such organisations as the National Association of Agricultural Contractors that that provision will destroy a cornerstone of the trade agreement. The agreement in relation to rates of royalty and collection methods worked smoothly in 1996–97 and is about to enter its second year. This new provision will upset the balance of market forces which helped to determine overall royalty rates. It will increase farmers' costs and erode hard-won confidence in certain sectors, particularly, I am told, among farmers in the north of England and in Scotland.
I know that I am a dumb bunny, but I must ask whether the government amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred, ensures that the exemption for older varieties remains; in particular, that no variety registered before December 1991 should, for the rest of its protected life—25 years in total—be liable for royalties when used as farm-saved seed.
I mention 25 years because, with older varieties, a minimum of six years and a maximum of 24 years has already expired. Large-scale use is usually limited to about 8 to 10 years. The exemption for older varieties would minimise the effect on breeder income. If the Government's amendment does not fulfil my criterion
1128
I am afraid that, in my view, it will not be adequate. I await with anticipation the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
11.29 a.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to speak on a subject on which I am not normally known to speak. However, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on a right tour de force, frankly. I met my noble friend Lord Donoughue this week and asked him why he would not be dealing with this matter today. He said that he had a much more difficult job; that is, visiting the farmers and fishermen of Cornwall. Having heard my noble friend's tour de force this morning, I am not sure who drew the short straw.
I am no agricultural specialist and I am not an expert on genetically modified organisms. But I have concerns about some parts of this Bill from a competition and environmental point of view. At first sight, the Bill appears to be fairly non-contentious and highly technical. But having had some matters drawn to my attention—I have received a number of papers from different organisations and representations about the potential consequences of the legislation—I feel it is necessary to voice two concerns.
First, the Bill appears likely to encourage a concentration of the seed market into a few multinationals, creating what I see as possible monopoly situations. That would also tie the seed market into the use of specific fertilisers and weedkillers from the same manufacturers.
Secondly, in encouraging farmers to buy seeds which may well require regular chemical treatment—weedkillers or fertilisers—the measure is likely to increase ground and water pollution. To reduce the variety of plants promoted to be grown would seem to contravene commitments made at the Rio Summit a few years ago.
I start off with the question: why is the Bill necessary? Why is it so urgent, and who stands to gain and lose from its coming into force? What are the likely consequences of its coming into force and are those very different from the consequences if it did not? It seems to me that it has been put together in rather a rush, with all the stages in another place taking place on the same day.
My noble friend the Minister said that a successful plant breeding industry committed to improving varieties is vital to the success of UK agriculture, and the industry needs incentives to invest. Very laudable objectives, but what difference will the Bill really make, and do we need it anyway? Are we short of food? I do not believe that we are in the UK, nor indeed in Europe. Since the last war there has been a fourfold increase in food production and efficiency in the agricultural industry. If there are food shortages in other parts of the world—and there certainly seem to be—I believe that they are caused more by war or other problems than by lack of agricultural support.
In Europe we still suffer from serious overproduction of food, at present bolstered by the CAP. In my view, that is a very good reason for the European Commission

1129
to propose a wholesale change to the CAP before further members join from the East. Indeed, I believe that it would probably be better to abolish the CAP completely and put some of the money saved directly into the countryside and the regions.
I was interested to read an article in yesterday's Independent which said:
"As for the CAP as a tool of environmental protection, that is risible. It is a scheme for subsidising over-production and. in certain areas, that has meant the ruthless exploitation of land for a single crop".
Strong words indeed. So we already subsidise overproduction, and this Bill seems to be designed to encourage new types of seed, which will only exacerbate the situation, as well as reducing the diversity of plant life.
Do we need new types of seed, perhaps genetically engineered? How quickly must they be introduced, if at all, and what enforcement of checks is available? Those are some of the key questions. I understand that, whereas a few years ago crop varieties were mainly developed by plant breeding stations with government finance, both across Europe and here, they are now developed by multinationals. It is great to get the private sector involved. However, when the American company, Monsanto, claims that it will be the main provider of agricultural technology in the future, and Rhone Poulenc and Merck MSDA have merged to become the world's largest poultry genetics and health business, one can be quite clear as to who stands to gain from the Bill and the relevant EU legislation. These companies control the research, the development, the marketing, the sales and what one might euphemistically call, "the after-sales service", which seems to comprise the sale of essential chemicals and the collection of royalties for farm-saved seed.
Consequently, the amount of independent research has fallen and is falling; the companies no doubt employ the best scientists, but are they able to discuss and debate their findings, their concerns and their conclusions openly and freely? Or are they gagged by their contracts with their employers? That is question which needs debating. If such companies bring efficiencies to the industry on such an unprecedented scale, one would expect that they might pass on some of them to the farmers, and might not worry too much if farmers continued to use a little farm-saved seed, on which they have already paid royalties. Figures I have received indicate that they sell seed barley at £320, whereas a farmer might sell his crop for £70. That is quite a mark-up for research and treatment. I quite understand why farmers might prefer to use last year's model of seed. They could argue that they have paid for the use of it once. Why should they not carry on as they choose? It might actually suit their land to continue to use that seed. I see a lack of competition appearing here. I suspect that the manufacturers want the law tightened up so that they can control the market even more effectively.
More serious still, in my view, is the fact that these new genetically-engineered seeds—as an engineer, I do not like this use of the word "engineering"; but there we are, that is what the process is apparently called—are only likely to thrive if they are treated with the fertilisers and weedkillers manufactured by the companies that produces the seeds. The farmers may find that, if they choose products from another
1130
company, or none at all, they will have a disaster on their hands. So farmers are tied into one manufacturer's seed at possibly inflated prices, as well as his fertilisers and weedkillers, which have been genetically modified to keep other companies products away. Fertilisers and other chemicals become a requirement as opposed to an option.
Therefore, what are the likely environmental effects? The preamble to the Bill on page V says: "There are none". I am not sure that that is quite the whole story. My noble friend the Minister described it briefly, but I believe that we need to explore it a little further. It seems to me that the Bill is likely to cause an increase in the overall level of chemicals used on the soil. What happens to the soil, the runoff and the watercourses with all this? What are the other environmental effects? It appears that the Bill will also reduce biodiversity by encouraging the development of plants by fewer and fewer companies. Therefore, as I said earlier, it may contravene the Rio Convention—certainly in intent—as well as many other environmental policies to which both sides of the House—both parties and both governments—have been committed for some time. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can let me know in due course what work has been done to study the possible effects of such new, genetically modified organisms on the watercourses and water supplies.
We have seen such a situation before with nitrates pollution. I do not wish to dwell on that issue, but there was a lot of argument that nitrates were essential for food production; indeed, they may well have been, but the problems still remain and no one is paying much towards the clean-up. If we cannot be certain, should we rush ahead at quite such a break-neck speed to give the multinationals the legal comfort necessary to grasp hold of more of the market? Can we really be certain that the plants developed will not have a serious, adverse effect on the environment, because it is all happening so quickly? Further, can we monitor what is going on?
Can we monitor genetically-engineered maize? We have heard the American industry saying that it cannot be bothered to separate genetically from non-genetically engineered maize when it comes in for processing and saying, "If you don't like it, tough". When there was a shortage of food, one could understand some of these developments. However, whether one could accept it is a matter for debate. But do we need this increased food production now? Surely we need more environmentally-friendly farming with a system to enable farmers to make a decent living, without being forced by such measures to increase chemical application and increase pollution for no particular purpose? It certainly seems to me that some farmers do not want it, and there is mounting concern from many environmental groups. I believe that the Government said yesterday in another place that they wished to encourage organic farming, but how will that be achieved if the chemicals effectively become part of the new seed package?
I am not persuaded about the urgency of this measure. It may be fine for the UK to lead the rest of Europe—and I strongly support the Government's more positive working arrangements with European institutions—but,

1131
with that more positive arrangement, there is also the opportunity for constructive criticism which is equally valid.
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could tell me how many member states have ratified the 1991 revisions to UPOV. It would be interesting to consider the suggestion that this Government should not ratify until many other member states, perhaps all of them, have ratified it. I understand that several member states, including Italy and Luxembourg, have already banned genetically-engineered maize. Are they likely to ratify UPOV if they have already banned it?
I conclude by thanking the Minister for attempting to make me understand the Bill. Indeed, he tried very hard to do so and I understood most of what he said. However, I do have these environmental and competition concerns on which I look forward to hearing his comments.
11.40 a.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the Minister for making a complicated Bill understandable. I apologise for not having added my name to the list of speakers. That was an oversight. I shall speak within the four minutes that are allowed.
I wish to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just said. There are distinct worries about genetic engineering and about the concentration of seed companies which are genetically engineering seeds which will only react to their own fertilizers and sprays. That is an anti-competitive practice. However, at the same time we must also realise that without those seed companies and without the agrochemical industry we would not have been able to increase our food production to the point where, from an agricultural point of view, starvation need never occur. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, famines are caused by incompetent and greedy people. If a farmer is shot when he is planting his seeds he will not be able to return to harvest them. That is what causes famine, not the non-availability of proper, well thought out seed and fertilizer policies.
I wish to emphasise what I believe to be a danger of some of the genetically engineered plants. We may all be singing from the same hymn sheet in this regard. A document was sent to me which struck me so forcefully that I thought I should bring it to your Lordships' attention. It may not strictly appertain to the Bill but it is worth quoting. It states,
"The failure of a genetically engineered cotton crop in Texas which suffered a severe attack of boll worm which it was modified to resist; increased cyanide content in one potato variety; the lack of marker gene in modified soya due to a gene not staying on the chromosome on which it was placed, the allergenic effect on babies of honey produced from genetically engineered rape pollen;—
and this seems to me important—
"the spray resistant weeds produced by cross-pollination with a modified sugar beet and rape grown some distance away in the European Union trials are a few instances that illustrate the present problems that go with the technology of genetic engineering. In addition there is the inclusion of antibiotic resistant marker genes in genetically engineered crops. This can be passed on to the consumer producing bacteria resistance".
1132
We all know that bacteria are becoming progressively more and more resistant. I raise these points for the attention of your Lordships' House. The document came through the post. I believe it is worth while raising these points. The Government say that they are environmentally sensitive and I take that at its face value. I am talking about excellent companies here but the more power is concentrated in those companies, the more we have to be vigilant. It is a case of quis custodiet ipsos custodies—who guards the guards themselves? We must be careful about this matter. I hope that this three minute intervention has had a minor impact on the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
11.43 a.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I hope I may speak for one minute to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on his mastery of this extremely complicated Bill. As he said, the matter concerns intellectual property rights. If genetically modified plants had not been introduced by large companies, this Bill would not be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Onslow have clearly stated all the problems associated with genetically modified plants and the dangers that arise when spray resistant weeds are produced. The Soil Association and organic farmers are as concerned about this matter as those who have spoken today. I hope that we shall discuss those anxieties when we discuss the measure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned.
11.44 a.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the Bill. I assure him that, as with all great performers, it was not so much the jokes as the way in which he delivered them that was important.
This Bill forms part of the battlefield on which the transnational corporations are conducting their campaign to dominate the agriculture of the world. Noble Lords may think that that is an exaggerated way of putting a simple little Bill, so simple that the Government thought that they could get it through another place in 24 hours. Given their majority there, they thought rightly; but if they thought that they could get it through without protest they had another think coming.
Nor is the argument that this Bill is merely the implementation of European law a reason for not considering it carefully. No one has accused my party—at least for the past 40 years—of being anti-European but my colleagues in another place thought the Bill raised such difficult and unthought through issues that they voted against it on Second Reading. Unfortunately convention forbids my attempting to do the same here.
As the NFU has stated in a brief, the Bill should not only mirror EU legislation but should also reflect the considerable changes in commercial practice and market pressures which have occurred within the industry since the introduction of the plant varieties Act in 1964. My honourable friend the Member for

1133
Lewes, Mr. Norman Baker—what pleasure it gives me to deploy that unaccustomed phrase, "my honourable friend the Member for Lewes" —drew the attention of the House to the issues involved and tabled a number of amendments, as I may well do in your Lordships' House, following consultation with the National Farmers' Union, the Soil Association and Greenpeace. Noble Lords will note that is a wide spectrum of concerned bodies.
The seed business is big business. For instance, this year alone Monsanto has bought up three seed breeding and marketing companies for more than £1 billion. The Bill acts in some ways as a catalyst and facilitator for transnational companies to exert unprecedented control over the seed industry—a control which I consider unacceptable here in the developed world and positively appalling in the context of the third world where so many of the genetic resources are found, while the technology for the most part rests in the north. It has been said by the Minister that the whole question of genetically modified seed is not within the scope of the Bill. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others have shown that it is a matter which must be included. Therefore I intend to speak on it briefly. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time on something which is not a major part of the Bill but which I nevertheless consider is a part of it.
There is widespread concern about these matters in western Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke about the reservations of others of our European partners—for example, where there are bans on the planting of genetically modified maize. As the noble Lord said, one of the main reasons for the enormous investment is to produce genetically modified seed that is tied into the use of pesticides—and even to produce non-genetically modified seed that is tied into the use of pesticides—so that farmers are obliged to buy those companies' products. Some pesticide patents are due to end shortly; how convenient to be able to patent seeds that are dependent on such pesticides, thus giving them a new lease of life. Often this can be extremely dangerous. Roundup Ready soya may flourish, but the glyphosphate which is involved may pose a serious danger to all surrounding flora as well as to ladybirds and earthworms. Did your Lordships know that there are 32 distinct varieties of ladybird in this country? I advise noble Lords to read Gardening Which? this month which contains a fascinating article on the subject.
Another main reason is to enable the seed cartel to levy a sum on all farm-saved seed. It is indeed right that breeders and innovators be modestly rewarded for their work and be funded to pursue further work. But what is being engineered here are vast profits way beyond anything which could reasonably he called "earned", with rights being given to extend claims beyond 30 years and other rights being given to the ownership of seeds that occur naturally.
The greatest threat posed by this Bill is that it seems to be another step along the road of decline of genetic diversity—that was another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—one of the great threats to the sustainability of the planet. Quite apart from the monopoly problem, the environmental consequences of
1134
the fast move towards genetically modified crops gives cause for grave concern. The note attached to the Bill, which states that it has no environmental impact, is one of the most astonishing misstatements to have been placed before your Lordships' House by otherwise respectable civil servants.
First, there is the creation of a permanent reliance on pesticides. The Government have stated that they are committed to the support of organic farming, as we have been told and is welcomed. However, the Bill raises doubts as to whether there can be any guaranteed organic crops with the risk of airborne spread of material from genetically modified crops next door.
Secondly, there is a danger that a modified crop might become a devastating weed. Many of the traits that geneticists seek to engineer in crops are geared to dominance of and resistance to the normal controls of natural life.
The third environmental point is that there is a danger of increased pesticide residues in the crops of genetically engineered plants. Fourthly, there is the problem of marker genes which can cause resistance to antibiotics—already a problem. There are no end to the problems and the dangers. However, there is the ethical problem of the private ownership of genetic material which is encouraged by the Bill and which, I believe, is ethically unacceptable.
An important point made by the Minister was that the Committee stage will be after the Recess. If that is so, that is indeed welcome. From the speeches made, and the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I am sure that amendments can usefully be put down at Committee stage. We on these Benches will join in that process. With those major reservations, I welcome the Bill.
11.51 a.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we too welcome the Bill, having been the people who signed up to UPOV in the first place. We are delighted that the Government support UPOV to the extent of bringing forward the Bill. I hope that the Minister will confirm also that he supports the sister organisation, UPOHP—the Union for the Preservation of Hereditary Peers!
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we have three months between Second Reading and Committee stage. I believe that that will prove a useful period. The Bill follows legislation which lasted over 30 years. We expect the Bill to last over 30 years in its turn. Therefore the more consideration and care we can give to it the better. I shall ask the noble Lord a number of questions. I very much hope that he will not reply to many of them. I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to put forward anything in Hansard which will make our discussions over the next three months more difficult. I hope that he will merely confirm what he has already said: that he will be open to representations and will listen carefully to what we and others say to him.
Perhaps I may give some indication of the principal concerns we have at this stage, in no particular order. First, as the Minister said, it is probably impossible to define propagating material these days. It can be

1135
anything; it can be a single cell. One can imagine producing a Dollyanthus from a petal that one picked up in a florist shop. Under those circumstances, what is and is not propagating material becomes fuzzy. One can see a difference in the systems. With ornamentals, the breeder will retain control of the process to the point where the pot plant is sold to the supermarket. With grain, the breeder loses control rather earlier. He does not control the grain up to the point where it is sold to the miller but to the point where it is sold to the farmer. There is a propagative step which in conventional terms is outside the breeder's right.
It is a matter of concern to the National Farmers' Union that the Bill may be written in a way which, over time, will allow the multinationals to extend their control over the grain, potato and other trades—it has been achieved in horticultural and ornamentals practice—to the end point. If one has an integrated company, which includes millers or end users, it can enforce the sale of a product to a miller or end user. It can control the way that farmers farm. Farmers will wish to preserve the freedom to operate they now have. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, supports that aim in his heart. We shall have a happy time ensuring that the Bill allows that right to continue.
Clause 15 is an important safety valve. It allows the controller to insist that licences are granted. That provision is in current law. However, it has some deficiencies. If a farmer is arguing with a supplier of a specific variety, in particular if that supplier is, and increasingly will be, a large, widespread company—in farming it is likely to be an agricultural seed merchant or someone of that kind—he will have a wide range of business with the supplier. If that company says, "No, we shall not let you have that variety," and the farmer replies, "I shall stump off to the controller and obtain an order that we shall have it", he had better watch out for the remainder of his business with that supplier. There will be few cases where a supplier will wish to bring a case against the breeder or his agent to obtain supplies. He will usually be frightened off at a much earlier stage.
In essence Clause 15 protects the national interest. As I shall mention when considering other points, there are circumstances where it is important for the nation that plant varieties are properly licensed and available to farmers or whoever needs them. I shall propose that the right of appeal to the controller be extended to organisations which are able to seek from the controller a general ruling that a specific variety be licensed more widely or on more commercial terms. I do not specify any person to whom it should be licensed.
For example, it may be necessary for my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam to use a particularly old variety for organic farming because it is best for that purpose. But the company may wish to withdraw that variety because it wants its main customers, the farmers, to obtain a new variety which requires the use of its own insecticide or fertiliser. It is in the national interest that the old variety continues to be licensed. We want effective use of Clause 15. I am concerned that the old system—it is reproduced in the Bill—will not sufficiently meet the
1136 condition, well described by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, of increasing domination by multinationals.
I turn to farm saved seeds. We welcome the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. At first sight they meet the points raised. I shall be interested to hear his reply to my noble friend Lady Trumpington on that matter.
We wish to take a little further the phrase "sensibly lower". As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the phrase is now a year or two old. Through a series of tortuous negotiations, it has been expanded into a rather complex formula so that "sensibly lower" is dealt with variety by variety. However, we should like a reserve power in the Bill, intended never to be used but there in case things get out of hand, so that at no time over the next 30 years can multinationals, or whoever controls the seed trade, make unreasonable demands regarding "sensibly lower" and say that 95 per cent. is sensibly lower rather than the general figure which, I believe, is now 42 per cent. We should like some long-term protection to ensure that negotiations continue to be conducted on a reasonable basis.
Clause 11(2) puzzles us somewhat. It allows for the extension of plant breeders' rights beyond the 25 or 30 years, apparently without limit. The Government could decide to give a 150-year protection on a given variety without either consultation or limit. If the Government can justify having this power to grant enormous extensions, we wish to see the requirement for extensive consultation before that occurs. Alternatively, we wish to see the power limited to the figure of five years in the EC directive, under which circumstances we shall be happy for the Government to have the discretion without consultation.
Schedule 3 sets up the tribunal and states how it should work. The tribunal is composed of a chairman—who is clearly likely to be legally or similarly qualified and a "lay" person in the sense of not being involved in the seed industry—and one person who is likely to know the way round either side of a dispute. We are concerned that paragraph 7(1)(a) as written could mean that the person chosen, as it were, to represent the farmers (though "represent" is the wrong word) and having that kind of understanding might not necessarily command the confidence of farmers; that he or she might just be any academic or an agricultural consultant of no particular reputation. I should appreciate the Government's assurance, which is all that we seek, that the person chosen under paragraph 7(1)(a) will be someone expected to command the confidence of the farming or forestry community. We seek an assurance that that is the way in which the Government will seek to act.
A substantial point was raised, principally by the British association representing breeders (BARB) regarding traceability of product. The association is principally concerned with ornamentals. When dealing with farm product, there are controls on seed and the whole area is documented and controlled. That is not the case with ornamentals. We are dealing with a product of fundamentally higher value, one that can be produced,

1137
as it were, in secret and then reappear at any number of widely spread outlets such as garage forecourts or the displays of people on the side of the road selling cut flowers. A producer may suddenly find that his or her variety is being offered widely for sale without having any chance of discovering where it is coming from. People clearly do not want to be faced with proceeding against a large number of small operators; they want to find out who is behind the operation.
BARB, quite reasonably, seeks the same rights as breeders in relation to farm-saved seed; namely, the right to information, to find out where the produce is coming from, and then to take appropriate action against, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the lowest possible point in the chain. Without the right to information (this would also apply to farm-saved seed) enforcement becomes impossible. We should like to see the problem addressed in the Bill. France and Germany have offered that sort of protection—Germany, I am told, to the extent of making it a criminal offence to indulge in such activities. I do not see that that would be appropriate in this country; however, it shows that our competitors take the matter very seriously. If we try to enact a measure that is noticeably weaker, we may well find that, over time, the ornamentals breeding industry, which is very strong in this country, will tend to move elsewhere.
There would also be some useful applications in other fields. One matter raised with me by, for instance, the NFU, is that of the problems in the potato market where supermarkets have taken to insisting on a particular variety. The immediate response of the breeders or their agents has been an enormous hike in the costs of buying seed of that variety. That has led to a large black market developing among those who produce the seed, small ware, or whatever form it might take. People can plant without paying the royalty and make the operation very uneconomic for those who obey the rules. If the people who had the rights—breeders or their agents—knew that they could go to any outlet selling potatoes and end up knowing who had supplied them they would be in a much better position to insist that royalties were paid and might even persuade supermarkets to do what they do not do at present; namely, take the sensible step of making sure that payments required of the producers by the breeders are reasonable before the supermarkets specify that a particular variety is the only one that they will buy.
I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, my noble friend Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the general problems surrounding the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right: the Bill does not go far into that territory. However, there is a strong argument for making sure that the measures in the Bill do not inhibit our dealing with the real problems which may exist (I do not want to go further than that) and which have been outlined by noble Lords.
I return to Clause 15, which gives those in the industry some control over what breeders do with their rights. It is enormously important that old varieties are kept in the market and that we are not deprived of them and forced to use material that is heavily dependent on
1138
agrochemicals or, in particular, on farming practices which may be undesirable. It is likewise important, and another matter that we should pursue, that the country has access to the genetic material represented by the older, unmodified varieties in case we have to "back-track" and return to their use because of disadvantages unrecognised now but possibly presenting difficulties in the future.
I have received a helpful paper from MAFF on the work being done on genetic resources. It is clear that a good deal is being done, but in a rather ad hoc sort of way, and that the work could be wiped out by the Chancellor "blowing his nose too hard" on Budget Day. It would be a very good idea to anchor in the Bill an obligation to keep and preserve for a considerable length of time, certainly beyond the expiry of their paper rights, as it were, the genetic material of all varieties licensed in this country.
Finally, I turn to the Scottish question. The Bill incorporates the unusual term, "Ministers" rather than "Minister". I refer to Clause 46 of the Bill, where "the Ministers acting jointly" have to take action under the Bill. What will be the arrangement post-devolution? I do not really expect the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to be armed with an answer now; but we shall certainly expect an answer in Committee. We ought to anticipate the changes which may take place in this area. We should not leave the matter merely to be dealt with in a consequential amendment at the back end of some gigantic devolution Bill when such a Bill comes before us. We ought to consider it now.
12.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to your Lordships for this constructive and very wide-ranging short debate on a highly complex, technical Bill. I am beginning to understand why my noble friend Lord Donoughue was anxious to do the regional trip to Cornwall today and leave me to deal with this measure!
I believe that we all agree that the health of the plant breeding industry is fundamentally important to the future success and competitiveness of UK agriculture and the nursery trade. The debate wandered just a little wider than the Bill itself. I will deal with some of the questions raised; however, owing to the time and the fact that it is Friday, I will write to noble Lords with answers to the other points.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, asked whether the government amendment will permanently exempt the older varieties. I know that there is a problem here. I have already had discussions with the NAAC about this matter. At the moment, the Bill as drafted and the amendment that we shall bring forward in Committee will not meet the noble Baroness's point. I undertake to discuss the point with her and others between now and Committee stage since I know it gives rise to concern.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley asked: why is the Bill necessary? It was put together in something of a rush. The UPOV convention was signed by the UK in March 1991. This Bill is required in order to implement it.

1139
There was wide consultation during the development of the convention. Furthermore, the proposals in the Bill were widely circulated in November 1994. A draft Bill was published in February 1997. Therefore I do not believe that it has been rushed. New crops will be developed with or without the Bill. The importance of the Bill is that it will provide a basis for the development of varieties in the UK.
There was concern expressed by a number of noble Lords about the effect of GMOs, but this is not the place to go into that because the Bill has nothing to do with GMOs. However, there is clearly a need for a debate in this House on the subject. If noble Lords would like to suggest such a debate, I shall do my best through the usual channels to ensure that time is found for it. What one should understand is that GMOs will happen, with or without the Bill. I shall write to noble Lords about the checks which exist on the environmental effects and aspects of GMOs.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked how many states have ratified UPOV. I am told that Israel, Denmark and the Netherlands have implemented it and a number of other countries are well advanced in their preparations. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others made the point about the lack of diversity that could result from the development of GMOs on plant breeding and the concentration of the power of the plant breeder. Although I have already said that it is outside the scope of the Bill, it struck me when I was considering the Bill that biodiversity of the genotypes, certainly with cereal crops, is much wider than it used to be. When I started farming there was one variety of winter wheat which was Cappelle Desprez, there was one variety of spring barley which was Proctor, one variety of spring oats, S172—I am showing off here—and one variety of oilseed rape, Primor. They have long gone and there are now hundreds of varieties. It is true that some of the varieties are fairly close to others and one sometimes wonders whether they have been developed for marketing reasons. However, I honestly think—and I have had it checked—that we will find that the diversity of the cereal genotype is much wider than is generally recognised. There is another point about pesticides. One of the arguments for herbicide-tolerant GMOs is the fact that they require the use of less pesticide rather than more.
The point to remember is that the principle of royalty on plant breeding has long been recognised and the principle of the protection of intellectual property has also been recognised. All the Bill does is to put the two together. There was something of an element of conspiracy theory behind the remarks of my noble friend Lord Berkeley about the multinationals. I often wonder who is behind all these conspiracy theories!
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and others, were concerned that a few multinational companies would dominate the market and force farmers to use their pesticides. I touched on the question of multinational companies in my opening speech. We must recognise that plant breeding is an international activity and that many plant breeders have interests throughout Europe, North America and worldwide. The Bill does not alter
1140
that but it ensures that plant variety protection in the UK is as good as elsewhere, so that breeders can continue their important contributions, bringing forward new varieties which are suitable for UK conditions. It therefore provides a sound basis for investment in developing new varieties for the UK market, which is vital for the success of UK agriculture.
I was struck by the Latin quotation from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow: quis custodiet ipsos custodies. I think it can be freely translated as: who looks after those who look after the others? As Chief Whip, I should love to know.
A question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the extension of rights. Under the Community regime, rights can only be extended for up to five years for a particular species or group. The Bill allows Ministers to extend rights for any length of time. We agree that this open-ended provision is unnecessary. We shall bring forward an amendment at Committee stage which will provide that Ministers may extend rights to a maximum of five years for any specified species or group.
There was also a question on whether compulsory licences could be amended to enable an organisation such as the NFU to seek a compulsory licence on behalf of its members. I do not believe that we can agree with that. A compulsory licence has to be sought by a particular person. A provision enabling the controller to direct a breeder to make his variety more widely available to an undefined group would not be in keeping with the UPOV convention and would be interventionist in the extreme. If, for example, there were 10 growers who each submitted a compulsory licence application in respect of the same variety, there is nothing under Clause 15 which prevents the NFU, for example, from speaking on behalf of those 10 growers. In addition, Clause 23 makes specific provision for an organisation such as the NFU to make representations and applications for compulsory licences where the licence is issued by a breeders' organisation such as the BSPB. That right exists, regardless of whether an applicant for a compulsory licence asked for NFU assistance in preparing a case.
There was also a point about representation on the tribunal. The Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal has a chairman and one person drawn from a panel of individuals with a wide knowledge of agriculture, horticulture or forestry and one person with a specialised knowledge of a particular species or the seeds industry. Panel members are selected for their particular knowledge and skills not to represent a particular sector of the industry. If we go down the road of saying that the tribunal should always include a farmer, then we should have to include all the other sections of the industry: the plant breeders, the seed processors, the seed growers, and so on. The tribunal would be unwieldy and unworkable. However, as regards the panels, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that at the moment two of the six members of the general knowledge panel and two members of the specialist panel are farmers.

1141
On devolution, I believe the subject will come up in almost everything we discuss in the foreseeable future. I was asked whether the work of the PVRO on plant breeders' rights should be devolved. The plant breeders' rights are applicable to the UK and the system is administered on a UK basis. The controller is appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It would be a duplication of effort and resources for rights to be administered separately in the different regions. Those remarks have been in answer to a few of the questions and I shall write to noble Lords on the other points.
In conclusion, although the Bill is long, I believe that we can agree that most of the provisions re-enact those of the 1964 Act, with necessary updating and clarification. The major changes all flow from the UPOV convention of 1991 to which the UK is a signatory. The passage of the Bill will enable the UK to join the growing number of UPOV member states able to ratify the 1991 convention. Officials have carried out long and detailed consultations on the draft Bill. While inevitably not every comment can be reflected in the Bill, all comments have been carefully considered and there has been significant redrafting in a number of places. As I said, we shall bring forward further amendments at the Committee stage. Also, I should be extremely happy to convene a meeting before the Committee stage when all these various concerns can be discussed. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Fossil Fuel Levy Bill [H.L.]
12.16 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.
In contrast with the Plant Varieties Bill, I am pleased to say that this Bill has only two clauses. It is concerned with the fossil fuel levy, which has an influence on electricity prices to consumers, a matter on which we on this side of the House are very concerned. The Bill is also important because the fossil fuel levy is the main means of raising money to support renewable technology for the generation of electricity.
The arrangements for supporting renewables in Northern Ireland are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom and the Bill will not extend there.
The stimulation of generation from renewables is an important part of the Government's policy to achieve diverse, secure and sustainable supplies of electricity. Renewables generation also has an important part to play in securing the Government's target to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent. by the year 2010.
However, the provision of support for renewable generation has not always been the main purpose of the fossil fuel levy. In the past, the greater part of the levy in England and Wales has been used to provide support for the nuclear electricity generating industry. That is no
1142
longer the case. The fact is that the nuclear generation industry received over £7 billion of support from the fossil fuel levy before the newer parts of it were privatised. It is now able to compete in the market with other generators. So apart from some money still collected for British Nuclear Fuels, and for Magnox Plc to repay them for under-collections in previous years, proceeds of the levy are now used to support renewables. From next year, all the levy income will be used for that purpose. In the current year, the fossil fuel levy is expected to raise approximately £266 million. Around 60 per cent. of that will be paid in support of renewable technologies.
Under the present arrangements, two types of electricity supplied by electricity suppliers licensed under the Electricity Act are subject to the fossil fuel levy: first, electricity from fossil fuel sources and, secondly, electricity produced under the terms of non-fossil fuel orders which are made under Section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989. These are called NFFOs. In Scotland, the arrangements are made under SROs (Scottish Renewables Orders) but in fact all the output of nuclear generating stations in England and Wales is contracted under the primary nuclear contracts, which itself is a NFFO arrangement. Consequently, this nuclear electricity is subject to the fossil fuel levy. However, the primary nuclear contract is due to expire on 31st March 1998 and if no action is taken the nuclear electricity currently generated under that contract will no longer be subject to the levy. Surprisingly, that will result in a slight upward pressure on the price of electricity in England and Wales and it is that small upward movement in electricity prices that the Bill seeks to avoid.
To prevent a distortion in favour of nuclear generators, the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill amends Section 33 of the Electricity Act, so that all electricity from nuclear sources supplied by licensed electricity suppliers will be subject to the fossil fuel levy. That will result in nuclear generators competing on equal terms with fossil fuel generators.
In Scotland, the position of nuclear generated electricity is different from that in England and Wales. Nuclear sourced electricity in Scotland is not subject to SRO or NFFO arrangements and so currently is not subject to the levy. Instead, Scottish Nuclear has a contract, the Nuclear Energy Agreement, with ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro-Electric, under which it is required to provide all the electricity it generates to ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro-Electric. The contract expires in 2005.
We are committed to the support for renewables. The Prime Minister, speaking at the Earth Summit in New York, underlined the Government's determination to put environmental concerns at the heart of the Government's decision-making process. We have set ourselves challenging targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is interested in this matter and I can inform him that last year renewable generators supplied about 2 per cent. of the UK's total demand for electricity. The majority of renewable electricity is supplied by hydro-generation, mostly based in Scotland.

1143
Generation from renewable sources, other than large-scale hydro, increased by over 7 per cent. in 1996 compared with 1995. In England, Wales and Scotland there are currently 195 renewables generation projects generating electricity under NFFO and SRO contracts, with a total capacity of 456 megawatts. Further projects are planned and under contract. We intend to ensure that there is continued growth in generation from renewables.
To meet our aims, the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry announced on 6th June that the Government propose to undertake a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources in line with our manifesto commitment. To determine how we will provide targeted and effective support for renewables technology in the future, he has announced a review of new and renewables energy policy. The review will include an examination of what would be necessary and practical to provide 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity from renewables by 2010. We do not intend that productive avenues of support should be rejected or that sensible reforms should be ignored. However, the Government do not intend to make decisions on such reforms until the results of that review are known.
For those reasons, the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill contains a power for the Secretary of State to make all electricity supplied by licensed electricity suppliers subject to the levy. The power would enable the scope of the levy to be extended to include renewables electricity produced outside the NFFO and SRO arrangements, such as large-scale hydro. No decision has been taken on the circumstances in which that power might be exercised and none will be taken until the review of support for renewables is complete.
When reading through the Bill, it struck me that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, as part of the review, could consider a more suitable name for the fossil fuel levy which more accurately would describe its purpose and effect.
Although this is a small Bill of only two clauses, it is important. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Haskel.)
12.25 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for giving the background to this short Bill. I quite understand that with the termination of the primary nuclear contract an anomaly would arise which could lead to a small increase in electricity prices when spread over the whole market and that the immediate purpose of the Bill is to avoid that. Naturally, we support that necessary correction due to the termination of the contract.
The Bill is concerned with the levy and how it is to be collected in the future. It does not deal with how the levy is to be spent. The noble Lord gave an assurance that an inquiry is being carried out into how the stimulation of non-fossil fuel sources of energy can be increased and that, when the inquiry is completed, proposals will be put forward. Will there then be
1144
legislation to amend the arrangements? I believe that the non-fossil fuel arrangement—I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we should think of some other name for it—is laid down in legislation and presumably, if there is to be any change, we can expect a further Bill. It is unfortunate that the Bill does not in any way, even in general terms, indicate the intentions of the Government in that regard, but if there is to be further legislation following the review I accept that situation.
The review, I suggest, should be accompanied by a similar study of energy efficiency measures. If the objective of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by the year 2010 is to be achieved, a very wide range of measures will have to be introduced very quickly. Therefore, I hope that the review being carried out will not be exclusively restricted to the stimulus of non-fossil fuel sources. There is a good deal that can be done by introducing measures to increase the efficiency with which energy in general is used, whether derived from fossil or non-fossil fuels.
I have in mind in particular combined heat and power, a process with which your Lordships are familiar. It can virtually double the effectiveness with which primary energy can be converted into electricity and heat. The process has been developed in centres such as Nottingham and Sheffield—I declare an interest in that I am associated with those developments—in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. I should have thought that it needs to be taken into account as one of the ways in which the general objective of reducing carbon dioxide emissions can be achieved. I hope therefore that the non-fossil fuel obligation, as it is now known in technical jargon, can not only be rechristened but widened to include the stimulus of energy efficiency measures in general. In the hope that that is the intention, I welcome the Bill.
I remind the noble Lord that there is a big area in which at the moment energy is not particularly efficiently used; namely, the domestic sector. We know that from the report issued by the Department of the Environment at the end of last year. I hope therefore that in the review the Government will consider the reinstatement of the e-factor, the energy factor at one time included in gas and electricity prices but no longer so, as a way of providing better funding of the Energy Saving Trust which is much more short of funds than originally envisaged by the then government which set it up. I hope that that too will be considered.
I am therefore looking to a range of measures not only to stimulate the development of non-fossil fuels but also to encourage the better use of energy in the various sectors of consumption which can be harnessed to the desirable objective of reducing CO2 emissions. As a small step in that direction, I welcome the Bill and hope that there will be other measures later to complement it.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I say immediately to the noble Lord that on this side of your Lordships' House we support this Bill in principle. Indeed, but for that rare abberation of political judgment

1145
by the British people on 1st May, I have no doubt that I would have been introducing this self-same Bill from the other side of the Chamber. In those circumstances it is unnecessary for me in any way to rehearse the elaborate and detailed argument which the noble Lord usefully gave to the House in support of this measure.
However, I would be grateful if the noble Lord could respond on two matters. The first relates to making it clear to a wider audience what the measure encompasses. In the press release which the DTI put out in a somewhat exuberant fashion on 27th June, it was stated that this was a Bill to save electricity consumers £70 million. I agree that indirectly one reaches a position where prices do not increase, but it is a nice point whether, if prices do not increase, that is a saving. It would seem to me—perhaps the noble Lord will confirm this—that a more accurate way of describing the purpose of the Bill is to be found in the Explanatory Memorandum which indicates,
"The Bill will prevent nuclear electricity generators obtaining a price advantage in the market, compared to fossil-sourced electricity, after the ending on 31 March 1998 of the requirement for regional electricity companies to acquire certain amounts of nuclear electricity".
That would seem to be a much more accurate way to explain the situation. It is not simply a matter of a measure being taken which will, from present levels of electricity prices, bring about any saving of the order of £70 million.
The other matter I should like to raise—I gave the noble Lord some notice of this—is that prior to the election I know that the present Minister for Science, Energy and Industry was approached with a proposal, as I was, that this levy—we will leave out fossil fuel for the moment because the nomenclature becomes rather tangled—should be utilised not only to support the generation of electricity from renewable resources such as wind, wave or solar power, but also that it should be extended to support the research and development of cleaner coal technologies.
Mr. John Battle certainly gave the impression to those making the proposal that he was sympathetic to the making of such a change. I know that because subsequently they came to see me and asked me to express exactly the same degree of sympathy for such a proposal. As it turns out, unnecessarily, I was somewhat more cautious in what was being proposed than he was.
It is important that we know exactly where the Government stand on the proposal. I heard what the noble Lord said in relation to the review of support for renewable technologies, which was announced in an Answer to a PQ on 6th June, but from what was contained in that and from what the noble Lord said, it does not seem to me that encompassed within that review is any assessment of whether the levy may be extended to give support to the research and development of cleaner coal technologies. It is important that we understand exactly where the Government stand on that.
There are always reviews and reviews; such reviews are designed solely to ensure that the ball is lost in the long grass. It is important for the coal industry in the United Kingdom to understand what the Government's
1146
intentions may be. I am not trying to make a point that the Government should announce an immediate review or decision; it is clearly a difficult issue. Given the announcements of policy that the Government made in terms of reduction of CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases, even if the Government were to support cleaner coal technologies, that would have its own impact on the level of emissions even though they may be smaller.
The coal industry in this country will have to take some important decisions in terms of investment and coal miners' jobs. It will do no one any good if it is left in any state of uncertainty for any period. If the position of the Minister for Energy is that, notwithstanding the sympathy expressed before the election, he cannot see a way forward to offer the type of support he appeared to be offering, then that should be made clear at the earliest possible opportunity.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord will respond, particularly on the last point. I do not envisage that the Bill will encounter any difficulty as it proceeds through your Lordships' House. I want to be clear on one point of detail which may save time at a later stage. Clause 1 (2)(c) reads,
"is generated in pursuance of qualifying arrangements by a generating station fuelled or driven otherwise than by a fossil fuel or nuclear fuel".
That may mean a resource in the future which is actually a renewable resource. If I understand the position correctly, the Government have included that simply as a reserve power and at the present time have no specific resource in mind. If the noble Lord can confirm that, it may save me tabling a probing amendment at a later date.
12.37 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked how the levy is to be spent and inquired whether any legislation would be introduced. The question of legislation depends very much on the outcome of the inquiry. Once the inquiry has been completed, we shall be in a position to know which legislation is required.
The noble Lord asked about energy efficiency and was kind enough to give me prior notice of his question. The purposes for which the fossil fuel levy may be used are closely defined in the Electricity Act, which restricts their application to encouraging renewables generation through NFFO and SRO projects. Energy efficiency is encouraged by different means. The Director General of Electricity Supply set standards of performance requiring regional electricity companies to promote the efficient use of electricity. The standards back up an allowance for energy efficiency of £1 per customer for each year of the supply price control. In short the standards require the companies to undertake, before April 1998, projects designed to save over 6,000 gigawatt hours of electricity and by the beginning

1147
of this year savings of over 5,000 gigawatt hours had been achieved. That deals with the point of energy efficiency projects.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. It was because I knew that the 1989 Act contained a very limited definition of the use to which the levy can be put that I raised the question of legislation. I am aware of what happens in the electricity industry at the moment. It is positive; it does not go far enough in my opinion; and certainly nothing has been done in the gas industry. So I thought that the Government might be tempted to have a look at this whole area, as well as that of non-fossil fuels, and bring in legislation in due course.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will consider these factors as part of the review. The noble Lord asked about combined heat and power. The same answer applies. The application of the proceeds of the levy is closely defined in the Electricity Act and it is not possible to use the levy to support generation from fossil fuel sources. However, it has been possible to provide encouragement through the levy for combined heat and power schemes where the source of their fuel is waste. Seventeen such projects with a combined capacity of 182 megawatts have been given contracts through NFFO arrangements.
So far as concerns the e-factor, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I shall bring that matter to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister. I am sure that it will be taken into account during the review.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, asked about the savings of £70 million annually. The noble and learned Lord reads the press releases carefully and he is right. If the electricity from nuclear generators were levy-free, the DTI estimates that the generators could benefit by up to around 0.1 pence per kilowatt hour from green ticket payments. That would amount to £70 million annually. But the Bill will prevent this market distortion which could allow nuclear generators supplying the markets of England and Wales to obtain higher prices for their electricity from 1st April. By having this arrangement the levy is spread over a much wider number of companies. The DTI estimates that the levy rate in England and Wales could be about 0.5 per cent. lower than it would have been without the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord asked about Clause 1(2)(c) of the Bill. In relation to that I am happy to confirm that this will allow electricity from those renewables generated outside of NFFO and SRO arrangements to be exempt from the levy. This leaves their situation unchanged. That is the intention of this subsection of the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord asked about clean coal. Again, he was kind enough to give me notice of his question. Since 1993 there has been a programme of support for R&D into clean coal in collaboration with industry and academia, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord knows very well. More than 215 projects
1148
with a total value of over £200 million have been initiated and part funded by the DTI. The present phase of the programme is due to be completed next year. We are currently considering what further work needs to be undertaken. The review will take into account both the recommendations in the evaluation report and the views of the industry-led Foresight Taskforce, in which I know the noble and learned Lord was involved. As part of the review the Government are considering implementing a scheme in support of clean coal technology similar to that operated under NFFO for renewable energy. At this stage I canfot say what the outcome of the review will be, but I shall bring the points made by the noble and learned Lord to the attention of my right honourable friend.
The Fossil Fuel Levy Bill is a small but necessary step towards achieving a secure, diverse and sustainable supply of electricity. The levy is the main source of support for these renewables and the Bill will ensure that the levy continues to be soundly based. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Contracting Out (Metropolitan Police and Civil Staffs Pensions) Order 1997
12.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th June be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order was laid before Parliament on 30th June. It will enable the Home Secretary's functions in respect of pension administration services in the Metropolitan Police to be contracted out. It is necessary for all public services to make the most efficient and effective use of their resources.
From April to August last year the Metropolitan Police, on its own initiative, carried out an efficiency review of all its major central support services, including personnel, finance, property and technology services and transport. The relevant departments cover 5,500 civil staff and spend some £500 million. The review's objectives were to achieve best value for money.
For a range of services, the review recommended that partnership with the private sector would achieve significant improvements in cost while maintaining or improving quality. Four areas fell to be proposed in respect of contracting out: property; technology—including IT and voice communications; transport; and pay and pensions administration and processing. These proposals affect some 2,000 staff and TUPE is expected to apply. Contracts will be let during 1998.
The estimated annual cash savings from contracting out will be about £22 million. The net savings are expected to be some £75 million over seven years or

1149
£51 million on a net present value basis. The net figure reflects the high up-front costs of transferring pension liabilities.
The Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District has written three times to London MPs about the review. My honourable friend Mr. Michael, the Minister of State, wrote to all MPs in the Metropolitan Police District on 27th June explaining the purpose of the order. He arranged three meetings in the House of Commons and invited all London MPs to attend if they wished to discuss matters further. He has fully discussed the matter with the receiver and with representatives of the trade unions involved in a very constructive atmosphere. The decision to manage services in-house or to contract them out was based on a number of criteria. These included cost, quality, internal constraints, market opportunity, potential risk and flexibility.
I fully appreciate the commitment of the trade union interests to the service provided to the Metropolitan Police by their members and their concern about the quality of the policing service. I entirely agree with them that it is essential to make a proper comparison of contract costs against the in-house service before final decisions are taken to outsource any services. I understand that the Metropolitan Police is committed to doing this and has undertaken to make available to the trade union side the full details of the proposed model for financial comparison.
I am satisfied that the contracting out proposals are in the long-term interest of policing in London. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th June be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, we welcome this report. The review identified pay and pensions administration as one aspect of the arrangements that was capable of improved efficiency through partnership with the private sector. The order is in line with the previous government's policy, and that policy has not changed under our new leader. Savings of up to £75 million can be made by contracting out provisions and other arrangements. This will be beneficial both to the taxpayer and to the rate payer. We on this side of the House welcome the order and I am grateful to have the opportunity to support it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for that support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) (Amendment) Order 1997
12.49 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, confusingly, this order deals with bottled beer. The order amends the Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989, which was introduced following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer. Article 7 of the Tied Estate Order applies to the United Kingdom's national brewers, that is, those with over 2,000 pubs. It requires the national brewers to allow their tied tenants to buy one cask-conditioned beer outside the tie. This article is commonly called the guest beer provision.
The purpose of the provision was to address two concerns identified by the MMC—the limited independence that tied tenants enjoy in their choice of beers, and the restricted choice for consumers in those pubs. The provision turned out to be a great success and continues to be so. It has encouraged the production of a diverse range of beers, and increased competition in the market. The provision has been so effective in increasing the consumer's expectations that guest beers are now offered in many pubs in addition to those owned by the nationals.
Beer drinkers will be pleased to know that this order will further enhance the benefits of the guest beer provision. It will extend it to allow the nationals' tied tenants to buy at least one bottle-conditioned beer outside the tie. This will bring benefits to small brewers, tenants and consumers. Small brewers will have the opportunity to get their beers into the tied pubs of the national brewers. The tenants will also benefit because they will be able to respond to consumers' demands, and thereby better able to compete with one another. Some tenants in smaller pubs were previously reluctant to use the guest beer provision for fear that they would not sell a whole barrel of beer before it went off. This provision should overcome the practical difficulties. Consumers will benefit. There will be a larger range of beers and they will be able to try beers such as Bishop's Finger, Spitfire, and even Worthington White Shield.
The popularity of this measure is clear. A statutory consultation on a similar order to that which I am proposing here was carried out by the then Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs. The result of this consultation showed how strongly the extension to the provision would be welcomed by beer drinkers and brewers alike. This order will come into effect on 1st April 1998 in order to give brewers and tenants time to alter their licences.
Lastly, I should like to mention the co-operation that has existed between the Government and Europe on this issue. Both the European Commission and the European Parliament, have been of great help in checking that this new provision will accord with the relevant strictures of European law. In this regard, the Commission recently confirmed that it would not challenge the amended provision under European law. I have tried to keep this opening statement as brief as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Haskel.)
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I had expected to be backed in the discussion on this order by serried ranks

1151
of noble brewers, all complaining about this invasion of their privileges. However, they seem to have been detained elsewhere. This order was welcomed and indeed planned by those of us who are now on this side of the House when we were on the other side. It is further supported by the Brewers and Licensed Victuallers Association. I have much pleasure in associating myself with those who welcome this order.
There is one thing I wish to ask the noble Lord. I believe that there must be the faintest fear that this order might be considered as the thin end of the wedge, which might lead to some alteration in the conditions which apply to brewers and their relationship with tied houses. Therefore, I would welcome an assurance from the noble Lord that no such thing is planned. With that exception I welcome the order.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. I imagine that the brewers are not here in their serried ranks because they are not wasting valuable drinking time. The noble Lord asked about breaking the lease. We do not believe that that will be the case because this order will not significantly increase the inspection tasks of the brewers. I am sure that the vast majority of tenants will, as now, comply with the terms of their leases. There are no plans to make any further changes. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks and I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
12.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main purpose of the order is to provide for the transfer of responsibility for the management of Northern Ireland's 17 further education colleges from the five education and library boards to incorporated governing bodies established in relation to each college. It will also provide for the regional planning and funding of the further education sector by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland. The order will not only provide for the self-governance of colleges; it will also bring all of Northern Ireland's further education legislation together in one order for the first time.
I believe that it will be helpful to the House if I outline the background to the order and then say a few words about the main provisions. This Government are firmly convinced that the planning and funding of the further education sector would best be addressed on a regional basis. Preparations for incorporation have been under way in Northern Ireland for some considerable time, but the previous government failed to have the legislation put before Parliament and this left the colleges in a very unsatisfactory position. While this
1152
Government might have altered some aspects of the legislation if they had been starting from scratch, we have taken the decision to proceed on the basis of the existing draft in order to end the potentially damaging period of uncertainty.
However, our decision to proceed with incorporation should be set firmly within the context of a more coherent strategic approach to the management and development of the sector. Colleges will benefit from the freedoms given to them through being able to manage their own affairs, but the sector as a whole and the education service in Northern Ireland in general, will be strengthened and enhanced through the setting of a clearer strategic framework which clarifies the purpose, direction and shape of the FE sector in Northern Ireland and enables all partners in the education service to make the culture of "lifelong learning" a reality.
As a first step in developing this strategy, a number of reviews within and across further education and training will commence over the next few months. Among other things these reviews will explore the relationship between the Department of Education and the Training and Employment Agency, and the implications for further education of the forthcoming report of the Dearing National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. The outcome of the reviews will determine how further education in Northern Ireland builds on the foundation provided by this order.
The colleges and their provision of vocational education play a vital role in the development of the economy of Northern Ireland, equipping people with the necessary skills to meet the needs of business. The Government are committed in particular to addressing the fundamental problem of youth unemployment. Our welfare to work programme will offer a striking opportunity to address the challenge of equipping young people for work and of finding scope for them to become involved productively and positively in a work environment. The education and training service will have a vital role to play in meeting this challenge. It is essential, therefore, that they are enabled to do so. This order provides the framework for a vigorous and flexible further education sector which will be responsive, not only to the needs of students, but also to the needs of employers. Incorporation will provide colleges with increased freedom and flexibility to make an even greater contribution to the educational and economic development of the Province.
Colleges in England, Wales and Scotland were incorporated on 1st April 1993. While the Northern Ireland legislation is broadly comparable with the corresponding legislation in the rest of the UK, it has been drafted to reflect local circumstances. It has also been possible to learn from the experience of incorporation in the rest of the UK and to take account of the advice provided in particular in the Public Accounts Committee report of July 1995, which examined issues of management and financial control in the incorporated colleges in England.
The draft order was considered by a wide range of interests in Northern Ireland and all of their comments have been carefully considered. Where possible their

1153
concerns have been addressed and a number of minor amendments have been made to the draft order. The more significant of these amendments aim to give governing bodies more flexibility in the exercise of their functions while at the same time retaining adequate provision to ensure accountability for the use of public funds. The order will also provide for the respective functions of the Department of Education, the colleges and the education and library boards and will ensure that all those involved in the education service work together towards its strategic objectives.
The Government have also decided that more general consultation arrangements should be established which will play a useful role in assisting the Department of Education in the strategic management of the sector. We will, therefore, be making arrangements for the setting up of a consultative body to represent the further education sector. Such a body will be non-statutory.
The governing body of each college will have the duty to secure the efficient and effective management of the institution and to have regard to the educational needs of industry and commerce and the community in its area. The executive onus is clearly placed on the incorporated governing bodies to provide an efficient and effective education and training service for the local community within the context of the department's strategic planning and funding role.
The education and library boards will continue to have responsibilities in relation to certain student-specific services (student awards, home-to-college transport and free meals) and will make nominations for membership of college governing bodies. Education and library boards will also be enabled to provide services to colleges after incorporation. The order will facilitate and encourage co-operation between colleges and boards after incorporation, thus maintaining and developing the spirit of partnership which is a hallmark of the Northern Ireland education system.
Finally, the draft order not only provides for the transfer of management of colleges; it also includes detailed provisions for the transfer of property, rights, liabilities and staff from education and library boards to the governing bodies. This includes arrangements for the resolution by the Department of Education of any disputes which may arise. Also, to ensure an orderly transfer of functions and responsibilities, the order allows for arrangements to be put in place for the continuing provision of services by the education and library boards to colleges for up to three years after the incorporation date.
These are the main provisions of the order which, when set within the context of the developing strategic framework, is a significant and important step on the path to a more flexible and responsive further education sector in Northern Ireland. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved.—[Lord Dubs.]
1.1 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very helpful explanation of the order. I thank too his honourable colleague in another place with direct
1154
responsibility for education who made available to me the details of the amendments that he wished to make subsequent to the process of consultation. I was a member of Belfast Education and Library Board for the four years up until the end of last month. That board has had, and will have until the implementation of this order, a responsibility for the Belfast Institute for Further and Higher Education (BIFHE). I was, as a member of the board, very committed to democratic accountability at local level in Northern Ireland. So noble Lords might expect me to be unhappy about a proposal which takes responsibility from the education and library boards and puts it with a governing body. However, I am supportive of it, not least because of my experience on the education and library board.
During my four years on the board there were almost no situations in which it seemed to me at board level that any useful work was being done to facilitate thinking of a creative and novel kind in the Belfast institute. One such opportunity might have arisen. I refer to a major proposal by the University of Ulster, which is well known for its creative and novel approach to co-operation not only within its own institution but in the community at large and internationally, for the development of a Springvale campus. That would have had enormous social, economic and educational consequences in a particularly deprived area of the city with interfaces between unionist and nationalist areas that could helpfully have been overcome.
No secret was made of the proposition. A great deal of work was done to publicise it and a great deal of consultation took place. The University of Ulster engaged local councillors in the area. There was a good deal of discussion. A number of months after it came to the fore I raised the matter in the education and library board. I asked whether there had been any discussions between the officers of the board and the University of Ulster. Had there been any direct discussions between the officers of the institute for further and higher education and the University of Ulster? The answer was "No" on both counts. It became perfectly clear that the Belfast institute believed that the proposition of the University of Ulster was an intrusion into its fiefdom. While that might have been understandable, what was neither understandable nor very forgivable was that the education and library board, which had a broader remit and a responsibility to look at matters in the round, failed absolutely to encourage the institute to engage with the University of Ulster. It was only subsequent to very considerable pressure exerted by myself and colleagues that some desultory meetings were held but clearly with relatively little enthusiasm.
When the proposals were made public the initial response of the education and library board officers was of a very flat and unimaginative kind. The reason why I am rather positive about the proposals that have come forward is that insofar as the education and library board had responsibility and could have used it over the past few years to encourage creative and novel thinking in the Belfast institute, that was not forthcoming. There is nothing I can see which leads me to believe that a newly constituted board would be any more lively or vital in its encouragement of the Belfast institute.

1155
I rather suspect—perhaps it is a matter of great hope—that the strategic review to which the noble Lord refers may, at a central or regional level, be a more vital and vibrant instrument to encourage creative and novel thinking in the Belfast institute and others, particularly in regard to co-operation not just with the community at large but with other institutes of higher learning. In particular, I commend to the Minister and his colleagues the energetic work of the University of Ulster and the Springvale propositions which are still around. I hope that they may receive a more substantial boost than perhaps was the case under the previous administration.
These matters raise questions about the role of education and library boards as one goes down the line. One has further education moving out of its remit. There are propositions to bring together various museums, some of which originally came out of local government, and questions are being raised in terms of the other responsibilities of education and library boards. Serious questions are being raised about whether one needs the number of boards that exist across the whole of Northern Ireland. That was a question before the previous government, as is well known. As we made clear at that stage what was required was a more radical review which perhaps questioned the need for education and library boards or health and social services boards at all. This order, in a sense, adds to those rather fundamental questions. However, we give full support to the order but also place on the agenda of the Minister the important question of the development of institutes of education in Belfast, particularly with the University of Ulster propositions.
1.9 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his very clear introduction to this order. There is clearly an all-party consensus on this matter. This was initiated by the previous government and has been introduced by this Government. We on these Benches have no hesitation in supporting it. I cannot speak with the authority of my noble friend Lord Alderdice from his personal experience, but the bringing together of all Northern Ireland legislation relating to further education and the consolidation of it in this way should ultimately make the Government more accessible and accountable. In particular, we on these Benches welcome the new consultative body. Perhaps I may put one or two questions to the noble Lord.
Article 15 effectively extends the PFI to the education sector. From these Benches we by no means object to the use of the PFI in the education sector. However, despite its possible advantages, it can be no substitute for proper funding. One area of core funding about which I should like to ask the Minister is IT. One of the problems with IT in general is that it does not readily lend itself to private finance, because it depreciates so quickly. I should like some reassurance that the Government's commitment to core funding of core projects, which nowadays has to include familiarity with IT by every student, will be sustained.
1156
Under Article 20, governing bodies are required to set out their financial and development plans for the coming three years. It is admirable that they should take a long-term view, but that demands from government some reciprocity. How can one make plans if one does not know what one's income will be? As we have seen with the tertiary sector, the issue of tuition fees is very current. The more help the Government can give in the forward planning of their own expenditure, defying the arbitrary barriers that the Treasury so often establishes, particularly in Northern Ireland, to allow those institutions to plan ahead realistically, the better it will be.
My noble friend Lord Alderdice referred to the Springvale campus. Through the community outreach project, Springvale has now begun to establish a basis which could command general support in Belfast and would make a major contribution to the building of the civil society, the cross-community links, and the educational depth that Northern Ireland needs. Can the Minister give us any encouragement about prospects for some movement on the Springvale campus?
1.12 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his introduction of the order, and share the views on this order expressed by my colleagues. Of course we support it, not just on the basis that it was an order that started under our administration, but on the principle of delegating to what we would have once described as the "chalk face", but which we now describe as the "keyboard". Where decisions are based on local knowledge and needs, the better they must be.
I have a few points for the Minister. First, will the organisations have the resources to achieve this? If I heard the Minister correctly, some of the welfare-to-work resources will be used within those colleges. One hopes that that will be possible, because, although we are all concerned with the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed have needs—in particular, those who are not on the unemployment register. Women looking to re-enter the workforce will have needs which the colleges can satisfy.
Will additional resources be available for the colleges from the savings which will result from the transfer of the library and education boards? Will there be moneys which can also be transferred? The Minister repeated what his colleague in another place said about the fact that he might have altered the order, and started from a different place. The uncertainty about which he complains arose from the fact that we could not find parliamentary time to bring it forward. It is not helped by the Minister saying that he is not 100 per cent. happy with the order as it is. That leaves an element of uncertainty. Will the Minister give us some guidance as to what he would have preferred the order to do, and whether that will be brought forward in a further order in due course?
The Minister also said that the order reflects local circumstances which are different from those in England, Scotland and Wales. Will he expand on those, because the need to provide lifetime training is constant

1157
throughout the UK? Springvale is important for the future of the Province. The noble Lords, Lord Holme of Cheltenham and Lord Alderdice, mentioned the issue. In Committee in another place, the Minister said that the review would consider the work of the three universities (Ulster, Queen's and the OU) and the further education sector. I hope that that was not an indication that the Springvale campus is off the agenda. From these Benches we would have expected, if it were to go in that direction, that there would have been a specific review.
Will the Minister consider, and perhaps discuss with his colleagues, whether it is right that Springvale should be seen as a purely educational activity. Is it not an overall economic activity for which there could be support? I should have thought that that would have formed an important part of considering training in the sector. Having said that, we support the order, and wish the colleges well with their new-found responsibilities.
1.16 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to this short but interesting debate. I turn first to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I welcome his general support for the order. All noble Lords have referred to Springvale. Discussions are taking place between the University of Ulster and the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education with a view to developing new proposals for the Springvale site. I hope that that will lead to something that will be both creative and novel. I have to utter the reservation that there will have to be an assessment of the economics of such a proposal. Money will have to be found. I want to say only that the matter is being considered on the basis that I have suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, also made interesting comments about the education and library boards. I had better pass those on to my honourable friend the Minister responsible as being the best way forward on that suggestion. I appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, particularly, as he has direct experience of the education system in Belfast, and therefore his comments have more authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, too, welcomed the proposal, for which I am grateful. I shall deal first with the point about the PFI. The PFI has many advantages for this sector. Two PFI projects are currently under way—at the Belfast institute and the North West Institute in Derry. The focus of those PFI applications is on an extension of the colleges rather than on something such as IT. It may not be suitable for all colleges.
One would not wish to stifle the possible use of PFI money for the development of the IT sector, but it may be that PFI support for aspects of the colleges' work other than IT would be more appropriate. I had better leave it at that. The Government will clearly want to monitor the progress of the PFI for the whole of the sector we have been discussing.
The noble Lord talked also about the development planning process. I welcome his support for it. The Department of Education will be working closely with the sector in defining what is required and how it should
1158
be monitored. That will include the sharing of the appropriate financial information in relation to the colleges. I believe that I have dealt with all the points about Springvale, to which the noble Lord referred in detail. There is nothing to be said beyond the comments that I have made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, asked a number of specific questions. As regards resources for the sector, also raised by other noble Lords, the Government have initiated a comprehensive spending review covering all public expenditure. The needs of the FE sector must be considered within that framework. Officials in the Department of Education for Northern Ireland are currently negotiating with the boards on the resources which will be transferred to further education.
As regards welfare to work, I assure the noble Baroness that there will be an opportunity for the colleges to benefit from the extra resources made available. Indeed, the FE sector will have an important role to play in implementing some of the welfare to work provisions as regards education and training. However, the colleges must be flexible and creative in providing courses of high quality for the target groups which the noble Baroness mentioned.
She also asked how we might have altered the order had there been time to do so. With more time, the Government could have reviewed fundamentally the whole approach and structure which is proposed for incorporation. We had to balance that against the need to end the uncertainty from which all the colleges were suffering and offer them a clear way forward. We judged the first priority to be this legislation; that it should be passed in order to benefit the colleges and give them a proper framework within which to work. However, my honourable friend's review will provide an opportunity to reflect on future developments, which might require legislation in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, also asked about local circumstances and how legislation reflected them. She suggested that further education ought to be similar in all parts of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I may give two examples. It is intended that the education and library boards will have a continuing role in participating in the college governing bodies and in the provision of specific services to the sector. There is no parallel for that in the changes that were made to the sector in England, for example. Secondly, there is provision for the continuing funding of adult and community provision in the further education sector. Thirdly, further education training links will be reviewed in the context of incorporation and wider government policy.
There are a number of reasons for the local differences which justify a slightly different approach in this legislation. There is also the issue of the Public Accounts Committee report, which the legislation reflects—for example, as regards the appointment procedures for governing bodies and the role of the Department of Education for Northern Ireland in that process—and in moving towards better provisions for accountability—for example, the provision for a statutory audit committee in each college and the

1159
strength of the department's regulatory powers. We are able to take those factors into account because we have the report of the Public Accounts Committee. Finally, the future of Springvale and any possible developments will be considered in educational terms and on its impact on economic regeneration.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, given that the future of Springvale has been a matter for lively discussion for some years, can he give us a sense of the timing of the review that he has mentioned? When will we have a clearer answer on the future of Springvale?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not able to give an answer here and now. If it is possible to give a better sense of timing I shall write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commissioner for Complaints (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
1.25 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commissioner for Complaints (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order, a draft of which was laid before this House on the 7th of this month, be approved.
The order will amend the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, and will bring Northern Ireland law in this area into line with that applying in Great Britain under the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, as amended by the Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Act 1996.
The effect of the order will be to extend the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints (the ombudsman) to enable him for the first time to investigate complaints about actions taken by health professionals in the course of the care or treatment of a patient, usually described as the exercise of clinical judgment; and actions taken by GPs, dentists, etc., in connection with the provision of family health services.
The order will also spell out in detail the ombudsman's existing right to investigate the actions of independent providers of services, when providing services to HPSS patients or clients under arrangements made with HSS bodies.
The order has its origins in an independent review of NHS complaints procedures, commissioned in 1993 by the then Secretary of State for Health. This was in response to widely held concerns about the complex and unfriendly complaints systems then in place. The review was carried out by an independent committee, chaired by Professor Alan Wilson, Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University.
Following wide consultation, the Government accepted the main recommendations in the review committee's report. Those recommendations relating to the introduction of a unified complaints procedure for HSS bodies were implemented in April last year, and the order before us today would implement recommendations relating to the extension of the ombudsman's remit.
The order represents a valuable addition to patients' rights, and I therefore commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
1.27 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, in general terms, I am supportive of the approach of the order because, as the Minister helpfully explained, there is a degree of complexity about the complaints procedure. Indeed, there is a complexity about the whole of the health service, which can be offputting for patients, in particular if they are vulnerable people often with difficulties. There is also a proliferation of organisations. One has seen the move towards the market in healthcare and the establishment of trusts and so forth. Therefore, there has been a fragmentation of the service which has made it more complex for people to make their complaints. That was part of the pressure which moved us towards this development.
However, I must express reservation about one issue. In doing so, perhaps I may indicate a personal interest because I am a medical practitioner and a psychiatrist. My anxiety relates to the introduction of the ombudsman to addressing matters of clinical judgment. I do not express reservation as a result of some anxiety that a rash of complaints will come forward based on serious problems which have not been unearthed because existing professional modes of complaint have been inadequate. While there may be one or two, I do not believe that there will be many. However, I believe that it is likely that a considerable number of complaints will come forward which are not appropriately based. In my experience, and seeing issues from both sides of the table, I can say that there is a pressure and a temptation on constituency representatives to say, "Well, I will certainly bring this to the attention of the ombudsman or to some other complaints procedure", even when they may not understand the complexities. They may have a litigious and difficult constituent who is similarly litigious and difficult when he is seen by a medical practitioner or another healthcare professional.
I believe that in understanding that, healthcare professionals will be increasingly moved towards a form of defensive medicine such as we see in other parts of the world, not least in the United States of America. They will not leave themselves unguarded or unprotected. They will say, if there is an increase in the use of this procedure, "Well, then we shall have to be particularly careful that the way we practise is to protect ourselves rather than being driven entirely and almost exclusively by a concern for what will happen in terms of the patient".

1161
I must tell your Lordships that I have seen that happening over the past number of years in the medical fraternity, nursing and other areas. It has been felt increasingly by healthcare professionals that they are, to some extent, more under attack. Regrettably, we see a situation in which other professionals—for example, lawyers—are advertising. Now that there is freedom of information, they will apply on behalf of patients who may be in need of a little remuneration, to have people's charts so that they can trawl through them in order to see whether there is anything about which a complaint could be made. Therefore, it is not even a matter of a person feeling that he has a complaint and then taking advice as to how to follow it through. He is actually being encouraged by other professionals to pick up the matter and use access to records in order to find something about which a complaint could be made.
I offer a few words of warning to noble Lords. Unfortunately, we may find ourselves drifting towards a situation of medicine which is increasing defensive and expensive. We may also find the growth of a complaints industry. In that regard, I ask the Minister to clarify how much has been set aside for the ombudsman and his office to address this. I understand that a relatively modest amount is to be set aside; namely, of the same order as that which was set aside for the office of the commissioner established to deal with the complaints of trade unionists against their trade unions in Northern Ireland—a matter of some thousands of pounds. Given the size and complexity of healthcare in Northern Ireland and the tendency—notably discovered by the Department of the Environment in regard to footpaths and such matters—to find ways to develop an industry of complaints, such modest resources may be inadequate when applied to the complex tapestry of healthcare provision. Having said that, in general terms, I support the order.
1.31 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, from these Benches, we support the order. However, the point made by my noble friend is extremely important. One of the great talents of the British nation is the talent for complaint. If that is so, it has been developed to a high art form in Northern Ireland. The culture of blame is one with which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is not unfamiliar.
Having said that, it is important to recognise that the area of health is one in which people sometimes have justifiable cause for complaint. Basically, this order extends the complaints procedure to health and social services. In that sense, in general, we support it.
1.32 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I too bring a supportive line from these Benches. I had a feeling that from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, we were hearing the extension of a debate in your Lordships' House earlier this week about the fat-cat lawyers. Those are perhaps the fat-cat kittens which are developing in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that that is not the aim of the order.
1162
However, I note that Members of Parliament must be brought into this procedure. In the longer term, I wonder whether it would be better to look at the relationship between the complainant and the ombudsman or commissioner.
I share some of the concerns expressed by the honourable Member for Belfast South in Committee in another place on the size and complexity of the order to achieve what it seeks to achieve. I found it very difficult to understand. I am sure that it covers every possible legislative need but it is certainly overwhelming.
He expressed concerns also about the confidence of the complainant in the operation of the system. A review of the problem of complaints in the health service was chaired by an outsider. But the complaints are dealt with by a Northern Ireland person with an office staffed by people who may well return to those areas against which an individual is making a complaint. I stress that I do not for one moment question the integrity and impartiality of those in that position but I do not understate the matter when I say that Northern Ireland is a small place where views are strongly held. Would it not be more suitable that that activity be administered by those who are not so closely involved with the Province? The Minister, with his colleagues, may wish to consider that view.
I have two specific matters to raise. First, how will the people be informed of the availability of this route and when will it be introduced? I know that the ombudsman is responsible for making known his availability but the Government may wish to take a more proactive role. I hasten to add that that is not in order to generate a volume of complaints but so that people know that if they are unhappy there is a route which they can take. Will the Minister confirm also that in future, the post of the commissioner will be filled in open competition? With those remarks, I support the order.
1.36 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate and for the general support expressed for the order by all those who have spoken.
I deal first with the specific questions which were asked. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, again speaking from his enormous professional experience and background, asked about the application of the concept of clinical judgment and he expressed concern that we might reach a stage of having defensive medicine and a complaints industry. I think those were his words. From the experience of Great Britain, I am not certain that experience has been as he suggested it might be in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he believes that the situation will be different there. But taking the experience of Great Britain, I should not be quite as concerned as he is.
In another sense, may I put this point to him? Under this procedure, we have an alternative to litigation. In a sense, it depends on the outcome which the complainant expects when making the complaint. If the complainant believes that he has suffered enormous damage which can be reflected financially, then the ombudsman may not be the appropriate route to follow and the

1163
complainant will go to the courts. That has been open to him all along. Therefore, I could argue that having a system to deal with complaints which encompasses the area of clinical judgment but which will probably have different outcomes, outcomes which are likely to lead to differences in practice by some clinicians perhaps, would be preferable to the only route available to a complainant being the courts and becoming litigious. I suggest to the noble Lord that one can arrive at a different conclusion as a result of the measure before us today.
The noble Lord asked also about resources, as did other noble Lords. There will be a need for additional resources in the commissioner's office arising from the need to investigate complaints about clinical judgment and about general health services and to pay for independent clinical advice; that is for the independent clinical advice which the ombudsman will seek to deal with complaints.
Sums have been agreed based on best estimates of the effects of the changes implied by the order. Those sums will be subject to revision upwards or downwards depending on the actual workload which results from the order. But they are not cash limited. If the commissioner requires further resources, they will be made available. That is the financial scheme within which the commissioner will work.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, talked about causes for complaint and, I believe, giving assurance to complainants. Indeed, I believe that that was broadly his point. What we hope to achieve with the measure is a simpler complaints procedure for the ordinary person to understand. The distinction between clinical judgment and maladministration is actually not a very straightforward one; sometimes there is quite an overlap between the two. We are developing a system which will be much clearer to the ordinary complainant because he or she will be told that that is not appropriate because it is clinical judgment, as has occasionally happened in the past. Therefore, we shall be able to give people a better sense of confidence in the complaints system, which I believe was also a point of concern for the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, also asked what could be done to publicise the wider role of the ombudsman. The main onus of publicising this is on the commissioner, but, in the health and social services, the boards and trusts already publicise the health aspects of the commissioner's role and will be quite happy to assist the commissioner in promoting awareness of the increased role which is being discussed today. Attempts will also be made to facilitate patients' access to the commissioner. Therefore, when patients feel they have a complaint at the hospital or wherever it is, information should be available there, as well as any other measures that the commissioner will introduce to publicise his new remit more widely.
I should point out that there are a number of stages which it is appropriate for people to follow. Going to the ombudsman or the commissioner is the last of those stages. In the fist instance, it is proper for people to complain to the hospital or other body against which
1164
they have a grievance. That is the proper way forward. There is then a second stage of the tribunal procedure. It is only at the end of that process that it is really sensible to contact the ombudsman. It is to be hoped, therefore, that some of the complaints can be filtered out at an early stage.
There remains just one outstanding question; namely, the advertising of the commissioner's post. It has not been filled for all that long and, therefore, we are looking at what will happen at some time in the future. Although I do not believe that any final decision has been made, I look at the situation post-Nolan and it seems to me that this is the sort of post which clearly would be covered by the Nolan recommendations. However, a more specific decision has not yet been made but no doubt will be nearer the time when such a post needs to be filled in the future. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Turkey: Human Rights
1.43 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What reports they have received about the state of human rights in Turkey; and what action they propose to take.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary spell out the Government's human rights policy in some detail yesterday, the more so because his remarks can be applied immediately to the case of Turkey, something of a litmus test of the policy, as we have always soft-pedalled the gross and persistent human rights violations by Turkey in the past for larger geopolitical reasons. Now Mr. Robin Cook says without qualification that Britain will support measures within the international community to express our condemnation of what he describes as,
"those regimes who grotesquely violate human rights and repeatedly fail to respond to demands for an improvement in standards".
Turkey is not a liberal democracy, but a country governed by the resultant of a number of forces uneasily and unstably balanced against each other: the army, the Islamists, the extreme right, the centre right and the criminal elements, all competing with each other for power and forming alliances which are not subject to popular approval and which are sometimes invisible. That means that there is a declared policy, which can be studied in the speeches made by Ministers in the Turkish Grand National Assembly and at international forums, and a clandestine policy, sometimes at odds with the official version.
This is the context in which human rights in Turkey have to be considered. If one only looks at the statements for public consumption and not at what is happening on the ground, one would get entirely the wrong impression. Thus in his speech to the Grand National Assembly last week, the new Prime Minister, Mesut Yilmaz promised to,
"show extreme care to safeguard the principles of democracy, secularism, and a social state of law".
He said that his government,
"considers freedom of thought and expression, conscience and religious belief … as the essential principles of our public life".
He gave assurances that the government would take all necessary measures to ensure the respect for human rights, which is provided by the Turkish constitution and by international agreement.
The trouble is that Mr. Yilmaz said much the same thing when he was last Prime Minister. On 7th March 1996, in a similar speech to the TGNA, he said that,
"only through a strong and true democracy can the universally-accepted principles such as the sovereignty of the nation, the guarantee of fundamental rights, judicial equality, the supremacy of law, social, economic and political plurality, and participation, tolerance and compromise exist"—
indeed, everything except motherhood and apple pie.
Very similar rhetoric could be found in a speech made by his predecessor Mrs. Tansu Ciller, when she came into office in June 1993. Yet, for the past 13 years, there has been a bitter armed struggle between the forces of the state and the Kurdish people of the south east of the country, involving not just a few thousand combatants in the PKK's armed wing, the Kurdistan National Liberation Army, but virtually the whole of the civilian population. That war has continued because, over this entire period and even now, the Kurds are deprived of their fundamental rights which Mr. Yilmaz says they ought to have. He describes this as,
"our struggle against separatist terrorism",
ignoring the fact that the PKK's goal is not an independent Kurdish state, but autonomy for the region where the majority of the people are Kurdish, and also tendentiously labelling the PKK as terrorists when the vast majority of acts of violence against non-combatants are committed by the state's armed forces, and their quisling allies, the village guards—Kurds who are paid to fight their own brothers. I am not going to talk about the propaganda war that Ankara wages in Europe and north America against the armed opposition, except to point out that if the Turkish authorities really wanted to protect civilians, they would comply with the requests by the ICRC for an invitation to visit the region, and to discuss the services that they could provide there to ensure that Common Article 3 of the conventions is being honoured by both parties to the conflict.
Will the Government urge Turkey to invite the ICRC, and to accept that the conflict in the south east is one to which Article 3 does apply? Will the Government ask the chairman-in-office of the OSCE to seek a formal opinion on the question of the application of Article 3 from a representative group of lawyers? In the meanwhile, will the Government ask the chairman-in-office to conduct an inquiry, preferably with the co-operation of the Turkish authorities—but if necessary without them—on the circumstances in which an estimated 2.5 million people have been forcibly displaced from their homes in south-east Anatolia.
I suggest that that inquiry should be conducted in the light of the OSCE' s Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, which provides as follows:
"If recourse to force cannot be avoided in performing internal security missions, each participating State will ensure that its use must be commensurate with the needs for enforcement. The armed forces will take due care to avoid injury to civilians or their property".
There is abundant evidence of the incessant, systematic violation of this obligation, which merely codified what was already customary international law. I was in Sirnak in September 1992, shortly after it had been heavily bombarded by the army in August. I met some of the injured residents in hospital. In October 1993, I gathered further evidence of the forced depopulation of villages, travelling round the region in the company of Leyla Zana MP, now imprisoned for her courageous stand on behalf of the Kurdish people. The OSCE is to review the implementation of that code at a special meeting in September, and the Minister, Doug Henderson, says that this will provide an excellent forum to discuss democratic controls on armed forces with all signatory states. That is one important aspect of the code, but the section dealing with injury to civilians is also vital. Will the Government suggest a new procedure, under which NGOs could submit evidence of violations of the code to a public tribunal, analogous to the UN Human Rights Commission?
As a result of the reports that I submitted on violations of human rights in Turkey, together with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, whom I am pleased to see on the Government Front Bench, I am a prohibited person, not allowed to enter the country after four visits and four reports on what I saw and heard. Others banned are Jonathan Sugden and Helmut Oberdiek of Amnesty International, Aliza Marcus of Reuters, who suffered prosecution under the anti-terror law, and Pam O'Toole of the BBC. Will the Government request Ankara to lift these bans and allow journalists and human rights observers to travel freely in the south-east region without being escorted everywhere by the Turkish military? As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, will recall, we were so escorted when we were there in 1994.
According to a document leaked from the National Security Council, an authority dominated by the military which takes all the decisions on the south-east, it has now been decided not only to jam the broadcasts of the independent broadcaster, Med-TV, but also to monitor and obstruct human rights NGOs which draw attention to the human rights violations in the Kurdish region. The jamming of Med-TV, which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will deal with later, must be a breach of the Helsinki Accords, and should be taken up with Ankara by the OSCE. Could we prompt the chairman-in-office to do so? The intention to monitor human rights monitors from abroad is nothing new but there is a nasty suggestion that a smear campaign should be mounted against people abroad who criticise Turkish human rights abuses. Having been libelled myself in a Turkish national newspaper, which had to apologise, publish a retraction and pay me damages because copies

1167
were distributed in this country, I can well believe that defamation is now to be used more widely as an instrument against other human rights activists.
In an important judgment last September, the European Court of Human Rights found against Turkey in the case of Akdivar, who successfully claimed that his rights were violated by the destruction of his home in the village of Kelekci in September 1992. That case was also important because the court noted that all applicants must be able to communicate freely with the European Commission without being subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to withdraw or modify their complaints. Akdivar's was one of 62 cases brought with the assistance of the London-based Kurdish Human Rights Project which have so far been declared admissible, and one of two where the court has delivered judgment, the other being the case of Aksoy, who was tortured when he was detained for 14 days in the Mardin headquarters of the anti-terrorist branch.
There are literally hundreds of other cases in the queue. In an Answer to me the noble Baroness indicated that 562 were registered in 1996 alone. However, the Turkish authorities are doing their best to ensure that it is impossible to collect further evidence. Many journalists, lawyers and human rights activists have been murdered or disappeared in the south-east. On 23rd May the Diyarbakir branch of the Turkish human rights organisation was closed down, and the president, Mahmut Sakar, and at least five officials were taken into custody. As Amnesty International pointed out, the closure followed years of harassment including the arrest, abduction and extra-judicial execution of officials, bomb attacks and a hail of litigation. Four other offices of the IHD—the human rights organisation—have been closed since then, in Konya, Malatya, Sanliurfa and Balikesir, and since the IHD has been the main organisation collecting witness statements for ECHR cases, this appears to be a systematic attempt to obstruct the work of the Commission, contrary to law.
The attacks on the IHD are also a part of the wider assault on freedom of expression, in the light of which Mr. Yilmaz's assurances ring hollow. Before Turkey was invited to join the European customs union at the end of 1996, Mrs. Ciller, the then Prime Minister, conceded changes in the anti-terror law, the importance of which was greatly exaggerated by Mr. David Davis, then Minister at the Foreign Office.
Last Sunday President Demirel expressed regret to a visiting delegation from the Committee to Protect Journalists, led by the former hostage Terry Anderson, that Turkey is the country with the largest number of journalists in prison—at least 78, according to the CPJ. Yet in the same breath he seemed to be making excuses, by saying that if somebody supports terrorism he deserves to be locked up. In Turkey, the definition of terrorism extends to any speech or writing which may undermine the unity of the state. If we had such a law in this country, it would mean that no one could advocate a referendum on the Scottish parliament, which your Lordships might think would save a lot of time in this House!
Human Rights Watch named Turkey and China earlier in the month as the top persecutors of writers. The last case list of the Writers in Prison Committee had eight pages on Turkey, more than any other country except China. The UN Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr. Abid Hussain, reported that there were consistent and credible reports of:
"The death or torture of press professionals while in police custody",
and of all the other allegations that we know only too well from other sources such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. He recommended that writers and journalists who had been sentenced for the peaceful expression of their views, even when these ran counter to the philosophy of the state, should have their sentences annulled. Among the long list of cases he invited the Turkish authorities to reconsider were those of the 185 writers, publishers, intellectuals and artists who were picked from 1,080 who collectively issued a book entitled Freedom of Thought in Turkey, consisting of a collection of writings for which the authors were on trial or imprisoned.
Another case he mentioned was that of Ms. Leyla Zana MP, whom I have already mentioned, who was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment, along with three of her parliamentary colleagues. The UN working group on arbitrary detention had declared in November 1995 that the detention of these MPs was arbitrary and had asked the Turkish authorities to release them. The Inter-parliamentary Union, at its meeting in Seoul last April, welcomed the initiatives the Turkish authorities said they were taking to bring Turkey into line with European human rights standards, and again strongly hoped this would lead to the release of the imprisoned MPs and the lifting of sentences imposed on their colleagues.
Amnesty International has expressed particular concern about the detention and torture of children. It says that children are often detained under the anti-terror law and have none of the safeguards which apply to adults. It is still receiving credible reports of the torture of children.
There is no time to go into detail on the extent of torture in Turkey, which Mr. Yilmaz, like his predecessors, has pledged himself to abolish. In October 1991 Mr. Demirel, who was then a candidate for the office of Prime Minister and is now president, promised,
"a new Turkey—the walls of all police stations will be made of glass".
Yet in March 1997 Human Rights Watch still reported widespread police torture in pre-trial detention by the anti-terror police. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, after visiting places of detention on a number of occasions over recent years, most recently in September 1996, asserted that,
"resort to torture and other forms of severe ill treatment remains a common occurrence in police establishments in Turkey. To attempt to characterise the problem as one of isolated acts of the kind which can occur in any country—as some are wont to do—is to fly in the face of the facts".
There are a couple of glimmers of light amid the darkness. The period of incommunicado detention allowed under the law has been reduced, and the right

1169
of access to a lawyer after four days in custody for suspects under the anti-terror law has been restored. That seems to have had some effect on the number of cases of torture that are being reported, although closure of the IHD offices may account for at least part of the reduction.
Further, Turkey has invited the UN Working Group on Disappearances and the rapporteur on torture, Dr. Nigel Rodley, to visit Turkey but I gather from Dr. Rodley this is not until the end of 1998. It has to be recognised, however, that many of the recommendations made in the past by the CPT and the UN Committee Against Torture have not been implemented. There is no point in agreeing to receive visits unless there is an intention to comply with the suggestions that are made.
Finally, I refer to the Turkish incursion into northern Iraq which is an illegal escapade that has resulted in further violations of human rights in those parts of the territory which are occupied by the Turkish forces and in the sector run by their allies, the Kurdistan Democratic Party under Massoud Barzani. Ministers have confirmed that under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Turkey should have reported this operation immediately to the Security Council. We have reminded them of their obligation to do so. Has that been done? Has it reported to the Security Council? If not, do we as a permanent member intend to lay the matter before the Security Council as a breach of the charter? Mr. Yilmaz's only reference to the matter in his speech to the TGNA was the sentence:
"We will continue to take all kinds of measures in southeast Anatolia until the power vacuum in northern Iraq—which constitutes a threat to the security of southeast Anatolia and consequently of our entire country—is eliminated and until Iraq's territorial integrity is restored".
That appears to confirm that the occupation is indefinite, making it impossible for UN monitors to do their work under Resolution 986 in that part of the territory and raising the fear that widespread human rights violations are occurring in the occupied part of northern Iraq as the troops hunt for the PKK guerrillas whose supposed presence there is the excuse for the invasion.
Mr. Yilmaz says that his main priority is to prepare a new electoral register and to establish the legal and administrative arrangements for a new election. That process may take six months, and in that time I suggest that it would be unrealistic to expect the human rights situation to be transformed. The most that can be expected is that specific reforms may appear in the manifestos of the parties, and that the election will be held under conditions which enable the Kurds to have a voice in the new parliament, opening the way for a negotiated settlement of their claims for autonomy and the right to maintain their identity.
We cannot allow the Kurdish party to be excluded by violence and intimidation, as they were in the local elections of 1994, or by an unrealistic threshold, as in the general election of 1995. This may be the last chance for a peaceful settlement of the problem which has handicapped Turkey for the whole of the 75 years of her existence as a modem state. We should make it plain to Ankara that it is the last chance for Turkey to secure entry to the European Union. If it cannot find a peaceful
1170
way of accommodating the Kurdish people within a new constitutional framework, we shall be unable to admit it to a Europe whose values it has rejected.
2.2 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as well as congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on keeping so effectively this important subject on the agenda, I commend my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary for timing his speech on human rights to fit in so well with today's Unstarred Question.
I have visited Turkey only once, but I have met many Turkish people, including the Turkish ambassador to London. I have always found Turkish people to be friendly and courteous on a personal level. Turkey is an important player in the world scene, situated as it is, between Europe, central Asia, Russia and the Middle East. That is why we would like to be on good terms with Turkey, especially as it is a very beautiful country to visit, with a rich cultural heritage, and not least because of its excellent cuisine. Turkey is a member of NATO, the Council of Europe and the OSCE. It has signed a number of international conventions on human rights and trades extensively with Europe, the United States and the rest of the world. Yet with all those advantages and aspirations, and its democratic façade, Turkey still has one of the worst human rights records in the world. I note that mention of Turkey was carefully omitted from the Foreign Secretary's speech, along with a number of other countries with bad human rights records. I believe that the Foreign Secretary was always diplomatic and has learned perhaps to be even more so at the Foreign Office.
The Turkish police and security forces have inherited a tradition of cruelty from the days of the Ottoman Empire. Torture and beating of suspects while in detention has been the norm for centuries. Unfortunately, despite claims by Mrs. Ciller, Mr. Yilmaz and President Demirel, the practice continues even though, we hope, it is diminishing slightly. As I reported the last time we debated this issue in February 1996, Dr. Nigel Rodley, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, placed Turkey in the highest position listed with regard to the numbers of cases of torture reported to him. My noble friend will be aware of the extensive documentation by Amnesty International of arbitrary arrest, torture, extrajudicial killings and disappearances, the disruption of public meetings and the persecution of trade unionists, human rights organisations, and those who uphold Kurdish self-determination. As the noble Lord described fully, freedom of the press is heavily curtailed. I could go on.
As a doctor I am very concerned about the coercion with which medical personnel are faced in order to make them provide medical certificates on prisoners which omit evidence of torture or ill treatment that has clearly taken place. Those who refuse to give those false, whitewashing certificates are threatened, sometimes later beaten up and occasionally killed. A full report on this coercion was provided by Physicians for Human Rights and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association last August. The report describes the results of a survey of 60 Turkish forensic physicians attending a conference in Istanbul. Of those doctors,

1171
60 per cent. agreed that almost everyone held in detention in Turkey is tortured; and they did not include beating as torture.
For me the Unstarred Question is also timely because it allows me to report to the House and to the Government on a conference that I attended in Hamburg at the end of last month. It was sponsored by the Kurdish Red Crescent, an organisation not yet recognised by the International Red Cross or Red Crescent because Kurdistan is not an independent nation. The conference was entitled: "War and Health in Kurdistan". About 20 speakers described various aspects of their experiences of the impact of the conflict, on health and healthcare services, mainly in south-east Turkey but also to some extent in Iraq.
This conflict, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, implied, is a low-intensity guerrilla war. The Turkish Government wish the outside world and the population of Turkey to regard the conflict as a mopping up operation against the PKK, which they label as a purely terrorist organisation. My noble friend Lady Symons, following this line, used the same terminology when answering a Starred Question about a month ago. Turkish government sources suggest that the organisation can be defeated militarily, that in fact it is on the verge of collapse if only its bases in northern Iraq could be destroyed.
In the view of almost all non-Turkish observers—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave quite a long list of them—that is a false picture. The PKK has indeed carried out acts of violence which have resulted in the deaths of non-combatants, and for that must stand condemned. However, Abdul Ocalan, the PKK's leader, has now said that the PKK will observe the common article of the Geneva convention relating to non-combatants and prisoners in internal conflicts as well as international conflicts.
The PKK came into being because the Kurds of Turkey could make no progress in achieving their legitimate rights through the democratic process. It now has the covert support of a large part of the Kurdish population, who, incidentally, constantly replenish its armed wing. My noble friend will be fully aware that the Kurdish language is forbidden in schools and that the Kurdish cultural identity is denied. Entry into the main stream of Turkish social and political life is only possible for Kurds if they deny their Kurdish identity.
The attempt to crush the PKK has turned into a war against the Kurdish population as a whole, with the wholesale destruction or evacuation of some 3,000 villages in an attempt to deprive the PKK of its support and supply base. That is a technique familiar to Britain. I am not sure that we did not invent this method of countering guerrilla warfare. We certainly used it in India and more recently in Malaya in the 1940s and 1950s. This has resulted in a very large internal refugee problem for Turkey, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned, of some 3 million people—some estimates are much higher. These populations have very largely been left to fend for themselves, with those who are lucky staying in very overcrowded conditions with
1172
friends or relatives in the larger towns and cities or else building their own shanty town structures on the edges of these towns.
One of the problems in measuring the extent of the human impact of the conflict is the lack of accurate statistics, both on the size of the displaced population and as a proper measure of the health impact of the conflict. Evidence from the Turkish medical association and my personal observations on a visit to Diyarbakir two years ago confirm eye witness reports and local research presented at the conference in Hamburg that health services and the state of public health have greatly deteriorated as a result of the conflict.
To summarise, that means that, as a result of the ensuing poverty and malnutrition, poor housing and overcrowding, lack of clean water and disruption of basic healthcare, the incidence of infectious diseases such as typhoid and TB and the infant mortality rate are increasing. In this relatively backward area steady progress was in fact being made in public health up to the mid-1980s (with WHO assistance). One of the demands of the Hamburg conference was that the area should be opened to a permanent delegation of the International Red Cross in concert with the Turkish Red Crescent. Another demand was that the World Health Organisation should,
"take note of the enormous inequalities in the health situation and medical aid ascertained by the Turkish Chamber of Physicians and other organisations and take the necessary measures".
One of those would be to make a rapid but accurate independent assessment of the deplorable public health situation. The conference also called on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
"to register statistically and take under its mandate the approximately 5 million Kurdish refugees resulting from this conflict—
a request which would, if granted, be a vital first step in providing appropriate help.
As an aside, I should mention that UNHCR is in fact involved in assisting the resettlement in Turkey of the refugees who were displaced by the closure of the Atrush refugee camp for Turkish Kurds in the safe haven region of Iraq. So far, very few of those have returned to Turkey and my information is that little has been done to resettle them, although the UNHCR provided Turkey with the necessary funds. All the demands made by the Hamburg conference in reality depend in the first instance on a request from the Turkish Government to the international organisation concerned, which at present they are not prepared to make. Presumably that is because they do not want the outside world to know the true situation.
Can I ask my noble friend, through the Foreign Office, to press the Turkish Government to ask these international humanitarian agencies—that is the International Red Cross, the World Health Organisation and UNHCR—for their assistance in addition to allowing access to the human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and the OSCE, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury? If the Turkish Government were to answer those requests, world opinion and many human rights organisations would applaud, whereas if they continue to refuse, the

1173
conclusion will be drawn that they have something to hide. If a country has something to hide, should it still remain a member of the Council of Europe and the OSCE? Should we still be collaborating with it militarily as a full member of NATO, supplying weapons and assistance with military training, as my noble friend Lord Gilbert confirmed in a Written Answer to me two weeks ago—although he declined to say what kind of training it was? In parenthesis, I appreciate the Foreign Secretary's reference in his speech to the review of our military training assistance programme and its possible diversion to encouraging good practice. It is something which has a particular application to Turkey.
Is it not reasonable to ask that, if Turkey wishes to remain in those organisations—the Council of Europe, OSCE and NATO—it should be required to put its house in order or face expulsion?
Finally, could I ask my noble friend to confirm that we shall not only raise the issue of individual prisoners of conscience at bilateral meetings (as Robin Cook promised in his speech), but that we shall raise the wider issues that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury and I mentioned today, whenever the opportunity arises? If there is no response, if there is no steady improvement, will the Government consider, together with others, the imposition of a progressive series of sanctions, starting with expulsion from the organisations that I mentioned which, after all, exist very largely to uphold and defend human rights?
2.16 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for raising the Question today since it is both topical and urgent. It may be helpful to have a brief look at the history of minorities in Turkey. I start with the Armenians who were once a large and thriving group. By 1918, however, hardly any were left alive in eastern Turkey. A "final solution" had been found for them. Genocide is, I fear, not an exaggerated term.
The Assyrians are another Christian minority living along Turkey's border with Syria. Their numbers have fallen from well over 100,000 to a good deal less than 3,000. The causes are voluntary emigration, reinforced by real discrimination coming from the Turkish state. Assyrians could not expect to find employment in the civil service or in state industries. In the past 13 years they have also been caught in the cross-fire between the Turkish army and the insurgents.
The Laz, another small group of people living in north-east Turkey along the boundary with Georgia, have complained of lack of education in their own language and of the consequent dangers of their culture and identity disappearing.
Far greater and more longstanding are the problems facing millions of Kurds. At the origin of the Turkish Republic, the new state was supposed to be a partnership between Turks and Kurds. AtatÜrk, however, devised a unitary state and proclaimed the slogan, "Happy is he who calls himself a Turk". In 1994 I saw those words painted in huge letters on the mountainside above the city of Van, formerly Armenian and now largely Kurdish in population. The Kurds were not allowed
1174
even to describe themselves as a national community and were officially referred to as "mountain Turks". Is it surprising, therefore, that in the 1920s and 1930s there were constant uprisings of Kurds against Turks and a permanent severe repression of the Kurdish population?
The Kurdish language, which is akin to Iranian, has never been permitted in the schools and universities of republican Turkey. Kurdish may not be used in law courts or for any form of public business. No Kurdish newspapers, radio or TV are allowed, despite the recent considerable proliferation of radio and TV stations. Even tapes of Kurdish poetry and music are regularly confiscated and destroyed by the army and police. The Kurdish language only survives because it continues in full use in family life. Such is the level of cultural intolerance to be found in a member of NATO and in a country which has signed the European Convention on Human Rights, which belongs to the OSCE and which aspires to full membership of the European Union.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt. I am in profound sympathy with the noble Lord. Can he tell us whether Kurds are treated worse in Turkey than in other countries?
Lord Hylton: Perhaps the noble Earl is referring to Iran or Iraq, both of which have extremely repressive regimes. He must draw his own conclusions.
Against that background I want to tell the story of Med-TV, mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The company is registered in England as Med Broadcasting Limited. It is licensed by the Independent Television Commission and maintains a London office, thus providing some limited employment here. Its main studios are in Belgium and Sweden and it provides television to the Middle East by European satellites. It broadcasts for about nine hours a day, mainly in Kurdish but also in Turkish. Its transmissions are received not only in Turkey but also in Syria, Iraq and Iran; in short, in all the main areas of Kurdish population. Owing to the differences that exist in the Kurdish dialects, great efforts have had to be made to use words that are most widely understood.
When I went to Diyarbakir and Mardin in December 1995 for the Turkish general election, I inquired particularly whether that TV station was being received and what was the public response. I was told that the viewers were positively rapturous. Old people had wept for joy after such a long period of cultural starvation. For all, it was a new window on the world and, what is more, in their own language. The poorest families clubbed together to buy sets and satellite dishes.
Let us see what has been the response of Turkey to something which most people would consider a desirable development in international communications. Turkey first tried to have the company's British licence revoked. The Independent Television Commission quite properly refused. Turkey then tried to put pressure on Mr. Major when he was Prime Minister. Between times, it attempted to jam the transmissions of the original European satellite being used. Fortunately, that also was unsuccessful. Last September, the offices of Med-TV in London and in Belgium were simultaneously raided by

1175
the local police force, acting no doubt at the request of the Turkish Government. Files and computer data were removed but nothing incriminating was found in either case and no charges were brought. In Turkey itself soldiers have many times confiscated dishes and damaged TV sets which they considered to be receiving Med-TV's broadcasts. Another tactic is to cut off a village's electricity supply at peak viewing time.
In November 1996, a director of the company, waiting for a train at Duisburg in Germany, was suddenly and viciously beaten by four men who spoke Turkish among themselves. No one has been arrested for that attack. In June of this year the family of another director living in Sussex was followed and photographed by someone of Turkish appearance. Police protection may therefore yet be needed for persons connected with the company.
Meanwhile, there has been further jamming. INTELSAT cannot apparently be jammed, for some technical reason. But dishes receiving it in Turkey need to be pointed in a particular direction. That enables the police to identify them quite easily. For that reason, the company had begun experimenting with broadcasts from EUTELSAT, a different satellite system, which would not suffer from the same problem.
By 2 p.m. on 1st July jamming started, thought to come from Turkey. EUTELSAT operators complained to Turkey, pointing out that broadcasts were suffering interruption, which included and affected some Romanian language services. The Romanian service, I am glad to say, is now free from interference but the Kurdish service is still being interrupted.
Will Her Majesty's Government inform Turkey that jamming of international TV transmissions is a serious violation of recognised freedoms of expression? It is entirely unacceptable and almost certainly violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Helsinki conventions of 1979, to which Turkey was a party. Will Her Majesty's Government make clear that attacks on, and harassment of, Med-TV personnel will not be tolerated? Will they also consult with the German, Belgian and any other relevant European governments on that issue and on the issue of jamming?
I should like to ask another important question. Do Her Majesty's Government agree with the Geopolitical Narcotics Monitor which stated that 70 per cent. of illegal drugs entering Europe come through Turkey? Can they confirm the view of Mr. Tom Sackville who said, when still a Home Office Minister, that 80 per cent. of the heroin seized in Britain came via Turkey? He also alleged that official Turkish leaks caused some anti-drug operations to fail. What is being done about that unsatisfactory situation?
Turkey itself has serious problems. Despite a 6 per cent. growth rate, inflation has been running and still runs at 80 per cent. per year. Debt is high with interest absorbing over 70 per cent. of tax revenues. The currency depreciates steadily. The prime cause is over-large military spending and the cost of war in the east and south-east. I suggest that attention will have to
1176
be paid to the known views of TUSIAD, the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's Association, and indeed to those of the Kurdistan parliament in exile.
In my view, Turkey should one day become a full member of the European Union. The European Union should state clearly that minor cosmetic improvements in human rights such as we have seen will not be enough. The key lies in a political solution to the Kurdish question and to the 13-year long war. That alone will end the emergency, demilitarise the country, make possible the rule of law and remove the overall control exerted by the national security council. Until those things happen, the prospects for human rights are bleak. The European Union, the Council of Europe and the OSCE can all help. But Turkey needs to find its own Gorbachev. Friends of Turkey should all help her to find such a leader.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say why he considers it desirable that Turkey should join the European Community?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, Turkey is our neighbour. It has been our partner in NATO for many years. There is a large population of Turks living in Europe, particularly in Germany. I do not believe that the two can permanently be separated.
2.29 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating this debate. Anyone who has listened to your Lordships' speeches knows that it is a disturbing debate—disturbing because there is little doubt that Turkey's human rights record does not measure up to internationally acceptable standards. Indeed, for many years now the international community has made its position clear: that the Turkish Government must increase their efforts to stamp out human rights abuses with lasting and meaningful legislation and with respect for internationally acceptable human rights norms.
There have been recent glimmers of hope that the Turkish Government will act responsibly, not least as a result of the customs union agreement signed with Turkey in December 1995. The agreement aimed to bring Turkey further into alignment with its trading partners of the West and encourage Turkey to develop closer working partnerships with the European Union. The agreement also proposed a substantial aid programme for Turkey in return for commitments that progress would be made on the key issues of democracy and human rights.
In October 1996 the European Community reported back on the progress made as a result of that agreement. Although some positive steps have been taken, particularly with reference to trade in the industrial sector, the longed for progress on human rights issues had not taken place. When the customs union agreement was signed, Turkey committed itself to the aspirations of the OSCE but has repeatedly failed to comply with that organisation's guidelines.

1177
I should like to address Turkey's human rights record and to look at the ways in which it falls far short of our hopes and desires. As your Lordships will be aware, and as was so admirably outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, since 1984 the Turkish Government and their military have been engaged in confrontation with armed guerillas of the PKK in the south-east of the country where the Kurds form the majority of the population. The PKK has an estimated strength of some 10,000, largely operating from bases outside its border, not least Syria and the Lebanon. The south-east of Turkey remains under martial law and more than 10,500 people have died in the 12 years of warfare.
This is sadly not a straightforward battle of good versus evil. Criticism has been levelled at both sides of this bloody conflict. While the Turkish army has on occasions violently opposed the PKK, the PKK has attempted to gain the Kurdish population's support sometimes by intimidating and executing those who oppose it. Their actions have, nevertheless, been generally unsuccessful.
Between 150,000 and 200,000 Turkish troops are stationed in the south-east of the country. In May this year they crossed over the border into northern Iraq in their quest against the Kurdish people. The ensuing violence in Erbil has already been reported to this House in very distressing terms by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on another occasion, and we all appreciate the scale of the alleged atrocities. The south-eastern region of Turkey is now completely out of bounds to foreigners lest they be caught in crossfire. Four tourists, including a Briton, died in bomb attacks in Marmaris and Istanbul in 1994. The PKK has made repeated threats against tourists, most recently in June this year. As your Lordships will know, several western tourists were kidnapped by the PKK in the summers of 1993, 1994, 1995 and as recently as September of last year.
Inevitably, there is some sympathy for the Turkish Government in having to deal with what is perceived by some as a violent, uncompromising and bloodthirsty opponent. But meeting violence with violence only escalates the bloodlust. It is incumbent on responsible governments to take the high ground, to set an example and ultimately to ensure that the basic human rights of all those affected should be upheld.
The United Kingdom has a particular understanding of the situation, dealing as it does and must with the problems faced in Northern Ireland. In the words of the former Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind:
"We know that the light against terrorism can only ultimately he successful if it recognises the human rights and the legitimate concerns of the people who are caught up in it".
It is only in these circumstances that government can be respected by its people and prove worthy of the powers placed upon it.
It is true to say that in recent years there has been some liberalisation of the application of Article 8 of Turkey's anti-terrorism law which seeks to prevent
1178
freedom of expression, although the law itself has not been altered and, as we have heard today in this debate, continues to be used to prosecute people for their beliefs. Insufficient action has been taken against the torture and ill treatment of prisoners. Disappearances and extra-judicial executions still take place. Access to Turkish prisons on behalf of the International Committee of the Red Cross has been denied repeatedly since 1983. There are reports of pressures placed on non-governmental organisations suspected of actively supporting the Kurdish cause.
The excellent report and work undertaken by Amnesty International elaborates on that point. It made a series of important recommendations. I very much hope that they will be considered very carefully by the Government and indeed by everyone to whom they were addressed, not least by members of the Council of Europe and UN member states. To the European Union member states Amnesty International said that it sought to sustain close monitoring of freedom of expression in Turkey, as recommended by the European Parliament in its approval of the 1995 customs union, and use all means at their disposal to encourage the Government of Turkey to effect genuine reform of those laws under which prisoners of conscience are held.
There have been reports that the Turkish Government have instituted proceedings in a number of cases against those accused of torture, but as long as the practices that both I and more ably Amnesty International have outlined continue it is incumbent on all of us, from whichever side of the House, to highlight them.
There is no doubt that Turkey needs to reform her policy on human rights. This is imperative not only for peace and prosperity within her own borders; it is of international concern. Turkey is a strategically important and valued member of NATO. Her territories span the great divides of the world: to the north the fledgling democracies of the former Soviet Union; to the east the volatile areas of the Middle East; to the south the occasionally turbulent North African countries and to the west, Europe.
We need to encourage her stability and prosperity. I also share with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the view that we look forward to the day when she may join us in the European Community. Her accession would help to seal peace and security in a key entrepÔt of the world. In view of that wider hope, NATO has actively supported her military. Over the years it has supplied her with 500 combat aircraft, 500 combat helicopters, 5,000 tanks and thousands of artillery weapons, mortars, machine guns and assault rifles. But it is absolutely essential and right that we seek to ensure that those weapons are not put to ill-use either in Northern Cyprus or in the southeast of Turkey itself. It is a delicate balance between the need for global peace and the needs of the Turkish citizens. The lasting solution is a sea change in attitude from the Turkish Government towards human rights abuses.
So how is such a sea change to be delivered? I am in no doubt about it. It will only come if we continue to work closely with Turkey. We should persist with the customs union agreement, which admirably reflected the

1179
view that Europe should seek to influence the domestic policy of her neighbours by holding out the carrot of stronger trading ties and financial assistance. An antagonistic approach in this instance will only lead to Turkish isolation, which in turn may force her to look for other allies in less peaceful and stable regions of the world.
I am aware of the Government's admirable policy to place human rights at the core of their foreign affairs policy, a commitment which was reinforced only yesterday by the Foreign Secretary. But I would be interested to know whether such a policy will mean stronger action on behalf of the Government towards the perpetrators of human rights abuses. Will they attempt to impose greater penalties on the countries concerned?
I do not see a more antagonistic approach to other governments necessarily securing the desired response. Far from it. I believe that it could drive them further away from our aspirations and those of the international community. In Turkey's case that could have immeasurable consequences for Cyprus, NATO, Europe and peace in the eastern Mediterranean.
In conclusion, while I have concentrated my remarks on the issues of Turkey, particularly the human rights issues relating to that country, this debate, as noble Lords have mentioned, fortuitously coincides with the announcement of the Government's foreign policy and the place that human rights will have within that foreign policy. On 12th May, announcing the mission statement, the Foreign Secretary put,
"human rights at the heart of our foreign policy".
By yesterday in the Locarno Room of the Foreign Office he had moved discernibly to "the centre". There is only one centre so it necessarily displaces other priorities in its wake. He said that the fact that we are witnesses in our sitting rooms to these events requires us to take responsibility for our reaction to such gross breaches of human rights. Many of the Foreign Secretary's words yesterday would have been welcomed by noble Lords on all sides of the House. But East Timor has provided an opportunity to note the difference between rhetoric and action. There will be many others. The gap between the rhetoric and the actions of this Government should and will be constantly examined from all sides of this House. However good the intentions, at its widest the gap between rhetoric and action can best be defined as hypocrisy; at its narrowest the gap will represent a breach of faith.
I end by posing two general questions in this context. Given the new human rights policy of the Foreign Office, by how much further does the level of human rights atrocities in any country with whom we trade have to deteriorate before the Government impose trade sanctions? If the Government are not considering the implementation of trade sanctions, how will they reconcile the inherent tension between a policy of dialogue together with non-isolation of a country on the one hand and its human-rights foreign policy approach
1180
on the other? Given the current Government's new foreign policy objective, I believe that it is right to put these key questions to the Government in the context of the Starred Questions and debates that we have had so far this Session—for example, those relating to Burma, the Sudan, Indonesia and, through a question of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to the Minister today, Turkey.
2.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for raising this Question today. I am sure that all noble Lords are very much aware of his dedicated work in the field of human rights. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his ceaseless efforts to raise the profile of debate in this vitally important area. For him, as for many others, Turkey has been a particular focus, and rightly so. In Turkey there are obvious problems and clear opportunities to put those problems right.
As my noble friend Lord Rea remarked, only yesterday my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made a speech on human rights issues. I shall not repeat today what he said, but I echo the spirit of his words. Human rights are fundamental to this Government's foreign policy objectives. That is not a promise to preach to the world on how other countries can improve themselves. To do so would be both arrogant and counter-productive. I mean that respect for the rights of individuals should run as a thread through all our deliberations and contacts with the world at large, and Turkey is no exception.
Many noble Lords have raised specific issues and a number of differing approaches have been suggested. I shall try to address as many points as I can. Initially, I shall examine why the Government regard Turkey as an important interest to Britain and to Europe. Much of Turkey's significance lies in the fact that it is itself a part of Europe. Successive Turkish governments have restated their commitment to establishing a European identity for Turkey. Turkey is a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe. It aspires to membership of the European Union. The customs union with Europe, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred, is a concrete indication of Turkey's position in the European home. It has its imperfections; it has its critics, many of them in this House.
Of course, Turkey is also a long-standing NATO ally. Its importance to the security of the alliance has not diminished since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Geopolitically, Turkey occupies a crucial position on the threshold of a region of tension and uncertainty. It has ties with the Middle East, the Islamic world, the Caucasus and central Asia. Its tradition of secular democracy in a predominantly Moslem country is an achievement we should not undervalue.

1181
And yet, as all noble Lords have pointed out, Turkey's human rights record remains poor. I share your Lordships' concerns expressed here today about reports of torture, abuse, unwarranted detentions and "disappearances". There can be no excuses for extra-judicial killings or intimidation of those carrying out their professions, such as journalists or lawyers. Indeed, it is incumbent upon those who regard Turkey as a friend not to remain silent in the face of clear breaches of basic rights and freedoms. I believe that the Government of Turkey understand that there will remain serious obstacles in the way of progress towards a closer relationship with Europe while Turkey remains so far short of European standards in human rights. Our challenge will be how to help Turkey reach those standards. We have a duty not just to criticise, but, where we can, to help.
The new Government in Turkey have pledged themselves to the improvement of human rights in the programme they announced two weeks ago. We welcome that commitment. It follows modest progress on reform under the previous administration. But announcements will not be enough. There will need to be a thorough reappraisal of the administration of justice in Turkey: reductions in the periods of detention of suspects; a hard look at the workings of the state security courts; and effective enablement of the rights of freedom of expression, before we can say that there has been a sea change in Turkey's behaviour.
Turkey has duties and obligations under the international treaties to which it is signatory, as noble Lords have mentioned. It should not be surprised if other signatories expect it to conform to those treaties in word and deed. Without significant movement towards European standards, Turkey will continue to be embarrassed and discomfited by the attention of her friends and allies in the OSCE and the Council of Europe.
We were glad to see the adjustments that the previous Turkish government were able to make in this area. I am encouraged by the new Government's announcement earlier this week of the amnesty to all journalists currently imprisoned for "crimes of expression". This is a welcome and long-overdue reform. I hope, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will have welcomed the release, albeit on bail, of Mr. Sanar Yurdatapan, on whose behalf he has campaigned so vigorously.
But, as our debate today has demonstrated, these are but drops in a large pool. There is a Turkish expression which runs
"Drop by drop, the lake forms".
I do not believe that in the field of human rights either Turkey or her friends have time for such an unpredictable meterological progression.
The problems of the Kurdish minority have rightly featured prominently in today's debate, and I shall discuss them in more detail later. But the issue of terrorism will not alas distance itself far from those
1182
considerations. There is no doubt that Turkey faces a serious threat from the terrorism of the PKK. Sadly, we recognise that threat. Britain itself has had to cope with terrorism for too long not to. We understand the difficulties in tackling that threat. But we also know that military actions can never provide the whole solution to the problem. We do not question Turkey's territorial integrity; there should be no ambiguity on the point. But Turkey must look at the legitimate concerns of its Kurdish population in terms of housing, employment, social and healthcare, and education.
Those deep-rooted problems must be seriously addressed. Only then can a credible long-term stability return to the troubled provinces of the south-east. Only that can effectively undermine support for the terrorists. Heavy-handed and indiscriminate suppression are not the answer. For us, condemnation alone will not promote improvement. If we can approach the problems that Turkey faces in a mood of support and co-operation, we will get further quicker than through direct confrontation. I do not say this as an apologist for the abuses that we have heard about today. I say this as a realistic way to try to make a difference. Through firm action in international fora with our allies, and through supportive educational and vocational training exchanges, we can help to bring about an improvement in the understanding of human rights issues. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday in his speech on human rights:
"Wherever possible, our approach should he to encourage improved standards through dialogue".
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was kind enough to give me notice of the specific questions which he intended to raise today. I shall try to address some of them, although the list was long. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not answer all his questions but I shall write to him.
The menu for change about which we have heard is full. The question for us is how best to encourage the Turkish authorities to digest such a menu. I believe that for many people there is an understanding that in Turkey there is now an appetite for change. We will persist in urging on Turkey the advantages of welcoming objective observers to help clarify where problems lie; for example, in the displacement and other hardships of the people of south-east Turkey and in the functioning of Turkey's democratic institutions and electoral systems.
That applies to individual observers. As regards the specific point made by the noble Lord, we will again take up with the Turkish authorities their prohibition of certain individuals, including the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. That applies, too, to representatives of the international organisations mentioned by many noble Lords today; for instance, the UN rapporteurs, the OSCE and the ICRC. In all cases, the message must be that the involvement of observers and experts is important. Indeed, it is vital. The openness and transparency which they can bring to addressing the problems can help towards solutions. They are not an unwelcome distraction.

1183
The noble Lord spoke movingly of the torture of children. Sadly, we are indeed aware of reports that children have been the subject of torture. Let there be no doubt that Her Majesty's Government condemn any torture. We welcome the decision earlier this year to reduce the maximum detention periods for people held in custody. That may help, but it is not enough. Only by full co-operation will the international bodies responsible for monitoring and investigating such allegations can Turkey really convince the international community that it has acted to stamp out the scourge of torture in that country.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the question of the review in September of the OSCE code of conduct on the politico-military aspects of security. We believe that the seminar will provide an excellent forum to examine democratic controls on armed forces. As a signatory state, we expect Turkey to meet her obligations under the code and we will work with our partners to ensure adherence to all OSCE commitments.
The noble Lord also referred to the code of conduct and the chapter on the human dimension which were both attached to the Budapest Declaration of the OSCE of December 1994. The code of conduct focuses on politico-military aspects of security and standards for democratic control under armed forces and the protection of civilians. It does not have an enforcement procedure and is regarded as politically but not legally binding. Paragraphs 34 to 37 of the code refer to respect for commitment under the international law and, in particular, the Hague and Geneva conventions dealing with the laws of war.
The chapter on the human dimension focuses on human rights questions. Under that, it is open to governments or NGOs to ask the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to refer human rights questions to the chairman in office of the OSCE.
The noble Lord referred also to two specific cases—the Akduvar case and the Aksoy case. They went against Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights. The British Government regard those as important test cases in relation to Turkey's compliance with European human rights standards. We expect Turkey to meet the requirements set out by the court. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the House that we have reiterated that in the recent review in Strasbourg.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of the Kurdish minority. The conflict in south-east Turkey between the Turkish security forces and the PKK indeed casts a dark cloud over the security and livelihood of the region's people. But of course, a state of conflict or emergency must not be made into a pretext for a denial of basic freedoms and rights. That cannot be the way to win the battle for peace and prosperity in the region. Village clearances, as have been described, forcing large-scale relocation of huge numbers of people, have
1184
clearly been a part of the Turkish authority's strategy and have not brought solutions. They have compounded the problems in many cases, increasing the discontent which feeds the appeal of violence and terrorism.
But in recent months we have seen signals of a growing awareness in Turkey that the relentless pursuit of a military solution will not provide the answer. Significantly, Turkish business leaders have clearly identified the need for economic regeneration in the region. They have called for increased investment there. It is welcome too that some senior figures in the Turkish military establishment have begun to speak publicly about the need for a humanitarian and developmental dimension to address the problems of the south east. We shall continue actively to encourage words such as those to be followed by actions.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, raised the problem of the deterioration in public heath and the need for a permanent delegation from the International Red Cross. The Government will indeed encourage the Turkish Government to understand that international organisations such as the ICRC can help to address the problems which confront the south east of Turkey. We shall continue to press that point with them.
The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Hylton, referred to the problems concerning Med-TV. Questions about jamming have been raised. We have received no confirmation of the source of the problem. We have been told that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is investigating those incidents. We shall continue to press for information about where the jamming is coming from.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the reports of the assaults, which were indeed terrible. We are aware that investigation into those alleged criminal activities is under way. I hope that something may come of those investigations and that we can report further to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
The noble Lord asked also about drug trafficking. We know that a large proportion of the heroin entering the UK arrives via Turkey. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary discussed that with his Turkish counterpart when they met earlier this month. Both my right honourable friend and the Turkish foreign minister agreed about the usefulness of enhanced co-operation in that area, both bilaterally and with our European partners.
Several noble Lords have referred to Turkey's EU application. The European Commission has just put forward its Agenda 2000 containing proposals on how to handle further enlargement of the EU. On the question of Turkey's aspiration to join, the Commission endorses the view that Turkey is eligible to join and that its candidacy should he judged on the same criteria as those for other candidates. The Government support that approach.
However, it is clear to us that one criterion on which Turkey falls a long way short is its performance in human rights. Turkey's path to membership must include a thoroughgoing reform in that field.

1185
I do not believe that anyone listening to this debate believes that the human rights position in Turkey will be improved by isolation or by dissociation. We must work with Turkey, but we must work firmly and insistently through the various international organisations about which so many noble Lords spoke today. During his meeting with the new Turkish foreign minister, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary broached the issue of human rights and asked how we might help. Mr. Cem welcomed our suggestions. There are a number of areas in which we will be looking to take forward practical proposals, such as educational and vocational training programmes and
1186
seminars for lawyers and barristers to familiarise themselves with the implications of European legislation, human rights awareness training for police officers, and support for advice centres in the field of basic rights and redress.
Those measures will not by themselves be crucial. The fact is that only Turkey and the Turkish people can achieve the changes needed, because it is ultimately their interest which will be most directly served by their improvement. However, we can try to make a difference. The Government are determined to continue to work to that end.
House adjourned at three o'clock.