Lords Sitting of 29 July 1997

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

Lord Saville of Newdigate
The Right Honourable Sir Mark Oliver Saville, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and thereby created a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Saville of Newdigate, of Newdigate in the County of Surrey—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mustill and the Lord Steyn.
Viscount Melville—Took the Oath.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom—Took the Oath.

Prescription Fraud
2.46 p.m.
Lord Calverley Lord Calverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to implement the recommendations of the National Health Service efficiency scrutiny into prescription fraud and, if so, when.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the report of the efficiency scrutiny on prescription fraud was published on 19th June. The Government have announced immediate decisions to implement some of the important recommendations, including, for example, security measures in the printing of prescription forms which will come into force next April. We are committed to a comprehensive programme to reduce fraud. At the moment work is going on to establish priorities for implementing some of the other recommendations in the report and we expect to make decisions about those later in the summer.
Lord Calverley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very reassuring answer. Unfortunately, some of the thunder has been stolen from my Question, as has just been explained. However, is the Minister aware of an exposé on the BBC "Panorama" programme some weeks ago which highlighted a very serious problem? A small minority of GPs were misusing an archaic paper-sift system by ghosting patients and over-prescribing. In some cases, they were even prescribing to deceased patients. Does she agree that the introduction of a computerised costing system within the NHS would reap great benefit for a cash-strapped service?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I saw the "Panorama" programme to
90
which he refers. It displayed an extraordinarily complex web of fraud within the prescription service, not simply among GPs but sometimes involving patients who nominated themselves for exemption without being entitled to it. I understand exactly what he says about improving the IT systems and indeed the computer systems within that service. It is something which the Government are examining. IT systems are expensive, but, then, so is fraud.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give any figures or a guesstimate of what the powers-that-be consider to be the total amount of money fiddled? Can she confirm that a considerable sum is involved, especially if added to the money being fiddled on housing, as noted in the latest report of the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission? Does she agree that it is no wonder that some vital services in the country, such as the health service, are badly short of funding when money is stolen at such a rate?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, undoubtedly it is a serious problem. The estimate of theft and forgery with prescription forms, which was the subject of the original Question, is that approximately £15 million annually is lost. On patient charge evasion, the sum is in the region of £70 million to £100 million. Clearly, it is money worth saving.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, can the noble Baroness inform the House how many patients have been prosecuted over the past 12 months and how many medical practitioners have appeared before the General Medical Council?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give an answer to the second question about the General Medical Council. I shall write to the noble Lord. I imagine that he refers specifically to the problem of prescription fraud. It is extremely difficult to identify patients who are defrauding the system. People simply present forms and, when asked if they are exempt, claim that they are when they are not. One proposal of the report, which was the subject of the initial Question, accepted by the Government, is that evading charges should become a criminal offence and be subject to the kind of standard fine which is, for example, appropriate for a motoring offence.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a view around that a vendetta is being exercised by the Government against old age pensioners, both current and future? Will she put matters right by giving an undertaking that no charges will be introduced for prescriptions for old age pensioners during the life of this Government?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, the comprehensive spending review, which is looking at all subjects of expenditure and cost-raising under the NHS, is being undertaken by the Department of Health. There is a firm

91
commitment by this Government to stand by their manifesto commitment that the NHS should be available free at point of need to those who need it.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am not quite clear about the reply to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Am I to understand that the Minister said that this Government are not ruling out the possibility that they will introduce prescription charges for old age pensioners?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that question is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I gave the general response to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.

Road Accident Costs: Budget Proposal
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
If insurance companies are required to pay the "full cost of treating road traffic accidents" as announced in the Budget Statement and pass that cost on to policyholders by way of increased premiums, what effect that will have on the cost of living index and the overhead cost to public transport, the transport of goods and to trade and industry generally.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, under Section 157 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 insurance companies are already obliged to pay the costs of treating road traffic accidents for those who make insurance claims. In the Budget Statement my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the intention to ensure that hospitals actually collect those payments that are due to them. The proposal is to make the process of recovering those sums easier. There will probably be some administrative costs attached to that, but improving efficiency will not have the widespread implications suggested by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the Minister says, there was always a right to recoup some of the costs. But how do the Government reconcile the new proposal—the extra collection mentioned by the Minister—with the principle that the National Health Service should be free at the point of delivery, particularly in view of her answer to the previous Question? Also, do the Government have any plans to extend the new tax to other claims against insured third parties for matters such as breaches of safety at work, defective goods or premises, or indeed for train accidents?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. To take her second point first, it is true that the Law Commission made some recommendations on the wider use of this type of recovery of payment. For example, its proposal said that
92
anyone responsible for accidents through negligence should bear the costs. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State told the Law Commission that he is looking at those proposals. As to the specific of the road traffic accidents, it is the insurance companies who pay the costs, not individual patients.

Treaty of Amsterdam: Religious Freedoms
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to deal with the effect that new Article 6a in the draft Treaty of Amsterdam may have on religious freedoms.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government strongly supported the inclusion of new Article 6a on non-discrimination in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The article is clearly couched as a legal base which allows for future action, and not as a free-standing unrestricted principle. It should not have any immediate or direct effect. Moreover, all measures under Article 6a must be appropriate and are themselves subject to unanimity. We do not therefore believe that the new article will have any detrimental effect on religious freedoms in this country.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, will he accept that the new article is a wide-ranging extension of anti-discrimination legislation covering, as it does, religion, sex and sexual orientation? It contains inherent contradictions and could cause serious problems in the United Kingdom, particularly for church schools and, I suspect, for the established Church.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not see that danger. Every measure brought forward under this provision—which we welcome as a declaration of non-discriminatory principles right across the Union—will clearly have to be subject to some definition and recognition that there may on occasion be conflicts between anti-discrimination in one area and freedom in another. However, since all provisions are subject to unanimity, we believe that we can protect all such freedoms by the use of the United Kingdom vote.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in regard to the Minister's first response to my noble friend Lady Young, if the article has no immediate or direct effect, why do the Government wholeheartedly support it? Why sign it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we believe that the institutions of the Union should have the right to bring forward measures which end discrimination in countries of the European Union. We have long advocated the extension of the gender discrimination provisions under the European Union treaties to areas of race

93
discrimination, as is the case in this country. The article widens that to certain other areas and we supported that also; for example, disablement.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the article states that the conclusions will have to be unanimously agreed? Presumably therefore any change in any of the provisions set out in Article 6a will need unanimous agreement before any progress can be made.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Any specific measure will require unanimity.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is there any move to harmonise the definition of religion throughout the European Union? Is the Minister aware that in some countries of Europe, such as France and Germany, religions have to be registered to be allowed to function, whereas in this country they can be formed ad hoc and do not have to ask anybody's permission?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is correct in that there are different legal definitions of "religion". Were a proposed measure to emerge under this area of anti-discrimination on religious grounds, there would be formidable definition problems. However, they would not be insuperable. After all, in Northern Ireland we have the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act based on non-discrimination on grounds of religion. Though some noble Lords may think that there are only two religions in Northern Ireland, I can assure the House that in that Province there are many sects and mainstream religions. It has caused no problem there. I believe therefore that we can take measures under this provision.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, even though matters under Article 6a may have to be agreed by unanimity, if they were so agreed, this Parliament would have no say in their implementation? Indeed, even if this Parliament were violently opposed to those measures, it could do nothing about them.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this Parliament has powers to direct its Ministers when they go into the Council of Ministers. That is the role of national parliaments in relation to conclusions on all areas of European legislation. Indeed, the treaty provides for a longer period for this Parliament to give its views on any proposals for legislation. However, at the end of the day it is the Council of Ministers who decide, on the basis of a Commission proposal and subject to the agreement of the European Parliament, whether such legislation will go through.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I can pursue my noble friend on that matter. My noble friend said that our Ministers and the Council of Ministers would be under direction from this Parliament. If that were so, I should be extremely happy. If the Labour
94
Government have any proposals to do that, I shall gladly support them. However, as I understand it, at the present time the position is that this Parliament cannot in fact direct; it can only advise.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if I used the word "direct" it was a slight exaggeration of the position. Nevertheless, the position must be in this as in other areas of legislation that national ministers are responsible to national parliaments and report back to their national parliaments. But at the end of the day, the European Council, on the basis of Commission proposals, proposes European legislation; accountability is to the European Parliament for that legislation and not to the national Parliament.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that all these measures merely add to the grounds on which one cannot discriminate? One can still decide things on grounds of merit or on grounds of reasonability as long as one does not discriminate. What is wrong with that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making the position absolutely clear. That is precisely why we supported the article and why we believe that the European Union, in adopting it, is moving in the right direction.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, associated with Article 6a is the Declaration to the Final Act which states:
"The Union will respect and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member states".
Does that mean that extreme organisations and cults could apply for legal status; for example, charitable status? Can the Minister assist the House by applying his ingenious mind to defining the "philosophical organisations" which are referred to in the Declaration to the Final Act? I have given him notice of that last question out of courtesy. If he can help the House by defining which "philosophical organisations" might come within this context, it will be appreciated.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is beyond me to define "philosophical organisations". The declaration to which the noble Lord refers is, thankfully, not legally binding and therefore is not subject to the same legal definition as any measures under the article would be. As I understand it, it was included because of the concern for humanist organisations in France and Belgium to be treated by the European institutions in the same way as religious organisations. The declaration also includes a reference to "non-confessional organisations", a point which I thought the noble Lord might raise. I wondered whether the Conservative Party was looking for protection under the article as a "non-confessional organisation" on the grounds that it never admits its mistakes.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, some Members on both sides of the House will welcome what the noble Lord had to say about Ministers signing up to directives in

95
Europe. If Parliament is to have a say in directing or advising Ministers before they do so, that is to be welcomed. The previous government did not recognise scientology as a religion. Is it the case that the present Government will not recognise scientology as a religion? Whatever decision they come to or declare in response to my question, would it be possible under these arrangements, as my noble friend suggested, for scientology to go to Europe and gain recognition as a religion there, over and above the view of the United Kingdom Government?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I have said before, the definition under any measure will require some negotiation. There will be different national practices. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, in some countries religions have to register. In this country religions do not have to register. There are different legal provisions for different types of religion. In certain respects, the Church of Scientology is not respected as a religion in this country in the way the mainstream Churches are. However, the final version would depend on the particular measure and on the discussions regarding different national practices. We are a long way off that point and it would be dancing on a pinhead to decide it now.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the Government's avowed support of complete transparency in all these matters, can the noble Lord give the House particulars as to the source of this proposal and whether it was given serious consideration after consultation, whether co-ordinated or otherwise, through the party channels in the various member states, which presumably have some connection with the public? Will he give some idea as to the actual impact the article will have on the ordinary people of Europe?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, of itself this article simply allows further measures to be brought forward. The direct and immediate impact is therefore very small. However, the noble Lord will be interested to know that in 1995 the Labour Party in its policy documents agreed that the provisions of the European Community relating to sex discrimination should be extended to race discrimination. That was a major motivation for this article. We also received strong representations from both gay organisations and disabled organisations. That was reflected in other countries, which is why the Dutch Presidency came up with a fairly wide-ranging article. In fact, originally, it was the Irish Presidency which produced the article.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my question. Do the Government endorse the previous government's view that scientology is not to be considered a religion in the United Kingdom?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is probably a question for the Home Office rather than the Foreign Office. However, there is no current intention to change the position.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that what prevents scientology being recognised as a religion at present is a decision of the Court of Appeal?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that to be so; in which case I had better not comment any further.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that many of us regard this issue as very serious indeed? It really is not good enough to say that it all depends on definition or that it all depends on trusting the decision at the time. There are inherent conflicts where there are two lots of anti-discrimination legislation—on religion and on sexual orientation—and where in some instances one would take priority over the other. The Government should look far more carefully at all of this before signing on the dotted line to something which could cause a great many difficulties.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we will look very carefully at any propositions under this article. However, democracy and all law making are about resolving potential conflicts. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which is a model for the rest of Europe, excludes Church ministers and Church employees from its effects. I suspect that other countries besides ourselves would insist on a similar exclusion from any measure proposed under this article, which is simply a legal base at this point.

Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Referendum in Wales]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("Welsh Assembly") and insert ("National Assembly for Wales").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I find myself virtually sitting on the Labour Benches due to the crowding of the House. The purpose of the amendment is to replace the words "Welsh Assembly" with the words "National Assembly for Wales". Without anticipating tomorrow's debate on the White Paper, I wish to stress that this Third Reading amendment is generated by enthusiasm for the White Paper and for the wording within it.
The purpose of the amendment is to assert the fact that the proposed assembly is not a Welsh assembly, a Welsh nationalist assembly, a Welsh socialist assembly, a Welsh Liberal Democrat assembly or a Welsh Green assembly but that it is in all senses a national assembly.

97
It is a national assembly in terms of its international relations to be effected through the European dimension of the White Paper; it is also a national assembly through its internal regional organisation within Wales.
The formulation "National Assembly for Wales" is a closer rendering of the actual White Paper than the wording at present on the face of the Bill. Indeed, within the White Paper itself the phrasing "an Assembly for Wales" occurs on a number of occasions. I notice that the Minister in another place, Mr. Peter Hain, in Friday's debate, in fact referred on a number of occasions to the assembly as being an assembly for Wales.
To be more specific, I shall briefly indulge in some linguistic argument. Welsh connotes both language and identity: Wales connotes both. An assembly for Wales indicates a national institution for all citizens of the Principality without reference to linguistic or ethnic affiliation. An assembly for Wales is not about national identity or affiliation; it is about all the residents of Wales who will be able to vote in the referendum. To specify the assembly as an assembly for Wales, as the Welsh language version does, it would be Cynulliad i Gymru rather than Cynulliad Cymreig. For a Welsh assembly, the adjective "Welsh" would be Cymreig whereas an assembly for Wales, as rendered in the Welsh language version, is of course an assembly for Wales. This is not merely a point of translation. It emphasises the inclusiveness of the proposals in the White Paper and the need for an inclusive debate in the referendum.
The use of the word "national" is also important. This is a European regional assembly. It is, and will be, a United Kingdom regional assembly. I, for my part, have no problem in describing Wales as a region and indeed a European region; an economic region of the United Kingdom. But to use the favourite expression of the BBC, it is also a national region, a phrase used by that organisation to apply to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is national in the sense that it represents the cultural aspirations of an historic nation, which are resolved politically through a regional structure within Europe. That is why I say that it is a national assembly and not a nationalist assembly.
I say that advisedly because I am a little tired, sitting on the Cross-Bench, to be chastised by opponents of the Bill for advocating Welsh independence or a nationalist solution and for being the advocate of a slippery slope. I support the White Paper because it represents a consensus of opinion in Wales. Any further development of the constitutional structure of Wales is a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament—it cannot be otherwise—and therefore it cannot be a slippery slope. It is not a nationalistic assembly proposal, but a national assembly. The national aspirations of Wales can be perfectly accommodated within the United Kingdom and the European Union.
The other purpose of the amendment is to assert that the national aspirations of Wales are no threat to the United Kingdom and its integrity. We can have within our union state of the United Kingdom—which is not any more, and never has been in any real sense, a unitary
98
state—national assemblies which have a validity, speaking for the nations of that kingdom without creating any threat to the unity of the kingdom but propagating the national diversity which has always been the nature of this state.
For the life of me I cannot see why the Conservative Party has not tabled its support of this amendment. I understand that that party, in the person of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. William Hague, has declared unequivocally that it is now prepared to accept that if the people of Wales and Scotland vote for their parliament and assembly that decision shall remain on the statute book and unchallenged by the party. Clearly, if there is to be a Conservative intervention in this short debate, I hope that that assertion can be confirmed for it seems to me that we now need to build a consensus for the kind of constitutional change in which we are involved. If Conservative Members are to nominate candidates and to stand for the assembly and the parliament, then surely it is hypocritical of them to campaign—as apparently they are still doing—against the establishment of such an assembly and parliament. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the noble Lord almost invites a challenge from these Benches. I have to tell him that I have a good deal of sympathy for his case that the assembly should be called a national assembly if the people of Wales decide that they want it. My criticism of the amendment is that it is moved at the wrong time and to the wrong Bill. In my view it is perfectly reasonable—an amendment having been won—for the Bill to come before this House again. If it helps the noble Lord I am happy to say that if the referendum is won I will accept the verdict, but it will not stop my pressing for examination of the Bill with care and possibly moving amendments and suggesting improvements. The moment for doing so is when we have a Bill bringing forward the legislative proposals.
Indeed, the noble Lord almost made the point when he began to elaborate on his case. He drew attention to the fact that, in his view, it will be a European assembly. He pointed to the internal arrangements. He says that it is all in the White Paper. We were only allowed to see the White Paper when we had virtually completed examination of the Bill. The noble Lord responding to our debates has stonewalled stalwartly throughout our consideration of the Bill on the grounds that the White Paper will be debated in due course and that these matters are not for the referendum Bill.
It is a pity in a way that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, spoilt his case when he argued that we were not going down a slippery slope and that there was no threat in the legislation to the unity of the United Kingdom. He began to spell out in some detail his party's view that the nation which is Wales was going to be a nation which was part of Europe rather than a nation which was part of the United Kingdom. He gave just a little bit away.
I maintain that what the noble Lord is really trying to do is to find another way of influencing the result of the referendum. He is trying to insert into the referendum

99
Bill a particular point of view and to put into the Bill matters arising from the White Paper, which we have not yet debated. That is wrong in principle. If the people of Wales vote for an assembly, and we then have a Bill and the noble Lord comes forward with an amendment at that stage to call it a national assembly, I for one would be inclined to support him. There are so many Welsh institutions that we describe in those terms. I would find no difficulty in supporting his amendment at that time. However, I find the greatest difficulty in supporting it today.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, knows perfectly well, as I do, that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has a very considerable intelligence and intellect. However, he is not so Machiavellian, I believe, to have the motivation that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, implies. It seems to me that to suggest that it would be an advantage in the presentation of the case for a "yes" vote to change the name is neither here nor there.
It is far better that we reconsider whether the institution will be best described as the "Welsh Assembly" or as the "National Assembly for Wales". The Government should reconsider this because it seems to me that, for the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, the body would be better described as the "National Assembly for Wales". That would be better than the description "Welsh Assembly" because in Wales the description "Welsh" often implies that a person is Welsh-speaking. As there may be other implications, I think that it would be far better to use the much more neutral term "National Assembly for Wales".
Over 30 years ago I introduced into another place a Bill to give a domestic parliament to Wales. I was reminded of that when the Library found a copy of that Bill, which had been drafted by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, knows, my noble friend is a much better draftsman than I am which is why I entrusted him with the drafting. I noticed that it was called the "Government of Wales Bill", but I believe that the wording suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is rather better—and it is better than the Government's first proposal. All that I am suggesting to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is that the Government should reconsider the matter and possibly return to it later. As I have said, it would be a considerable advantage to have the proposed wording.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I have no difficulty whatever in supporting all of the arguments that have been put forward so cohesively and persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. The only problem is that the amendment has taken not only me but the whole House by surprise. The timing is crucial as so many papers have been prepared based on the old assumptions which the noble Lord is now asking to be corrected.
I was chairman of the Wales Tourist Board—not the "Welsh Tourist Board", for precisely the reasons that the noble Lord has outlined. Like other noble Lords,
100
I think that "National Assembly for Wales" is a better title. I support that view totally and hope that the Government can go some way towards giving us an assurance that they will consider making such a change despite the fact that they might be defeated by the time schedule.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Elis-Thomas, about a change of title. I do not know whether it is possible to make the change at this stage, but I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, recognise that, very sadly, over the past 20 or 30 years a rather racist and ethnic approach has crept into Wales. As has been said, the new proposed name for the assembly should create the right impression. Surely that is most important. I warmly welcome what the noble Lord said.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I have listened most carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and others who have spoken in this short debate. The argument for the amendment has been well made and I believe that it has some power. It is perhaps unfortunate that we are faced with this amendment at this stage of the Bill's journey because it is now relatively late in the day.
As the noble Lord knows, the Government have already published their White Paper on their proposals. The sub-title of that document is, "The Government's Proposals for a Welsh Assembly", and we are preparing a leaflet for households using the same terminology. I think that it would be misleading for the public if, having flocked to the shops to buy copies of the White Paper and having become familiar with the Government's proposals for what is described as the "Welsh Assembly", the ballot paper instead asked them for their views on the "National Assembly for Wales". That would introduce a degree of confusion. We have worked hard, and shall continue to work hard, to avoid confusion and to ensure that the electorate is well informed.
I am afraid that these amendments, however well intentioned, would undermine our efforts and would possibly jeopardise the ballot. However, perhaps I may suggest that these arguments might properly be deployed during consideration of the legislation setting up the assembly—subject, of course, to the people's endorsement of our proposals. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, now that I have moved back to the Cross-Benches, I am continually surprised by the way in which this House listens to arguments, having spent 18 years next door in another place. I welcome particularly the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and his endorsement for the notion that, if established, the assembly would be a national institution alongside all our other national institutions. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Hooson who has long campaigned for Wales

101
(in all senses of the word) and for Welsh institutions. I am grateful also for the support of my noble friend Lord Parry.
My only suggestion for my noble friend Lord Sewel, for whom I obviously have the utmost respect because there cannot be any more difficult role than that of sociologist turned politician, is that perhaps the strapline, "An Assembly for Wales", might feature regularly in the campaigning in Wales as a mode of information rather than disinformation. It would help to ensure that the inclusiveness, on which all noble Lords have commented, is reflected in the campaigning. I emphasise particularly the importance of ensuring that the Government's campaign is seen as an inclusive campaign for the creation of another national institution. It should not be seen as a Labour Party campaign—I am certain that it will not be seen in that way—but nor should it be seen as an anti-Conservative campaign. I am a little concerned that some Labour campaigning for the assembly might appear to be a campaign to exclude Conservatives from Welsh politics. That should never be the case because, as we have seen today, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is almost as much of a lower case Welsh nationalist as I am. On those grounds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Expenditure]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Section 1(2)]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 19, after ("HAVE") insert ("INCOME").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 4. These are procedural amendments which I should have moved on Report after your Lordships had made a decision on an earlier amendment, but I am afraid that, as I am still in the nursery school of opposition, I withdrew them instead of moving them, so I beg to move them now.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 22, after ("HAVE") insert ("INCOME").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Section 2(2)]:
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 10 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Section 3]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 41, at end insert—
("(3) It is the returning officer's general duty at a referendum to do all such acts and things as may be necessary for effectually conducting the referendum in the manner provided by this Schedule.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, following the contribution just made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, perhaps I should say that Amendments Nos. 11 to 42 are minor technical amendments to
102
improve Schedule 3 which was added on Report. They are simply good housekeeping amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, we now come to Amendments Nos. 12 to 42 and I should mention to your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 42 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 42 en bloc:
Page 9, leave out lines 26 to 28.
Page 9, leave out lines 45 and 46.
Page 10, line 3, column 2, after ("votes") insert ("on his own behalf').
Page 10, line 6, column 2, leave out ("voting") and insert ("electoral").
Page 10, line 7, column 2, leave out ("voting") and insert ("electoral").
Page 10, line 9, column 2, leave out ("voting") and insert ("electoral").
Page 10, line 13, column 2, leave out ("voting") and insert ("electoral").
Page 10, line 37, column 2, leave out ("voting") and insert ("electoral").
Page 10, line 38, column 2, leave out ("voting") and insert ("electoral").
Page 11, leave out lines 3 to 6.
Page 11, line 25, column 2, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
Page 11, line 49. column 2, at end insert—

("The lists maintained in accordance with paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the 1983 Act shall have effect for the purposes of a referendum; and any person shall, before a referendum, be entitled at all reasonable hours to inspect those lists or a copy of them.")

Page 13, line 8, column 2, at end insert—

(", and

(b) for subsection (5)(a) and (b), and the words in subsection (5) after paragraph (b), substitute "for or within any voting area where, or in relation to which, the illegal practice occurred.

(5A) In subsection (5) "voting area" means a local government area in Scotland or a county or county borough in Wales.".")

Page 13, line 9, column 1, at end insert ("(application for relief)").
Page 13, line 12, column 1, at end insert ("(incapacities on conviction of corrupt or illegal practice)").
Page 13, line 13, column 1, at end insert ("(mitigation of incapacities, illegal payments, & c., and prosecutions)").

103
Page 13, line 13, at end insert—

("Section 177 (summary trial)

For "in the county in which the local government area for which the election was held is situated or which it adjoins" substitute "in the county or county borough where, or in relation to which, the offence is alleged to have been committed".")

Page 13, leave out lines 42 to 45.
Page 14, leave out lines 9 and 10.
Page 14, line 23, column 2, at beginning insert ("In paragraph (1),").
Page 15, line 3, column 2, at beginning insert—

("The reference in paragraph (a) to section 66 of the 1983 Act shall be construed as a reference to that section as modified in Table 1.")

Page 16, line 15, column 2, after ("referendum") insert ("in this electoral area").
Page 16, line 35, column 2, after ("fwrdeistref") insert ("sirol").
Page 16, column 2, leave out lines 46 to 50 and insert—

("for "yr etholiad hwn ac yn yr etholaeth hon" substitute "y refferendwm hwn yn y rhanbarth etholiadol hwn".")

Page 19, line 3, column 2, at beginning insert—

("In subsection (5) for "constituency or, as the case may be, electoral area" substitute "local government area in Scotland or county or county borough in Wales".")

Page 19, line 8, column 2, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
Page 20, line 28, column 2, at end insert—

("For subsection (5) substitute—

"(5) A person is not entitled to vote as proxy in any electoral area in a referendum on behalf of more than two electors of whom that person is not the husband, wife, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, child or grandchild.".")

Page 24, line 23, column 2, at end insert'

("and (b) for "Constituency" substitute "Local government area".")

Page 24, leave out lines 27 and 28.
Page 28, line 30, column 2, leave out from ("D") to end of line 59 on page 29 and insert ("shall be construed as a reference to the form of proxy paper in the Appendix to this Schedule.").
Page 30, column 2, leave out lines 27 to 49 and insert—

(""2. Read the ballot paper carefully. On the ballot paper mark a cross (X) in the box to the right of the proposition you are voting for. Put no other mark on the ballot paper or your vote may not be counted. If you cannot vote without

104

assistance, the person assisting you must not disclose how you have voted.",")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 30, column 2, leave out from beginning of line 53 to end of line 15 on page 31 and insert—

(""2. Darllenwch y papur pleidleisio yn ofalus. Ar y papur pleidleisio rhowch groes (X) yn y blwch i'r dde o'r gosodiad yr ydych yn pleidleisio drosto. Peidiwch â rhoi unrhyw fare arall ar y papur pleidleisio neu fe all na chaiff eich pleidlais ei chyfrif. Os na fedrweh bleidleisio heb gymorth, rhaid i'r person sy'n eich cynorthwyo beidio â datgelu sut yr ydych wedi pleidleisio.",")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 45.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 46 and 47:
Page 36, line 5, leave out ("at the same referendum") and insert("in any electoral area").
Page 36, line 25, at end insert—

PROXY PAPER: REFERENDUM IN WALES
REFERENDUM
REFFERENDWM
PROXY PAPER
PAPUR DIRPRWY
County / County Borough
Sir / Bwrdeistref Sirol
Electoral Area(s)
Rhanbarth(au) Etholiadol
Polling District
Dosbarth Pleidleisio
Penodir
Name of Proxy
Enw'r Dirprwy
Address
Cyfeiriad
is hereby appointed as proxy for (name of elector)
drwy hyn yn ddirprwy dros (enw'r etholwr(aig))
who is qualified to be registered for (qualifying address)
sy'n gymwys i'w gofrestru/i'w chofrestru ar gyfer (cyfeiriad cymhwyso)
to vote for him/her at
i bleidleisio drosto/drosti yn
the referendum on (date)
y refferendwm ar (dyddiad)
Signed Date
Llofnod Dyddiad
Electoral Registration Officer
Swyddog Cofrestru Etholiadol
[Address
cyfeirad]

YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE AS PROXY

  EICH HAWL I BLEIDLEISIO FEL DIRPRWY
  1. This proxy paper gives you the right to vote as proxy on behalf of the elector whose name is given overleaf.
  1. Rhydd y papur dirprwy hwn hawl i chi bleidleisio fel dirprwy dros yr etholwr(aig) a enwir drosodd.
  2. Your appointment as proxy will be for the referendum only. You have the right to vote as proxy only at the referendum specified in the proxy paper.
  2. Penodir chi yn ddirprwy ar gyfer y refferendwm yn unig. Mae gennych hawl i bleidleisio fel dirprwy yn y refferendwm a bennir yn y papur dirprwy yn unig.
  3. Prior to the elector applying to have you appointed as proxy you should have been consulted and asked if you were capable of being, and willing to be, appointed as proxy, or you should have signed a statement to the effect that you were capable of being, and were willing to be appointed as proxy. You are capable of being appointed as proxy if you are at least 18 years old on polling day, a British or other Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of any other member state of the European Union, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and not for any reason disqualified from voting. If for any reason you are not capable of being, or are not willing to be, the proxy please advise the elector, without delay, in order that the elector may cancel the appointment.
  3. Cyn i'r etholwr(aig) wneud cais i chi gaol eich penodi yn ddirprwy, dylid bod wedi ymgynghori â chi a gofyn i chi a oeddech yn gymwys i fod yn ddirprwy ac yn fodlon i gad eich penodi, neu dylech fod wedi Iloinocli datganiad eich bod yn gymwys i fod yn ddirprwy ac yn fodlon i gael eich penodi. Yr ydych yn gymwys i'ch penodi yn ddirprwy os ydych yn 18 oed o leiaf ar y dyddiad pleidleisio, yn ddinesydd Prydeinig neu'n ddinesydd un arall o wledydd y Gymanwlad, yn ddinesydd un arall o aelod-wladwriaethau yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, yn ddinesydd Gweriniaeth Iwerddon a heb eich gwahardd rhag pleidleisio am unrhyw reswm. Os nad ydych, am unrhyw reswm, yn gallu bod yn ddirprwy neu yn fodlon cael eich penodi yn ddirprwy, rhowch wybod i'r etholwr(aig), yn ddioed, er mwyn i'r etholwr(aig) ddileu'r penodiad.
  4. You may vote as proxy at the polling station allotted to the elector on whose behalf you are appointed. However, you may not vote as proxy in any electoral area for more than two electors of whom you are not the husband, wife, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, child or grandchild. Shortly before polling day you will be sent a proxy poll card telling you where the polling station is. You do not need to take either the poll card or this proxy paper to the polling station but you may find it helpful to do so. You should note that the elector may still vote in person. If a ballot paper is issued to the elector at the polling station before you apply there for a ballot paper as the proxy, you will not be entitled to vote as the proxy.
  4. Cewch bleidleisio fel dirprwy yn yr orsaf bleidleisio a bennwyd i'r etholwr(aig) y penodwyd chi drosto/drosti. Er hynny, ni chewch bleidleisio fel dirprwy mewn unrhyw ranbarth etholiadol dros fwy na dau o etholwyr nad ydych yn ŵr, gwraig, rhiant, tad-cu neu fam-gu, brawd, chwacr, plentyn, ŵyr neu wyres iddynt. Ychydig cyn y dyddiad pleidleisio anfonir cerdyn pleidleisio dirprwy atoch yn dweud Ile mae'r orsaf bleidleisio. Nid oes angen i chi fynd â'r cerdyn pleidleisio na'r papur dirprwy hwn gyda chi i'r orsaf
  106
  bleidleisio, and hwyrach y bydd o gymorth i chi wneud hynny. Sylwer y caiff yr etholwr(aig) ddal i bleidleisio yn bersonol. Os rhoddir papur pleidleisio i'r etholwr(aig) yn yr orsaf bleidleisio cyn i chi wneud cais yno am bapur pleidleisio fel y dirprwy, ni fydd gennych howl i bleidleisio fel y dirprwy.
  5. You may also apply to vote by post as proxy at the referendum if the Electoral Registration Officer is satisfied that you cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the elector's polling station.
  Any application to vote by post as proxy should be made on Form DR93 which may be obtained from the Electoral Registration Officer. You should note that the Electoral Registration Officer cannot allow an application to vote by post at the referendum if he receives it after 5.00 pm on the eleventh working day before the poll.
  5. Cewch wneud cais hefyd am bleidleisio drwy'r post fel dirprwy yn y refferendwm os yw'r Swyddog Cofrestru Etholiadol yn fodlon nad yw'n rhesymol disgwyl i chi bleidleisio'n bersonol yng ngorsaf bleidleisio yr etholwr(aig).
  Dylai unrhyw gais am bleidleisio drwy'r post fel dirprwy gaol ei wneud ar Ffurflen DR93 y gellir ei chael oddi wrth y Swyddog Cofrestru Etholiadol. Sylwer na all y Swyddog Cofrestru Etholiadol ganiatáu cais am bleidleisio drwy'r post yn y refferendwm os daw'r cais i law ar Ôl 5.00 pm ar yr unfed diwrnod gwaith ar ddeg cyn y bleidlais.
  6. It is an offence to vote, whether in person or by post, as proxy for some other person if you know that person is subject to a legal incapacity to vote (eg if that person has been convicted and is detained in a penal institution in pursuance of his sentence).
  6. Mae'n drosedd pleidleisio, boed yn bersonol neu drwy'r post, fel dirprwy dros ryw berson arall os gwyddoch fod y person hwnnw yn methu yn gyfreithiol â phleidleisio, (e.e. os yw'r person wedi'i gollfarnu ac wedi'i gadw mewn carchar yn unol â'i ddedfryd).").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  In the Title:
  [Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
  3.33 p.m.
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. At Second Reading I said that this Bill was short and simple. Following the amendments on Report which changed the Bill from six to 36 pages, I can hardly claim that it remains a short Bill. It is however still in essence a simple Bill. It provides for the people of Scotland and Wales to be asked whether they support our proposals for a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly. It also sets out the detailed provisions for the conduct of the two referendums.
  This Bill has been the subject of far-ranging debate over the past few weeks. Your Lordships have scrutinised it thoroughly and without the many frivolous amendments that have been encountered in another place. Amendments have been moved in an attempt to promote debate on a range of important subjects, including eligibility to vote, broadcasting, the provision of information to voters, thresholds and the machinery for future referendums.
  We have listened carefully to the arguments that have been advanced and have set out why we believe that our approach is right. The merits of including provisions for the conduct of the referendum in the Bill have been examined, and we have been pleased to do that.
  There are areas in which your Lordships' House has disagreed with the Government. Another place will shortly examine those areas. We have made it clear that for very good reasons we intend to hold the referendums

  107
  in Scotland and Wales on 11th and 18th September respectively. Subject to the views of another place, we intend that the amendment passed in Committee which requires the referendums to be held on the same day should be overturned. Similarly, subject to the views of another place, we intend that the amendment passed on Report relating to income tax should be overturned on the ground that it is both unnecessary and undesirable.
  It is worth noting that the time spent by this House on the Bill is greater than that spent on either the Referendum Act 1975 or the relevant provisions of the Scotland and Wales Acts 1978. I make no complaint about that. The quality of the debate in your Lordships' House has, as always, generally been of the highest order. For the most part the debate has focused on the issues relating directly to the referendums rather than devolution more generally. In particular, the Opposition Front Bench should take credit for focusing the debate so clearly on the substance of the Bill.
  It is customary on an occasion like this to thank all those who have contributed to the consideration of the Bill. I am more than happy to do so on this occasion. One should also recognise that there are those who appeared as major figures in the debate but who were not physically present in your Lordships' House. The Italian waiter has become an old friend. I feel that I have developed a close, but perhaps not enduring, relationship with the daughter of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Most of your Lordships have made admirable contributions to the debate. As we have moved on, many substantial and proper contributions have been made, as befits your Lordships' House in scrutinising such an important piece of legislation.
  This Bill is in a very real sense a beginning on the way to the establishment of a Welsh assembly and a Scottish parliament. Tomorrow we have a debate on the White Papers. We on this side of the House look forward with confidence to the passage of the substantive Bills. There will be plenty of opportunities for noble Lords to continue what has been a good-humoured and courteous yet serious debate on the topics that we have been addressing over the past few days. I suspect that we shall not want for opportunities to take forward the debate in the days and perhaps evenings that lie ahead. At this stage, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sewel.)
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for his kind remarks. This has been something of a learning curve for both of us. I have had to learn how to deal with Bills from this side of the House, having developed some bad habits in dealing with a fair number of Bills from the Government Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has had to learn how to deal with Bills from the Government Front Bench.
  As I indicated a few minutes ago, I made a small mistake at Report stage in failing to move some amendments that I should have moved because they were consequential to a previous decision. It reminds
  108
  me of earlier proceedings involving the late Lady Seear. At one stage in a particular Bill I accepted one of her amendments. Lady Seear was so surprised that she rose but did not automatically move it. There was much whispering to suggest to her that she should move it. Whenever I think of Lady Seear I shall always remember that little incident. I have made my little mistake and I shall learn from it. I shall make sure that I look at the amendments on the Marshalled List more carefully later on, especially when I have had a small victory over the Government.
  I hope that when we come to deal with the Scotland Bill Ministers will have learned a little from this one. Perhaps we can engage them a little more in the debating process and a little less in just textual analysis of the amendments.
  I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas, who has dealt with Welsh matters, and all of my noble friends who have taken part from the Benches behind me. I should like to pick out in particular my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for the part that he has played in looking after the Welsh situation.
  I should like to make two points which have nothing to do with the technicalities or the small print of the Bill but have everything to do with what I believe to be two larger issues. First, I am still not in the least convinced that referendums should form part of our constitution, but I accept that the Government were elected on a manifesto that clearly indicated that there would he a number of them. Having said that, I believe that if one must sin—having referendums under the present system is probably a bit of a sin—one should do so, if I may dare say it in the presence of the Bishops Bench, properly and have post-legislative referendums, not pre-legislative referendums. If "Yes" votes are recorded in either Scotland or Wales, or both, when the Bills come before us perhaps we should consider whether we should insist on having post-legislative referendums before the detailed proposals, not the White Paper, are implemented.
  My second point relates to the amendments moved today by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. Your Lordships can observe from all the amendments to Schedule 3 that have been moved today that it is not an easy task to amend the Representation of the People Act, which is designed for general elections and local elections, to accommodate referendums. That may be a perfectly satisfactory way of doing it if it is a one-off. However, as we are promised a fair number of referendums, I appeal again to the noble Lord and to his colleagues in Government to think seriously about my proposal and that of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums that there should be a proper referendums Act so that in one easily understood statute can be found all of the rules for the conduct of referendums.
  Anyone who wants to study the rules for this referendum will have to sit with the Act and with the Representation of the People's Act and thread their way from one to the other to see what is in, what is not in and what is in that has been amended. That is not a good way to do business. It is not a good way to run referendums. I understand why the Government would

  109
  not accept my request on this occasion, but they have a good few months before we come to the next referendum. I appeal to them to think seriously about a referendums Bill. Perhaps through the usual channels we can find a way to get it passed without a long war of attrition so that when we come to further referendums we will not have to have these large schedules which to most of us are double Dutch. I hope that the Minister will consider that. With those thoughts, I shall leave the issues upon which we Scots will have to decide these matters until tomorrow.
  Lord Hooson: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I would say that the best way of dealing with the problem of referendums is not to have any in the future, rather than to formulate rules which will encourage referendums in this country. If one wants weak governments, the way to get them is to have more referendums.
  I congratulate the Government. In their manifesto they set out to achieve a certain end, and they have achieved it. It is no mean achievement. I have struggled for many years in Parliament to try to achieve something of the kind that the Government have achieved in the Bill. Everyone who has taken part is to be congratulated on that achievement.
  Various changes have taken place during the course of debates on the Bill. We have heard, for example, from the Conservative Benches an acknowledgement of the great benefits of the secretariats for Scotland and Wales and of the service given by various Secretaries of State. I acknowledge that. I am only sorry that originally the Conservatives, because they were so frightened of change, were opposed to having Secretaries of State for Wales. I see two distinguished former Secretaries of State on the Conservative Benches. One is my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, and the other the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. They are both distinguished former Secretaries of State.
  During their time, the Welsh Office grew out of all recognition in Wales. They saw the development of Cardiff as a capital city, and that made all the difference. During the Bill's passage I said that one of the reasons why the Conservatives did badly in Wales was that they had overloaded some quangos with a disproportionate number of Conservatives. I have never heard it suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, or the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, were guilty of that fault. I feel that I should say that publicly.
  We have seen other changes as well. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. William Hague—I believe rightly, and I congratulate him on doing so—has stated publicly that the Conservatives have no intention of trying to reverse the decision, whatever it may be, of the electorate on the referendums. That is an important development. He has also said that he has reversed Opposition policy of opposing an elected mayor for greater London. That is an important development. It would be marvellous if he were to go a little further on the Bill so that it is given a good send-off, reconsider his position and withdraw his opposition in principle to the two Bills.
  110
  One of the worst arguments I have heard is that the Bill, or its consequences, could lead to the break-up of the UK. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have far too great a common heritage. We share many similar views. That does not mean to say that the Government of the UK should be centralised entirely, and that because we have a common heritage we do not also have important differences. It is a natural process to give Scotland much greater control over its domestic affairs and Wales a real say in its own government in the future.
  It is ridiculous that a party such as the Conservative Party, which gained 20 per cent of the popular vote in Wales, does not have one MP. That is because of its opposition to electoral reform over the years. A Welsh assembly will give the Conservative Party a fair representation in Wales because of the provision for proportional representation. There will be Conservatives in the assembly dealing with day-to-day affairs in Wales. That is an important step forward.
  This has been a worthwhile exercise. I congratulate the Government Front Bench, the Conservative Opposition Front Bench, everyone on the Cross-Benches and my colleagues on their part in the debate which has been conducted, in the main, in a highly constructive manner and marks an important achievement for the UK.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Beloff: My Lords, I wish to break in briefly to complain about this universal atmosphere of congratulation which seems to have engulfed the House in respect of the Bill. As I indicated at an earlier stage, I find a Bill intended to alter the constitution of the UK in which those who inhabit the largest part of the UK are excluded from a voice wholly unacceptable. Even if everyone in all parties thinks that it had been a marvellous affair, perhaps I may say that I do not.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Williams of Mostyn, for their continuing courtesy and help throughout the Bill's passage. I have some brief comments to make upon events which have happened in the past five days so far as concerns Scotland; that is, since Report stage last week. The White Paper was of course published. There are many questions there which are unanswered, and hidden problems, although we were told to wait for the White Paper to see what was in it. We shall have an opportunity to discuss that at length tomorrow.
  I must remind noble Lords that the referendum on 1st March 1979 was on a particular scheme already incorporated in the Scotland Act 1978. Electors in Scotland then were able to see and discuss that Act, warts and all, and then to vote upon it. This time a referendum is to be held before a draft Bill has even been seen by Parliament. Some electors in Scotland may be attracted by the ideas set out in the White Paper between now and 11th September but later find themselves opposed to the scheme that emerges as an Act.
  A referendum on the final proposals, after the legislative process, would produce a better measure of the Scottish electorate's views. I am critical of the

  111
  Government for giving the public the impression that the creation of such a parliament within a unitary state (the UK) is easy and for not warning that it is a difficult operation to carry out.
  The Labour Government, between 1975 and 1978, found it difficult, and demonstrated how complex a task it was when it all collapsed early in 1979. Given that there will be a referendum on general propositions in September, I regret that there was not a third proposition in the Scottish referendum; that is, the option of independence. That proposal was discussed in our earlier stages. It would have recorded approximately the amount of support for independence, as distinct from devolution as proposed in the White Paper.
  Two days ago, since the Report stage, the leader of the SNP announced that that party had decided to advocate "Yes, yes" in the referendum for the two propositions. He made it clear that he was doing that only because he regarded a Scottish parliament on the proposed lines, which he described as a puppet parliament, merely as an unstable and divisive stage, not a settled solution. In his view, independence would be easier to attain in the contentious circumstances which he foresaw if the proposals went through.
  A previous leader of the SNP, Gordon Wilson, had been urging the party not to vote "Yes" but to insist on the complete independence for which the SNP has always stood. It seems that "Yes" votes in the referendum are likely to include considerable numbers of people who dislike the ideas in the White Paper but who want Scotland to be a completely separate country.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be brief. Far be it for me to move away from the amiable atmosphere at the end of this Session, but I am desperately worried that we should be discussing the White Paper tomorrow, it not having been discussed previously. What has happened is that we have had an amiable debate. It has not been a very constructive one. It has been rather tedious at times and there has been a good deal of shadow boxing because the substance has not been there. It will not be there even tomorrow. I have read the White Paper and I shall not go into it. I protest against this form of debate. I hope that the substance will be before us on any future occasion before we have to consider what is, yes, a simple Bill but a skeletal Bill with no substance.
  I wish to make one other point, again briefly. It is perfectly plain that the Government wish a "Yes" answer to the first question. But surely they want an authentic and a true answer. What they have done is to devise a form on the first ballot which is bound to give—I do not say "intended to give" because that is an unkind and unnecessary allegation and I do not make it—a flawed answer. We know, and we knew before what was said by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, about the Scottish Nationalists. We knew long before that they would vote "Yes" because, although they are separatists wanting independence, they would see it as a step towards their goal. There can be no way that the votes can truly be segregated to produce an authentic and fair result which the
  112
  Government can truly consider in order to implement their policy. That seems to me to be unfortunate in the extreme and, unfortunately, we do not have the multi-option as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, and in another place by my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Ancram.
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene in the debate between the Campbells. In this Third Reading debate I do not regret that we are not debating tomorrow's subject today. I am purely in favour of debating today's subject today. What we are debating today is the Third Reading of the referendums Bill on Scotland and Wales. Perhaps I may say with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that he never seems to spoil a good argument by getting it accurate. There was a whole host of inaccuracies in the noble Lord's submission to your Lordships today.
  I intervene in the debate to offer my warm and sincere congratulations because it is right and proper that we on this side of the House should do so. I offer them to my noble friends Lord Sewel and Lord Williams of Mostyn for the way in which they have conducted the debates throughout the consideration of the Bill.
  My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and I were introduced into your Lordships' House on the same day. I knew as we were taking part in the rehearsals that my noble friend was headed for the highest heights. Anyone who moves from chairman of the Bar Council to the high and elevated position of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office must have made progress.
  I knew that my noble friend Lord Sewel was headed for the highest heights, too. Anyone who can move from the Faculty of Medicine and Law at Aberdeen University to become Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Scottish Office is headed for the highest heights.
  I have enjoyed the debates on the Bill and I believe that my two noble friends in particular deserve eternal credit. Furthermore, my noble friend Lady Farrington, who has acted as Whip on the Bill, deserves credit for the way she has conducted the proceedings.
  I have always recognised the debating skills of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I have never doubted them. The one thing that I have doubted about the noble Lord is the quality of his amendments. As the Bill has passed through your Lordships' House, there has been no doubt in my mind that those amendments have reduced in quality. We heard about the Italian waiter in Glasgow; we heard all about the noble Lord's daughter in Italy; we heard about the sliding scale thresholds in the referendum; and we heard about the unfranked ballot papers. There was a stage during our debates when I came firmly to the conclusion that the noble Lord was quota hopping in red herrings!
  Be that as it may, no one can say that your Lordships' House has not considered the Bill seriously. Therefore, it returns to the other place for consideration of the amendments that have been made. More importantly, it goes to the Scottish people, who in my view will record a resounding "Yes, yes" vote. In my view, the people of Wales too will record a resounding "Yes" vote.

  113
  On Thursday of last week I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, saying that he hoped that at this time next year we were not bogged down in controversial legislation. As I look around your Lordships' House I can say with some confidence that most of us would express the hope that we are here at this time next year. Whether or not we are bogged down in controversial legislation, at least we shall be here!
  I look forward to a resounding, "Yes, yes" vote in Scotland and to this time next year when we shall have Royal Assent for the primary legislation which will lead to the creation of a Scottish parliament. I make no secret of the fact that for more than 30 years that has been my ambition. I am not in favour of referendums, and in that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and I share the same view. I believe that it is alien to the British constitutional way of life. I am not in favour of referendums, but that is the chosen path, and therefore I shall support it.
  Perhaps I may return to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about the Scottish National Party. I agree with Gordon Wilson, the Vice-President of the SNP, for reasons different from those which he quoted. He says that the SNP should have stayed out of the campaign because he believes that it will damage the SNP. I believe that the SNP should have stayed out of the campaign because it will damage the campaign. I believe that it will damage a "Yes, yes" vote. I say now that I shall not share a platform with any Scottish National Party member in the referendum campaign.
  Therefore, I agree with Gordon Wilson that the SNP should have stayed neutral and should have stayed out of the campaign. I am not in favour of referendums in any shape or form. But in my view this Bill has been conducted brilliantly by my noble friends on the Front Bench and I am honoured today, from these Back-Benches, to place on record my tribute to my noble friends Lord Sewel and Lord Williams of Mostyn, and also to Lady Farrington, who acted as a Whip on the Bill.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, I did not think that the Bill was necessary. I did not want it but because of a promise made by the Government, I have backed it all the way through. I cannot join in the love-in between the Front Benches. We have wasted the most enormous amount of time. I am extremely glad that it is over. Some good arguments have been put forward, even by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. But the amount of time that we have spent on a simple enabling Bill has been quite ridiculous. It is a good Bill because I hope—in fact, I am sure—that it will lead to better things. But for me the best thing to come out of it is the fact that "referendum" is now an English word and we talk about "referendums" instead of "referenda".
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if anything could have shaken my adherence to devolution, it would have been this enabling Bill. If anything could have
  114
  reconciled me to this Bill, it would have been the conduct of the two noble Lords who are its promoters in your Lordships' House.
  I say that it is a demeaning Bill. In the first place, it is unnecessary. That was declared roundly on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and was repeated on a number of occasions by other Liberal Democrats subsequently. Today, I believe for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, with whom I generally agree, seemed to think that this is a useful Bill. On the other hand, he was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, who considers that it is not worth discussing at all. It is worse than useless. It is demeaning because time and again issues have been fudged. They have been fudged in order that the vote of the Scottish National Party shall be added to those who support the limitations of the White Paper and to secure an overwhelming vote. That overwhelming vote, which is hoped for in Scotland and which I think is likely, will then be used to bully the Welsh into following suit.
  Of course, everybody knows that an earlier election can influence a later one. American primary elections are a very good example of that. But we had our own example in this country. At one time the general election was held over a period of days—I think it was a week or 10 days. But it was found that the earlier results unacceptably influenced the later ones. Therefore, we now have a general election with all votes cast on the same day without difficulty. This Bill has been improved by stipulating that the two elections shall be on the same day so that neither can influence the other.
  The other major improvement is the insertion of the words "income tax". The Government wish to have tax-varying powers because the Scottish National Party want to erect customs offices along the Border which will then be a frontier. Therefore, members of that party will vote for tax-varying powers but they may not vote for income tax-varying powers because that is a limitation.
  Therefore, in those two respects, the Bill has been improved although I am afraid that it is still full of fudge and political intrigue. The hand of the back-room boys is very strong on this Bill—those who have achieved influence by mounting the back stairs: the spin doctors.
  It is pleasant to turn from that to those noble Lords to whom we owe so much. In the first place, that is the two ministers. My recollection of debating goes back to Winston Churchill, Michael Foot, Crossman and fain Macleod. I hope I may say without seeming impertinent that although the technique of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is different from those others, he gave a consummate example of how what I regard as a weak case can be put forward attractively.
  I should like to pay a particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. Unfortunately, I was not present last week but I read his speeches with considerable emotion. What he seemed to do was to breathe into what is now known as "vacuant Blairism" a warmth, a conviction and a pride in the country which ennobled the whole of the theme with which we are now concerned.

  115
  From the Cross-Benches, I must say also how much we owe to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in his conduct of this Bill. I am sure that he was right about what he said about referendums or referenda, and for once, I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I believe that they have a place in a democratic parliamentary constitution. But it needs to be thought out. That was the first thing that should have been done as we approach the various constitutional matters. Instead of wasting our time on what the Liberal Democrats almost unanimously said is an unnecessary Bill. We should have thought out in what circumstances a referendum, particularly an immediate post-election referendum, can be justified; how far pre-legislative referendums are justified; and how far it is an advantage, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, to have a post-legislative referendum. After all, when one comes to think of it, that is by far the most democratic expedient.
  There is one other noble Lord whom I must mention: the Chief Whip. Chief Whips are universally unpopular. From the Cross-Benches, I must say that we have been done proudly by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He has given us time to debate this measure which is the concomitant of your Lordships allowing a government to get through their business. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, reciprocated so that that business was dealt with on schedule.
  The last thing that I should like to say is how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that what we have missed is the English dimension, which is very important. I said that that was the last thing, but I should like to add something else. I believe that the supporters of the Bill have altogether underestimated their danger from the Scottish National Party. Any body of radicals is always liable to be outbidden by those who are more radical. One has only to think of the deputies from the Gironde at the French Revolution—all their radicalism and all their commanding gifts did not prevent their being bundled into the tumbrils and having their necks severed at the guillotine.
  I am sure that the Government's supporters in the Scottish parliament—which I think we shall have—will find themselves in the very uncomfortable position of being constantly taunted for not standing up to Westminster, for not fully implementing their powers, and so on. I am very glad that the Conservatives are going to take their place in that parliament. That will make it very much easier for those who support the White Paper.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am rather relieved that my noble friend Lord Beloff has left the Chamber and is no longer seated immediately behind me. I say that because he may feel that, in thanking the Ministers for the way in which they have handled the business, I am somehow joining in a love-in. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Ministers for the courteous and sometimes disarmingly charming way in which they responded to debates. However, they had every reason
  116
  to do so in the face of the rather remarkable handling of such matters by my noble friends on the Front Bench on this side of the House. They produced some formidably good amendments, but did so with great wit to the great delight of the whole House.
  However, having thanked the Ministers for their charm and courtesy, I should like to make a few further points. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, might have been better placed at Headingley over the past few days rather than in this House. He certainly plays with an extremely straight, defensive bat; indeed, he was so straight and defensive with his bat when responding to one particular amendment that I felt moved to press it, even though I never intended to do so when entering the Chamber. In all my time in Parliament, I do not think that I have ever received such a non-response to points made.
  I should tell the noble Lord that, if another Bill comes to this House after the referendum, he will not be able to get away with that again. If that happens, we shall expect our debates to be responded to in detail. Quite clearly, if the people vote for an assembly, we would accept that verdict. However, that does not mean that we would have to accept everything that the Government chose to offer and that we would not he free to criticise the Bill, to examine it and, if necessary, to amend it. I should like to make it absolutely clear that, if we were to get another Bill, I shall be doing just that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said that I was in some form a Welsh nationalist. I should tell the noble Lord that, certainly in the non-political sense, I am proud to be a Welsh nationalist, just so long as I am able to be equally proud of being a British nationalist. If the intended legislation after a referendum were to go through, I fear that the Britain I love might be disrupted. I believe that we are on a course which is extremely dangerous.
  One of the most fascinating aspects of our debates in recent weeks has been the revelation of the strength and character of the new Lib-Lab alliance. We no longer share the Benches on this side of the House with the other opposition party. Now that its leader sits in a Cabinet Committee, clearly it has sold its soul. It has displayed an extraordinarily strong support for the Government during recent weeks; indeed, a stronger support than we saw from almost any Member on its own Benches.
  However, having said that, I should add that I was extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for acknowledging one point; namely, that the accusation made that quangos were unreasonably packed could not be made about my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir or myself. In fact, in this House of all places, it would be rather hard to sustain the charge. I say that because we have here two examples of "quangdocracy". We have one or two representatives on the Benches opposite who represented the old Labour quangos before we came to power and who sat on those quangos without almost anyone else but Labour colleagues. In the days of Lord Haycock, that was the way that things were done.

  117
  We also have on the Benches opposite—and I am delighted to see him here today—my noble friend, as I persist in calling him, Lord Parry of Neyland, who was renewed in his chairmanship of a quango by me after I had taken office; just to prove that we have an open mind on such matters. However, that is something for debate on another occasion.
  I have one further thought to put before the House. I should like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who commented that we had debated the matter for longer than was the occasion in 1978. Well, of course, we have done so. On that occasion we were tacking a referendum on to a Bill which set out the detail of what was being put to the people. We were dealing then with a post-legislative referendum; what we are confronted with today is a pre-legislative referendum. I agree with everyone who has criticised the principles of pre-legislative referendums. In my view, they are entirely wrong in principle and should not be pursued again; indeed, I hope that they will not be.
  So we come to the end of these proceedings and we shall debate the White Papers tomorrow. It seems to me to be wrong that the White Papers should have been introduced into this House so late in the Session. Both White Papers, which will be crucial to the understanding of the electorate when it comes to vote, were presented so late that they cannot be properly debated in Parliament. There has, of course, been a debate in another place: but it took place on a Friday, which meant that it had to end at 2.30 p.m., and thus 12 Welsh Members were unable to speak. Nonetheless, that debate produced some notable speeches. I hope that everyone in this House—and, indeed, the electorate of Wales—will read the two distinguished contributions by Mr. Alan Williams and Mr. Denzil Davies. They are two of the most powerful speeches that I have ever read on the subject and were delivered by two very experienced former Ministers. If anyone thinks that the Government have an easy ride ahead of them, he should read those speeches. As I said, tomorrow we shall debate the White Papers in this House. When I last checked the speakers' list, I counted 35 names upon it. In my opinion, it is a disgrace that Parliament should be treated in this way and that, during the last week before we rise for the Summer Recess, we should be forced to have a debate on such an important constitutional matter—a debate which, by its very definition, will be inadequate. If I have praised the Ministers for their charm and courtesy, I must also point out to them that they have a pretty tough case to defend when it comes to the manner in which the Government have handled the whole affair.
  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as one of the speakers in tomorrow's debate I am not sure I like to hear it dismissed as inadequate before we have even had it. I look forward to the debate very much. I rise at this stage of the Bill to join in the tributes which have been paid to my noble friends Lord Sewel, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Hardie for the way they have steered this Bill through the House. I add my
  118
  voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, on the role that she has played.
  This is an important Bill. I am delighted that it has now almost passed through your Lordships' House. However, I cannot help feeling much sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said. I believe that some of the highways and byways that we went up and down in the course of discussing the amendments to this Bill were not helpful. I doubt whether all of them were necessary. Of course, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for his usual debating skills and the deftness with which he made his amendments sometimes appear more relevant than they were. I am particularly grateful to him for introducing a new element in Scottish politics; namely, the Italian waiter. I recently spent a few days in Northern Italy where I had an enjoyable time canvassing Italian waiters to see whether I could find one who had a vote in the referendum. I am sorry to report that I did not find such a person.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I refer to Italian waiters who work in Italy but who could still go backwards and forwards to Scotland and be entitled to a vote there. Nothing is too far-fetched as regards some of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Therefore I do not see why what I have just said should be too far-fetched. As I said, I did not find an Italian waiter who had at any time established residence in Scotland. Although I did not find one who was entitled to vote in the referendum, I certainly had a great deal of enjoyment trying to find that out.
  I look forward to campaigning on the referendum, to the referendum itself and to a positive result. I look forward to the two Bills which will be introduced into Parliament to establish a Scottish parliament and an assembly for Wales, or a Welsh assembly. We all know what we mean by that. This is an important Bill and we should all be happy that it has gone through this House.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that when the noble Baroness goes canvassing in Scotland she will make it clear to the voters that the taxes which they pay, especially the income tax, may well go up if there is a Scottish parliament. I rise to put one point only, a very important constitutional point which I do not think has yet been raised in this short debate. It seems to me to be undemocratic as well as unconstitutional that a major change of the kind envisaged, especially in Scotland, could take place with the consent of only a small minority of the voters. We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, last week that one is enough—a majority of one person. That is to say that the votes in favour and the votes against are what have to be compared. But supposing the total vote expressed by the people amounts to only 25 per cent. of the electorate. It would be absurd to make the changes in those circumstances.
  This, we are told, is an advisory referendum. The Government have a duty to tell your Lordships now, if they have made up their minds—which I hope and

  119
  suppose they have—what percentage of support from the people of Scotland they would regard as adequate for such a major constitutional change. Without that knowledge the people ought not to be invited to vote at all in this referendum. It is a vital matter and I hope we shall be told what the answer is.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I shall talk about the White Paper tomorrow, not this afternoon. I think that many of our debates on this Bill have been enormously enjoyable, particularly those on the amendments of my noble kinsman Lord Mar and Kellie. I also enormously enjoyed, in common with many of your Lordships, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, moving his amendments. It was a joy to listen to him and I would not have missed it for the world.
  I cannot say how much I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who thinks that it has all been a waste of time. Can such enormous enjoyment ever be a waste of time? If we did not sometimes enjoy things in this House I do not know how we would survive.
  I entirely agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Renton, have said. I am sorry that the Government have been so intransigent over some of our amendments, none of which were in any way wrecking amendments. I refer in particular to those regarding the dates of the referenda and the eligibility of Scots and Welsh who are temporarily resident abroad to vote and the eligibility of members of the Armed Forces posted out of Scotland or Wales to vote. I think that the Government may come to regret that last point. However, that will be their problem.
  Finally, I must congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Williams of Mostyn, on making the most of a lot of very weak arguments.
  Lord Parry: My Lords, I express the hope that no one in this House on the Front Benches on either side will have had their career permanently damaged by the compliments paid to them by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. His compliments, from my experience of after dinner speaking, were the toughest and the roughest votes of thanks that I have ever heard in my life. Compliments have already been paid to the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gwydir and Lord Crickhowell, who presided over the Welsh Office with distinction and left behind them monuments that will remain for a long time.
  However, I want to make the point that the Welsh Office secretariat was the creation of James Griffiths and of the original Secretary of State for Wales. I have jotted down the names of James Griffiths, George Thomas, Cledwyn Hughes, John Morris and, of course, I added the name of Ron Davies. I had the pleasure and opportunity of not simply knowing but working with all of those Secretaries of State for Wales. The House has heard me say before that we have been extremely fortunate in those Secretaries of State. I believe that what they have done in their careers at the Welsh Office
  120
  has its logical extension in the creation of the assembly for Wales. I hope that our people will vote overwhelmingly in favour of it. I add my congratulations to all those who have taken part in the debate.
  Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I rise to make three points. I am sorry that I missed the Report stage of this vital Bill. It has been a difficult Bill to debate. I refer to the difficulty of debating the referendums Bill as opposed to the devolution issue as a whole. The House has managed well to split the two matters but I think that we have missed one or two vital issues as we have progressed through the Bill.
  The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, introduced the multiple option. I believe that the quickest way to get rid of the nationalist input in politics today would be to include the option of the complete separation of Wales and Scotland. If we had asked that question, I believe that the people of Wales and the people of Scotland would have responded with a resounding "No". We might have lost the nationalist input for ever, and that might have been an extremely good thing, at least for Scottish politics, although I am afraid I cannot speak for Welsh politics.
  However, the most important matter about which we have forgotten—it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and, sadly, has not been followed up—is the complete disenfranchisement of the English. They are not being asked a single question. I do not think that the English have woken up to the enormous effect that this legislation could have on the whole of the country. They are still asleep on the issue. The English think of themselves as Britain. They are in for a big fright. I hope that somehow or other the matter is brought home to them.
  We in this House, and especially the Ministers in our Government, must make quite clear to everyone that their intentions are to keep the whole country as Great Britain. The Government have already assured me that that is the case, and I believe them implicitly. But I am extremely worried that we are allowing certain elements in politics today to use this as a vehicle to gain complete independence. I sincerely hope that I am wrong in even thinking it for one second, but I have to say that I think it and feel it. I am worried that if we are not careful, when the English wake up the cry for a federal system will so outweigh what we have that we shall be stuck in the mire that we have created; and there will be no going back.
  I see the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, grimacing at me, thinking what nonsense this man is talking. I hope that I am wrong. I have my worries. I hope that your Lordships will think about the matter long and hard. As I said before in this House, the road we are going down is a rocky one. If we are wrong, there is no going back.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may pick up on the first point made so powerfully by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, told us that, subject to what the other place

  121
  may decide tomorrow, the Government intend to reverse your Lordships' decision on a uniform polling date and will insist that the Scottish referendum be held one week before the Welsh referendum. To avoid any suggestion that the Government are unfairly and perhaps even improperly trying to influence the outcome of the Welsh referendum, will they consider even at this late stage following the established pattern of elections to the European Parliament? As your Lordships will know, different countries hold their elections on different days of the week. Will they decree that the results of the Scottish referendum will be held back until the Welsh polling stations have closed a week later? It is still not too late to put that into effect tomorrow in another place.
  The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, introduced Schedule 3, a complicated schedule, I referred to the difference between elections for the European Parliament and for the Parliament at Westminster. For the European elections there are no polling agents. Almost at the end of the Report stage in your Lordships' House, I asked whether we would provide for parliamentary agents in this referendums Bill. In other words, would the referendums be like a Westminster election or more like a European election? With great respect to the Minister, he may have written to me and the letter may have gone astray, but I have had no answer to either of those questions.
  Lord Forbes: My Lords, the Bill is about referendums in Scotland and Wales. It sounds innocuous, but enormous constitutional changes could take place as a result of the Bill. Not only will Scotland or Wales be affected, but the whole of the United Kingdom.
  I deplore the fact that voters have not been given more time to consider the implications of what they will be voting for. I doubt whether anyone can foresee all the implications a "Yes" vote might bring about in the future. I have lived nearly all my life in Scotland, which I love. Like many others in your Lordships' House, I fought for the United Kingdom. I am determined that neither Scotland, nor Wales, nor the United Kingdom shall suffer from hasty legislation that has not been properly revised. For those reasons, I look on the Bill with grave concern as it leaves this House.
  Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that we have listened to excellent speeches on both sides of the House today. But I think the time is up for talking; it is time for action. The issues of devolving power to the people of Scotland and Wales have been debated by them for the past 50 years.
  Noble Lords may not be aware that the father of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was the headmaster when I was at school. He talked then about devolving power to the people of Wales.
  The time has come; and to all of those who are in favour of devolving power to the people of Wales and Scotland, let us go home for the Summer Recess and
  122
  campaign for the "Yes" vote. Our parliament is long overdue and now we must make the right strike to ensure that we achieve it.
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this Third Reading debate. I think that I can thank those noble Lords who directed such kind words to the Government Front Bench, but I reserve the right to look at Hansard tomorrow.
  At Third Reading, it is interesting to observe how old friends—perhaps I should say bad apples—keep popping up. We have had the post-legislative referendum discussion. We have had the independence option. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, even managed to bring in the threshold question. We have examined those three issues in all genuineness, and reached conclusions in fair and proper debate. We have given good time to them. I believe that the matter has been subject to proper scrutiny.
  Perhaps I may deal initially with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. My memory is that I have written to the noble Earl. I have certainly signed a letter. If he has not received it, I apologise. However, I clarify that there will be no polling agents. There are polling agents in parliamentary and European elections but that is not appropriate for a referendum. However, other safeguards are built into the system. When the noble Earl receives my letter, I hope that he will be content with the explanation that I offer.
  I move on to the three old friends, or bad apples: why are we not having a post-legislative referendum; why do we not have the independence option on the ballot; and why do we not insist on a threshold? One answer to that series of questions is that in the manifesto we put our proposals before the people. The manifesto dealt with the issues of a post-legislative referendum, the idea of independence and thresholds. In the manifesto clear proposals were put before the people and the electorate endorsed those proposals. That is what we base this legislation on: the endorsement by the electorate of our manifesto proposals.
  Some noble Lords may think that that is not good enough. I shall extend the argument. Why not a post-legislative referendum? If we look into the origins of the pre-legislative referendum we shall find that a major advocate of the pre-legislative referendum was a former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland. He chided us about the level of popular support in Scotland for our proposals, and baited us that we would not have confidence to put those proposals before the public. We are doing just that. We shall give the people of Scotland the opportunity to make a decision on clear proposals outlined in the White Paper. For the vast majority of people a coherently written, comprehensive White Paper is more easily understood than a Bill. I believe that we are on sound grounds in going to the people of Scotland and the people of Wales and saying, "This is what we propose to do; this is the way we intend to go. We seek your endorsement." That, surely, is a sensible, commonsense way forward?
  That deals with the independence option, as well. The basis of the referendum is not some glorified public opinion poll on various options. The basis of the

  123
  referendum is the Government going to the people and saying, "These are our proposals. We seek your support; we seek your endorsement."
  It would be completely wrong for the Government to include an independence option in the referendum because the Government could not, in all conscience, advocate the independence option as a way forward to the people of Scotland and the people of Wales. What we are seeking is endorsement of a specific line of policy. If the people of Scotland and the people of Wales wish to support independence, they have the opportunity to do so at general elections by voting for candidates committed to that course of action. The people have already spoken on that issue: they have turned away from the option of independence. We seek to put clear, devolution-based proposals to them.
  The issue of thresholds was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. We have maintained all along, from the earliest discussion on these proposals, that we think that fancy franchises and thresholds are a way of frustrating the democratic will of the people. We are not going to have this issue decided by people who are perhaps uninterested or apathetic and who are not prepared to turn out to vote. It is those who vote who count and it is they who will make the decision. We have made clear that the Government are committed to moving ahead with the legislation when it is endorsed by the electorate.
  I take the point, of course, that government cannot commit Parliament. Parliament will be in the position, during consideration of the Bill, to take account of the full circumstances surrounding the result of the referendum. That is a proper matter for Parliament. But the Government have given the commitment that they will move forward on the basis of the outcome of the referendum.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that very important point, would he be so good as to say what minimum number of votes in favour the Government have in mind in order to justify this big change?
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, no. We are going to the people of Scotland and the people of Wales to put our proposals before them. If we win, we will go ahead; if we do not win, we will not go ahead. It is as simple as that. It is for the people to decide.
  In conclusion, we have rightly and properly scrutinised this legislation. It begins a process; it does not end the process. We have now virtually done our job. We hand the decision over to the people, and I hope that, as good democrats, we trust the people.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one question before he sits down. Does he give an assurance on behalf of the Government that they will introduce primary legislation to prohibit the Scottish parliament from varying taxes other than UK income tax? I think that everybody is entitled to know.
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, the specific assurance that the noble Lord seeks is unnecessary because the powers
  124
  of the parliament will be defined in the primary legislation setting it up and the only powers that it will have to vary tax will be the income tax powers as defined in the White Paper.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Local Government (Contracts) Bill
4.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Government are committed to promoting opportunities for public-private partnerships because they offer the opportunity for increased value for money and innovation in the provision of the services that national and local government need. Mr. Malcolm Bates, chairman of the Pearl Group, has recently completed a rapid review of current private finance initiative and public-private partnership arrangements. His review was published on 23rd June. One of Mr. Bates's recommendations was to take speedy action to overcome the uncertainty over local authority powers to enter into public-private partnership contracts. The Bill aims to achieve that.
The Bill clarifies the powers of local authorities to enter into contracts for the provision or making available of assets or services. It also provides a "safe harbour" through a certification procedure to protect contractors and lenders from the possibility that a local authority may not have had power to enter into a contract or may have exercised its powers improperly.
Certain recent high profile cases have led contractors and banks to fear the financial consequences of a finding by the court that a contract with a local authority is unlawful, and therefore unenforceable, because the authority had no power to enter into it or because it exercised its power unlawfully. The contracts in question were bank guarantees, and in each case the consequence of the court's judgment was that the bank concerned had to finance the losses of companies set up to carry out work in connection with local authority functions. Because the contracts were found to be void, the private sector had no recourse to the authorities for compensation and so found itself saddled with bad debts.
Those cases did not involve new principles of law and concerned arrangements quite different from the great majority of local authority contracts, but the views expressed by the courts on them have resulted in a commonly held perception that providing finance for local authority contracts, particularly long-term partnership contracts, poses an unacceptable level of risk. That is a perception we must overcome if public-private partnerships are to work successfully in local government. We want to act quickly to dispel any doubts there may be in the minds of potential backers of local authority schemes, including public-private

125
partnership schemes. The Bill aims to achieve that. It clarifies local authority powers. It also protects contractors and banks if things go wrong when they have been relying on an assurance by an authority that the authority has been acting within its powers.
It is the innovative features of public-private partnership schemes, compared to more traditional procurement contracts, that are perceived as likely to give rise to questions about the existence or exercise of local authority powers. The Bill will concentrate the minds of local authorities on this issue when they enter into contracts. It should reduce the chances of local authorities acting outside their powers.
The Bill does not disturb the fundamentals of existing legislation with respect to local authority powers. It does nothing to alter the scope for contracts to be challenged under public law. The court will have the same powers to review the exercise of a local authority's discretion to enter into a contract. It is essential to leave in place such powers for the protection of the local tax payer. For the same reason, the Bill does nothing to undermine the long-standing powers of the auditor to question the lawfulness of local authority conduct or expenditure.
I now come to the specific provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 makes it clear that a statutory function of a local authority confers power to enter into a contract for the provision of assets or services for the purposes of, or in connection with, the discharge of that function. The Bill is here not extending authorities' powers but making explicit what was already implicit. It covers contracts which are for the purposes of, or connected with, the discharge of a function, such as providing education or social services or leisure facilities. The Bill does not affect the exercise of an authority's implied or subsidiary powers, but an authority will no longer need to rely on those, including Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, in order to enter into those sorts of contract.
The Bill does not change the law which regulates the power of local authorities to delegate their functions. Part II of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 empowers a Minister to make an order to allow an authority to contract out the exercise of a function. One such order is being prepared in connection with highways functions, because delegation in that area is necessary to underpin an effective PPP project. Contracts in other service areas seem less likely to entail delegation, but government departments could consider making similar orders, if necessary, in relation to other local authority functions.
The Bill provides a "safe harbour" to protect contractors and lenders from the possibility that a local authority may not have had power to enter into a contract or may have exercised its powers improperly. To achieve that, Clauses 2 and 3 introduce a certification procedure for contracts of a description then specified in Clause 4. In essence, they are contracts for five years or more involving the provision of services. The issue of a certificate (but not its content) has to have the consent of other parties to the contract because the legal rights of all parties are affected by the certificate in ways that I shall now describe.
126
Unlike the certification procedure under the recently enacted National Health Service (Private Finance) Act, the large number of authorities within the scope of this Bill makes it impracticable for Ministers to certify contracts individually. Also, such intervention by Ministers would weaken local authorities' responsibilities and their accountability, which is not a path that we would wish to take.
The effect of Clause 2 is that no one (including the authority, the contractor, and any other party to the contract) may argue in private law proceedings that a certified contract is unenforceable because the local authority did not have the power to enter into it or used its powers improperly. However, Clause 5 preserves the right of local tax payers or the authority's external auditor to challenge certified contracts under public law; that is, in judicial review and audit-related proceedings. Where there is a judicial review the court already has the discretion to allow a contract to continue if that is in the public interest. Clause 5(3) gives the court an equivalent discretion in audit-related proceedings. To meet the case where the court determines that a contract is to be set aside, the Bill provides for the enforceability of special terms agreed between the parties with that possibility in mind.
It would be open to the parties to agree a range of different discharge terms. Clause 6 provides that the enforceability of discharge terms would be unaffected by the setting aside of the certified contract. The aim of discharge terms would be to make provision for compensation and for dealing with the assets made available under the certified contract. Clause 6 also safeguards discharge terms by providing that they shall have effect as if the authority had power to agree them and used its power properly. Clause 6 makes clear the authority's power to agree discharge terms and that the enforceability of terms is unaffected by the setting aside of the main contract.
It is possible that discharge terms may be challenged on the ground that they do not simply provide for compensation or for dealing with the assets made available under the certified contract. Also, of course, the parties may not have agreed any discharge terms. Clause 7 provides that in either of those events, where a certified contract has been set aside, the contractor shall, nevertheless, be compensated as if the local authority had repudiated the contract. This provision is an ultimate long-stop, and the parties to a certified contract would be most unlikely to need to fall back upon it.
There are several other provisions in the Bill to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. Clause 1(2) confirms that, where a third party funds a contractor, the authority may enter into a separate contract with the financier, who could be a direct lender to the contractor or a person involved in other forms of finance, for example, bond issues. Such a contract might also include an arrangement whereby the financier would be able to nominate a replacement contractor if, for example, the original one became insolvent. The protection afforded by the certification procedure and discharge terms are extended to contracts with financiers.

127
In England and Wales, the Bill will apply to all bodies covered by Part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and to probation committees and the receiver for the Metropolitan Police district. It will also apply to Scottish local authorities as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
The Bill confers powers to make regulations. In particular, there are powers to regulate the certification procedure, which I have already explained, dealing with matters such as signature and the issue of copies, and power to make regulations about the kind of contract that can be certified under the Bill.
Clause 9 amends the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, so that revenue grants may be made to local authorities to meet payments under partnership contracts in respect of magistrates' courts. For technical reasons, the capital finance rules currently classify such payments as capital expenditure.
The details of the Bill reflect discussions and close working relationships with interested parties, including the Local Government Association, the public-private partnerships programme, and lawyers representing banks and contractors. Consultations have continued, following the Bill's introduction in another place. A consultation paper was issued on 16th June. Should the results of the consultations prompt the Government to bring forward further amendments, it will be done at Committee stage in your Lordships' House. There will then be a third round of consultations on the details of the secondary legislation, once the broad coverage of the regulations is established.
This is a short Bill, albeit a technical one. I hope that I have managed to explain its provisions clearly. We aim for it to be in force by November. Speed is important in this matter. Although there are provisions in the Bill which will allow it to bite on contracts entered into at any time after 12th June, it is probable that many contractors and banks would prefer to see the Bill in force and consider its provisions as enacted by Parliament before entering into a long-term contract which could be certified under the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hayman.)
4.58 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the Bill. Local government Bills are described as either technical or simple, but they are usually complicated. While this Bill has relatively simple objectives, it is, nevertheless, confusing in some aspects.
Let me say straight away that we on these Benches support the general thrust of this measure and would wish to see it come onto the statute book within the timescale that the Minister indicated. There is no doubt that it has been brought about by the need to ensure that PFIs are not to fail because of private sector doubts that a local authority has the legal capacity and the power to
128
enter into the contract or the partnership deal. I am certain that the doubts were brought about by the Hammersmith and Fulham cases surrounding the authorities trading in the money market (the swaps cases) and the losses that banks and others suffered as a result of the contracts proving to be ultra vires; and, indeed, by other high profile cases that were referred to when this matter was debated in the other place.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House comfort that, notwithstanding the passage of this Bill, such cases are now not to become possible under this legislation. I understand that that is the case, but an assurance on the record would be very welcome.
The previous government started PFI and encouraged it. There were problems in some directions, which has always been acknowledged. However, it was an initiative which has been of—and still has the potential to bring—enormous benefit to the public sector. Indeed, I say to the noble Baroness that it has become so popular that certain prominent members of the Labour Party now claim it to have been an original Labour Party idea. If that is true, they must have been very unpopular with many of their colleagues in the country, particularly those in local authorities, because it was seen as an extension of privatisation.
We on this side welcome the fact that PFI is now to be encouraged as much by this Government as by the previous one. I hope that the relatively new enthusiasm will continue to spread despite the original hostility in some quarters. We also welcome the fact that the protection given to the party contracting with the local authority and for allied contractors does not in any way diminish the opportunity for challenge by judicial review and audit, the challenges under public law referred to by the Minister in her introduction. That is an important protection.
However, there is one matter upon which I should be grateful if the Minister could throw some light. It seems to me—if I am wrong I shall be pleased for the Minister to point out where I am wrong—that one issue remained unresolved during the progress of the Bill through the other place. On a number of occasions the Minister of State was asked whether, in the event that a certified contract was found by the courts to be unlawful, there could be any challenge to the discharge terms. She was later asked whether there should be a specific provision to the effect that, before setting aside a contract, the court should have to consider the consequences for the parties arising from the discharge terms.
In Standing Committee B on 1st July the Minister said:
"I keep receiving notes and, as this is open government, members of the Committee should know what they are saying to me. The latest note says that discharge clauses can, indeed, be challenged and that clause 7 establishes a fall-back position. Another note says that the clause does not empower courts to set aside contracts. It allows them to continue in audit review by bringing in discretion in judicial review to refuse to give what has been applied for.—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B. 1/7/97; col. 37.]

129
I remain somewhat confused on reading that and submit that the position is still far from clear. The Minister based her rejection of the requested amendment to give effect to that specific provision on Clause 5(3) which requires the court to act as it would upon judicial review and to take into account all the circumstances. The problem nevertheless of the discharge terms which may be unreasonable remains unaddressed.
Indeed, the answer seems to indicate that, if in determining that the contract was unlawful the discharge terms were so unreasonable, the contract should nevertheless continue. I do not believe that that can be what was intended and I certainly do not believe that it is desirable. The position on the face of the Bill as it stands—it may not be what was intended—is still not clear. As the Minister explained, Clause 6 reads,
"No determination or order made in relation to a certified contract on an application for judicial review, or an audit review, shall affect the enforceability of any relevant discharge terms relating to the contract".
Clause 7 in part—I need not trouble the House with the whole clause—reads,
"Subsection (2) applies where the result of a determination or order made by a court on an application for judicial review or an audit review is that a certified contract does not have effect, and there are no relevant discharge terms having effect between the local authority and a person who is a party to the contract. That person shall he entitled to be paid by the local authority such sums",
and so forth. Clause 7(3) goes on to say,
"For the purposes of this section there are no relevant discharge terms having effect between a local authority and a person who is a party to a contract if no such terms have been agreed, or the result of a determination or order made by a court is that any such terms which have been agreed do not have effect".
I suggest that on the face of it there is a conflict. I am sure that the best legal brains have been brought to bear on this subject but clarity and certainty would be helpful and are needed for the members and officers of local authorities. It would be disastrous for the Bill and PFI initiatives—and unhelpful at the least—if there were to he a succession of cases in relation to the enforceability of discharge terms.
The Wednesbury rules on reasonableness continue to apply. Some legal authorities are saying that even if the Bill ensures that local authorities cannot escape from their obligations to third parties, they cannot escape the Wednesbury rules. All the risk is then with the council. If that is the case, who will be paying? Will it be the council tax payer or, in extreme circumstances, the members or the officers? Thus, we need to ensure that one difficulty over making PFI work is not replaced by another.
As I said to the Minister—it may be hard to believe in the light of the questions I raise—we on this side welcome the Bill. We welcome the fact that PFI is so high up the Government's agenda, as we welcome all instances where our arguments have prevailed. We look forward to hearing from the Minister either this evening or, indeed, in Committee clarification on the points which I believe are of concern and perhaps threaten the success of the initiative set out in the Bill.
5.7 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Bowness. I am in almost the same position. It is seldom that I refer to the first clause of a Bill but I am amazed that the first words are,
"Every statutory provision conferring or imposing a function on a local authority confers power on the local authority to enter into a contract with another person".
It goes on to say that "a person" can be "the financier". Those seem to me to be incredibly wide powers. I ask the Minister to consult a little over the drafting.
I want to refer to only one other clause: Clause 4(2) on page 3. It says,
"A contract entered into by a local authority falls within this subsection if it is entered into with another person for the provision or making available of services…for the purposes of, or in connection with, the discharge by the local authority of any of its functions, and it operates, or is intended to operate, for a period of at least five years".
That subsection appears to be incredibly restrictive. I would have been happier if it had been the clause, but the subsection seems to be limiting the function of the clause very tightly.
Further, are the Government wise to specify a period of at least five years? I realise that sometimes such things as public sector borrowing requirements cover long periods. But is it in the best interests of the Government to specify that the period is not allowed to be under five years? Otherwise I agree with my noble friend; this is a perfectly reasonable Bill. The points I raised were technical ones, but I feel that the Government may be restricting themselves unduly.
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we on these Benches are not opposed to the Bill and I hope that is self-evident. We welcome the confirmation of local authorities' powers. I regard it as a bit of an opportunity missed, though I hope less an opportunity missed than one postponed.
As has been said, this is a technical Bill. I was alarmed to read that the Minister in another place, on Third Reading, said,
"It is with great pleasure that we come to the Third Reading of what I admit is an exceptionally complex Bill. None of us is certain that what we want from the Bill is what we will end up with. Unfortunately, that is the nature of such legislation".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/97; col. 831.]
I am sure that all noble Lords and the officials concerned with the Bill have higher aspirations than that. Perhaps that was an example of the endearing openness to which the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred.
I was a little late getting to my feet after the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, as I was reflecting on the clauses to which he drew your Lordships' attention. Clause 4(1) sets out what is probably a Henry VIII provision, providing for regulations to amend the previous two subsections, but I hope that it will not be necessary. Certainly we on these Benches will not hold up the Bill on technicalities. The Government have clearly had no shortage of advice during the passage of the Bill but it seems to be just the kind of Bill that would

131
have benefited from being published in draft in order that full consultations could have been held before the Bill arrived in another place and indeed before it came to your Lordships' House.
I must take this opportunity to say that, although we shall not obstruct the passage of the Bill, it is a Bill about symptoms and not about causes. It adds another bureaucratic step to what is already a complicated process. We often talk about the alien who lands on our planet and what he might think having seen how we go about certain things. If he arrived here and encountered many aspects of the way we are governed he might find a good deal that is odd. He would certainly find Clause 1(1) of the Bill a little odd because it seems to amount to saying that where a local authority has a function, it can enter into a contract to discharge that function. Most of us would think that obvious and it is a pity that it requires such complicated legislation to ensure that it is the case.
It might need an alien with a sense of history to start thinking about the creative accountancy in local government, which might have been part of the provenance of Clause 2. It gives statutory blessing to what some might regard as creative accountancy. I shall not talk about the sale of parking meters—I am not sure that that was to provide services—but the fact that local government went through such hoops over recent times in order to raise funds to provide services speaks volumes.
The purpose of the Bill is to remove doubts about the validity of local authorities contracting with financiers but I cannot accept that the private finance initiative is the panacea that some people would have us believe it is. It is not a cost-free arrangement. Indeed, there are many criticisms of PFI based on the fact that it costs rather more than if local authorities have greater freedom to raise their own finance as the interest rates are often higher. The problem that is not addressed by the Bill is the capital restrictions on local authorities. The Government's hands are tied in the matter of spending and they seem willingly to have allowed their hands to be tied with regard to the matter of local authorities' powers. Despite saying that, I make it clear that I have never argued that local authorities should be able to benefit from acting outside their powers in the way that must have appeared to be so in the stream of cases involving local government to which other noble Lords have referred. I well understand the worry in the minds of potential partners caused by that stream of cases.
All three major parties in local government want wider powers for local government. The Liberal Democrats have long argued for a power of general competence—in other words, general freedom for local government to do what it thinks is best for its community. I understand that the Government are proposing a new duty for local government to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of its residents. However, I do not think that local government needs a new duty; it needs extended powers.
132
The European charter for local self government, to which considerable reference was made in the debate in the House last week on relations between local and central government, provides in the article on the scope of local self government that local authorities,
"shall within the limits of the law have full discretion to exercise their initiative with regard to any matter which is not excluded from their competence nor assigned to any other authority".
The Select Committee, on Relations between Central and Local Government, while not going as far as advocating the power of general competence, proposed a power of local competence. Paragraph 6.28 of the Select Committee report states:
"Local government needs encouragement to innovate, to be more interactive with local opinion".
That is partly to attract good people as both councillors and officers. It continued:
"The current constraints on freedom and on the ability to act as local community leaders, combined with a fear of failure, have further demoralised local government. This culture needs to change if local government is to play its role as community leader and to manage a mixed economy of service delivery".
The freedom to do things differently, including the freedom to fail, and the ability for local government to play its role of community leader, are fundamental to the health of local government.
We shall not obstruct the Bill. We hope to see it on the statute book in short order. However, we look forward to measures that will ensure the long-term vigour of local government, not just measures to prop it up.
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Bowness and my honourable friend in another place have made clear, Her Majesty's Opposition support the general principles of the Bill.
The private finance initiative was launched by the Conservative Government some five years ago with the aim of harnessing private sector resources and management and enterprise skills to improve both the quantity and quality of public capital projects and to enable necessary products to go ahead despite any restraints that might be imposed by the Treasury or the PSBR. It is true to say that the rate at which PFI projects were initiated was slower than many of us would have wished. Nevertheless, by April of this year nearly £7 billion worth of PFI contracts had been entered into.
Radical measures were introduced by the previous government in the autumn of 1996 which, by removing some of the restrictions, have facilitated or will facilitate the inception of design, build, finance and operate projects—DBFO—for schools, transport, police facilities and many municipal facilities. These will enable local councils to provide services without cost to their capital resources.
In January, the Treasury launched new guidance on best practice in PFI. Major projects that had already been signed up for by that date, as a result of the previous government's pioneering of PFI, include Dartford Bridge, the second Severn Bridge, the Skye Bridge, Heathrow Express and the University Hospital

133
of Wales. I suspect that, but for PFI, all of these ventures might still be languishing in the "pending" tray at the Treasury.
Although the Labour Party has to some extent claimed to approve of PFI, that approval has not always been more than lukewarm, especially among some of its members and allies. Hospital projects have been condemned as privatisation of the National Health Service. In its policy document Renewing the NHS, published in June 1995, it said:
"we will do our utmost to discourage the signing of PFI contracts".
Strangely enough, in the Second Reading debate in the other place, the Minister of State nevertheless chose to intervene in the speech of my honourable friend to challenge him on the number of PFI hospitals that were in the pipeline or secured under the previous government. On 20th April, during the recent election campaign, UNISON, the trade union heavily involved with the NHS, in a motion to the Scottish TUC called on the Labour Party to end the PFI.
The Association of Magisterial Officers has condemned the PFI schemes to build much needed new courts in Hereford and Worcester as "wholly inappropriate". I spent most of my 20 years as a magistrate in a courthouse that was wholly inappropriate to the dispensation of justice simply because the money could not be found to build the larger modern one that the district urgently needed.
Soon after taking office, the environment Minister expressed reservations in Construction News about DBFO schemes on the basis that,
"it is better to build the road yourself because you don't have paybacks in future years".
Only just one year ago the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the shadow environment spokesman, called on the Government to,
"recognise the limits of the PFI approach".
Despite its new-found enthusiasm for PFI, I trust that the old Labour instincts against it will not result in similar objections to other DBFO schemes in local government.
In the Second Reading debate the Minister of State said,
"the Government are committed to public-private partnerships".
The word "partnership" is significant and that has not been stressed in either House. In PFI the entire financial risk and the responsibility for the proper performance of the contract rest with the third party, not on the Government, the local council or other public body. That is the whole point. As long as there is any financial risk either as to capital or running costs, the PSBR and Treasury constraints continue to apply, as well as all the bureaucratic paraphernalia of administering the project. In a so-called partnership then an element of those risks continues to fall on the public purse.
I now turn to the Bates report, commissioned by the Government immediately after they came to power in order urgently to review the whole concept of PFI. Not surprisingly, it came out in favour of the continued use of this method of financing public projects and indeed
134
recommended refinements that could be made now that the idea was not only acceptable but had, with time, matured in the light of gained experience.
I welcome the fact that, according to a reply given in the other place on 10th July by the Paymaster General, the Government say that they have accepted the 29 recommendations of the report. Introductory paragraph 3 proposes highly skilled departmental procurers of goods and services. Such an organisation already exists in the semi-public sector. I refer to the Crown Agents, of whom I used to be one and who can doubtless provide the standard of service, integrity and expertise that they do to overseas governments.
Bates says,
"PFI transactions require a level of commercial knowledge and project management".
The report calls for deal-making expertise, standard or model contract conditions and a dedicated Treasury library of relevant documentation. I agree. But the Government have followed the recommendation of the Bates report by scrapping the private finance panel, including three senior legal positions. The outgoing deputy chief executive, Mr. Edwin Godfrey, has warned that this could lead to government departments being understaffed in key areas. Mr. Godfrey is a partner in a leading firm of City solicitors who has been engaged in the standardisation of PFI contracts.
Another leading City legal firm says that the shortage of expertise within the Government is such that the Government cannot always be regarded as an equal partner in PFI deals. However, I am very glad to have seen a report in the Law Society's Gazette of 23rd July that several of the major City and provisional firms of solicitors have specialised teams dealing with PFI contracts and are able to provide major input into new transactions on both sides of the fence. Some Government departments have self-standing PFI units, but others such as education and the Home Office do not, and there will be an urgent need to recruit staff with adequate expertise.
With the welcome creation of the PFI task force, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that in the public interest of having adequate contractual protection they will take the fullest advantage of private sector expertise until they have fully acquired it within the Civil Service.
This Bill has been necessitated, as other speakers have pointed out, in order to clear up doubts about the powers of local councils and other public bodies and organisations to enter into the types of contract described in the Bill. All of this is grist to the lawyers' mill, as they live on legal doubts.
This Bill is complementary to the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1997, which were introduced by the previous government and to the National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill. Its intention, according to the Department of the Environment's press release, is to restore confidence in the partnership process.
Subject to more detailed examination in Committee, this Bill is similar to one which the Conservative Party would itself have introduced. For this reason, and

135
because we welcome the Government's conversion to the private finance initiative, we wish the Bill well and we will help to ensure that it reaches the statute book.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the speakers in this afternoon's debate who have given support for the general purposes of the Bill that I am putting before the House. It comes a little ill to be lectured from the Opposition Benches about the private finance initiative and the late conversion to it, when we have long held to the concept of true partnership with the private sector and when the rosy picture painted of the success of the private finance initiative over the past few years is not one that I easily identify from my own experience, particularly in the National Health Service. I cannot believe that any of us on this side of the House would be willing to be judged by anything other than our actions in this field.
The actions that the Government have undertaken since they came to power to make a reality of some of the rhetoric about private finance that was heard from the last government, is something for which we can genuinely take credit in this area. If it had been so perfect I am not quite sure why the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Act that was passed by the last government did not work. The last government were having to prepare legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, accepted that they would have had to introduce legislation such as that which we are introducing in order to make the Bill work.
However, I know that your Lordships' House does not like entering into petty party political squabbles of this sort, so perhaps I can return to the technicalities of local government finance with which Members opposite may be more familiar than I am. I shall try to deal with the points that have been raised in the debate.
In replying to the points that have been raised, it may be useful to return to the reasoning behind the introduction. As I said earlier, following the various high profile court cases that have taken place, there has been doubt in the private sector about the powers of local authorities entering into contracts with the provision of assets and services. It is because of the need to clarify those powers that, perhaps to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Clause 1 is slightly otiose. But I believe that it is necessary. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that it was necessary to frame Clause 1 in this way because it then clarifies the whole range of existing powers and duties that local authorities have in order to enter into contracts.
We were concerned that investors felt that they might suffer financially if local authorities were found to have acted ultra vires. It is the Government's policy that local authorities should explore the scope for partnerships with the private sector to achieve the best value for money in delivering services to the community. Doubts about local authorities seem most likely to arise in proposals for public-private partnership contracts.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I respond to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, about the powers under this legislation. It is certainly not intended
136
in any way to make it easier for local authorities to enter into the sort of interest rate transactions to which I believe he was referring. The Bill simply confirms the ability of local authorities to carry out the scope of their existing functions through contracts. The legislation does not extend in any way the permitted functions of those authorities.
The measures provide a framework within which local authorities and the private sector can work together in confidence, but they in no way undermine the rights of local taxpayers and auditors to challenge authorities where they have acted unlawfully. I am grateful for the support that we have received this evening for that aspect of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to some of the technicalities and said that publishing a draft Bill might have been useful. I can understand those comments, but they have to be balanced against the need for prompt action in this area. Private finance schemes in the local authority sector have been slow in developing. Indeed, no scheme has yet got to the stage where construction work has actually begun. That is why we felt it necessary to introduce legislation early in the Session and to get it on the statute book as soon as possible.
Perhaps I may now refer to some of the specific points that have been made. I turn first to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who asked whether the five-year limit is too restrictive. One of the balances is between the layer of bureaucracy which it has been suggested we are adding to the process of setting contracts for local government and the need to provide clarity. We envisage that the certification process will apply to contracts involving substantial long-term financial exposure to lenders. That is why it has been recognised in the five-year limit.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked a "multi-party question" (if I may put it that way) about the discharge terms and referred to the notes that were passed and read out in another place. In the spirit of equally open government, I offer the noble Lord the note that was passed to me in the hope that it sheds some light on the three issues that he raised. If it does not, I am sure that we can return to this matter in Committee. The issue of discharge terms is technical. The noble Lord's first point related to whether there can be a challenge to the discharge terms. They can be challenged on the grounds that they do not provide reasonable compensation to the contractor. Compensation could be excessive and not justifiable. In effect, they would not be real discharge terms and they would therefore be subject to challenge.
On the second point about whether the courts can take into account an authority's position, I advise the noble Lord that the courts can take all factors into account in deciding whether contracts should be allowed to continue, but we are considering whether an amendment to the Bill might provide further guidance on this point. Perhaps we may return to the point in later discussions. Thirdly, in the event of there being no discharge terms, damages are payable as if under repudiation. Repudiation occurs when a party to a contract simply terminates payment or

137
duties unilaterally. That is basically a breach of contract and there is well-established case law to deal with such circumstances. We would be putting these contracts on the same footing.
I hope that those comments deal with some of the points that have been made in this Second Reading debate. However, perhaps I may say one or two things about other possible amendments. Ministers in another place committed the Government to consider how authorities might be required to make certificates available for public inspection. In Committee we intend to bring forward an amendment to provide for such a requirement. Again, in Committee we shall table an amendment to Clause 9 which was sponsored by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The amendment will be tabled at that department's request and relates to the finances of magistrates' courts, which is an issue that is dear to the hearts of those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the issue of the general power of competency. I recognise her concerns in this area. It is not the Government's policy to provide that local authorities may do anything that they might wish to do. There would clearly have to be limits on a general power of competency. Local authorities ought not have unfettered power to undertake any activity that they choose. The Government believe there should be a different approach, one which puts an emphasis on the power of community initiative: the power of authorities to pursue the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. The Government wish to examine ways in which pilot studies on a wide range of issues can be developed: in the areas of best value, regeneration, community planning and partnership, and democratic innovations. All of those topics have already been discussed in your Lordships' House.
I return now to the Bates Review of private finance initiatives and to the Government's action with regard to public-private partnerships. On 8th May the Paymaster General announced the end to universal testing—the rule that all projects had to be tested for private finance potential. On the same day, Mr. Bates was asked to launch a rapid review of how the private finance initiative was working. His conclusions, published on 23rd June, were that public sector structures must be simplified and responsibilities made clear. A Treasury taskforce has been set up covering both policy and central input on projects. This ended the confusion over who is responsible for what at the centre and will make the best use of the available resources and expertise.
Mr. Bates made a number of recommendations which have implications for local authority projects and my department is studying these carefully to decide on the action to be taken. In particular, the department will be working with the new Treasury taskforce and the public-private partnerships programme to agree respective roles and responsibilities for public-private partnerships. Above all, the policy of encouraging a public-private partnership approach in local government will continue. This means, for example, that we shall
138
continue to make available the revenue support, to the tune of £200 millions worth of investment costs for 1997–98, which was announced last October.
One of Malcolm Bates' conclusions was that action is required to clarify local authority powers to enter into these contracts. The Bill achieves this. Further conclusions concern the need to make smaller projects viable and to consider any obstructions still presented by the existing capital finance regulations, notwithstanding earlier changes. We shall be considering very carefully the action required on this.
The Bill reflects our manifesto commitment to public-private partnerships. The resources are available. We want to remove any legal uncertainties which might obstruct an approach which promises high quality services to communities and good value for money. It will then be up to the local authorities and their private-sector partners to show what they can do.
The partnership approach requires effort, commitment and initiative on the part of local authorities, but we are certain that given this new framework they will be able to rise to the challenge. On the part of the private sector, it also requires confidence in the legal machinery. It is of course the role of the entrepreneur to take a reasonable risk, and a main aim of the partnership approach is to ensure that the private sector bears those risks which it is best equipped to handle. The fear has been that contractors and their funders could sustain heavy losses for reasons quite outside the normal range of commercial risk. We believe that the Bill will allay those anxieties. It will create the necessary climate of confidence in which partnerships can flourish.
The Bill is the outcome of close collaboration between the Government, local authorities and the private sector. We have fully responded to the concerns and suggestions put to us by bankers and legal experts. The Bill fills the final gap in the existing legal framework for partnerships.
A great deal has been said today about the difficulties of making such partnerships work in practice. The Government are committed to doing that and this Bill is one of a range of measures which have been undertaken within the Government's brief term in office because we are committed to turning some of the rhetoric on public-private partnerships into reality. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

United Nations
5.39 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the reform of the United Nations system.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have to declare an interest in view of my voluntary and professional work, past and present, with organisations such as Oxfam, Saferworld and International Alert.
It has become almost a truism to say that we live in a highly interdependent world, but we do. It is difficult to think of a major issue confronting us which can be dealt with satisfactorily within a national context alone. Regional arrangements, the EU and NATO, have a vital part to play but migration, terrorism, crime, drugs and security, including nuclear security, provide examples of challenges that can be effectively answered only on a global scale. The question is how to deal with them.
Some favour a top down G8-based management approach, but that implies coercion for the great majority of humanity which it would be impossible to reconcile with our commitment to human rights, fairness and stakeholding. Anyway, it would be impossible to apply it successfully across the world as a whole whatever the sanctions or military resources engaged. It is therefore essential to seek a co-operative approach which is built upon the good will and positive participation of a growing cross-section of global society. To those who would settle in essence for a unipolar pax Americana, with the UN as sub-contractor, the question must be put: what lesson is this giving to China, for example? What happens if China aspires to be the superpower? The US, like the rest of us, has a deep interest in establishing the principle of co-operative global government before it is too late.
The UN system is there. It is the most comprehensive global facility that we have. The challenge is to re-invigorate it, to render it task-oriented, rather than introspectively, bureaucratically and institutionally oriented, and to gear it to deliver effectively.
Dr. Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General, has made a brave start. He has established a sense of direction. He has been criticised for having succumbed too much to committee emasculation of what he would really like to do or of settling for co-ordination rather than radical restructuring. There may be some truth in this, but he has stuck his neck out and made a start. What is necessary now is to build on what he has initiated.
Let us consider some—there are many—of his priorities: a new leadership and management structure, with a new post of Deputy Secretary-General; the establishment of a senior management group; the decentralisation of decision-making to the country level and consolidation of the United Nations presence under one flag, with, where possible, all the different elements operating from the same premises; the establishment of a strategic planning unit; assuring financial solvency through the establishment of a revolving credit fund; the elimination of at least 1,000 staff posts and the reduction of administrative costs by one third; the grouping of United Nations funds and programmes with development operations into a United Nations development group; the introduction of a development dividend to shift resources from administration and bureaucracy to development activities; improving the organisation's ability to deploy peacekeeping and other field operations more rapidly; strengthening the United Nations' capacity for post-conflict peace building with the designation of the Department of Political Affairs as a focal point for this purpose; bolstering international efforts to combat crime, drugs and terrorism by
140
consolidating UN programmes and activities in Vienna under an office for drug control and crime prevention; extending human rights activities through reorganisation and restructuring of the human rights secretariat and integration of human rights into all principal UN activities and programmes; enhancing response to humanitarian needs through the setting up of a new emergency relief co-ordination office to replace the Department of Humanitarian Affairs and focusing its capacities to deal more effectively with complex emergencies.
Because of the UK's vital role in taking all this forward, it is perhaps appropriate to ask my noble friend the Minister—whom it is always good to see at the Dispatch Box—to indicate in her reply the Government's approach to key issues which are central to success. Do the Government accept that there is a need to redefine the concept of security to bring strategic, economic, social and environmental policy more closely together to ensure that the work of the UN, the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO becomes more effectively harmonised? Is this not essential if we are to build consistently for peace and security? Do the Secretary-General's proposals go far enough in this respect? For example, what do they envisage for the future management of the global commons—a potential source of future conflict if we do not get it right? At the same time, how are the Government bringing together their own work on the foreign policy-led defence review and the White Paper on international development to reinforce the global process?
We all know that the Economic and Social Council has been a dismal failure, but is the opportunity being seized to put in place convincing arrangements to meet the century ahead? Where do the Government stand on the reform of the Security Council? What do they favour to make it credible and effective? It is patently unacceptable to leave it as it is, fashioned and formed in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War more than 50 years ago. And where do the Government stand on the Secretary-General's proposals for the revitalisation of the General Assembly?
The Secretary-General has emphasised the importance of improving the UN's ability to deploy peacekeeping and other field operations more rapidly. What do HMG believe should be done in this respect? What more will they be willing to make available in the form of specially trained standby forces? Here, our admiration for what the British services have already contributed must be underlined. They have set outstanding standards in which we should all take great pride. But what more needs to be done? Do we envisage there ever being a UN volunteer and directly recruited standing force. Meanwhile, what has been learned from the sad saga of Bosnia? Could—should—more have been done to keep the NATO operation accountable to the UN Security Council?
As to disarmament, what do the Government see as the future contribution of the UN? As to conventional weapons, is the arms register enough? Now that the Government favour a European code of conduct for the arms trade and Congress has voted in favour of a US code of conduct, what of a UN global code as advocated

141
by former president and nobel laureate, Dr. Oscar Arias? At the same time, is there a case for a demilitarisation fund and building on recent UN experiences, for example, in Mali, by co-ordinating development, the gathering in and destruction of small arms and the strengthening of controls over the arms trade?
As to pre-emptive diplomacy and conflict resolution, how much more authority are the Government prepared to advocate for the Secretary-General, enabling him to act, perhaps informally on his own initiative, to defuse potential crises within states and between them before they escalate at appalling economic and human cost? How can the UN be enabled to meet the needs of internally displaced people as well as refugees? Should the United Nations High Commission for Refugees be given powers in this respect?
The enhancement of the rule of law is surely indispensable for the future survival of humanity. Too often, by contrast, it is the law of force which prevails. What do the Government believe should be done to strengthen the rule of law? Where do the Government stand on the principle of compulsory jurisdiction by the world court? What do they propose to ensure essential consistency in the operation of any international criminal court?
If the humanitarian reform proposals by the Secretary-General are to work, surely it will be essential to strengthen the role of the new UN Emergency Relief Co-ordinator by giving him power to arbitrate bindingly when there are disagreements between UN agencies. The co-ordinator should also have direct access to the Security Council and the power to appoint humanitarian co-ordinators in the field and set priorities for UN consolidated appeals.
Finally, where do the Government stand on adequate funding of the UN system? Are the methods put forward by the Secretary-General right? If not, what are the alternatives? What will the Government do to create the highest calibre UN international civil service, with appointment and promotion based primarily on merit? For example, if there is to be a deputy secretary general, will there be an agreed job description and criteria by which the selection is made?
The Secretary-General's proposals will be debated in New York before Parliament reassembles in October. In view of our special standing as one of only five permanent members of the Security Council, I hope that the Government will be able to ensure that far more time is made available for Parliament to scrutinise and contribute to these developments than has been the case for the past 18 years. I believe that that will be altogether in keeping with their welcome commitment to the UN's future strength.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for promoting the debate. I hope that the new Secretary General, Kofi Annan, will bring to the UN the same combination of practical wisdom, integrity and energy which distinguished his fellow Ghanaian, Robert Gardiner, who is the only man who has ever made any sense of
142
the UN operations in the Congo. But what is still wrong is the perception of the UN in the countries where its work is most needed. It needs to be, and is being, drastically cut and rationalised. It should not be seen, as it often is, as a fat cat. It has played a valuable part in stabilising situations, as in Cyprus, but it is only as good as its parts.
There is a radical problem in the UN, which is probably politically insoluble. It may be the price we have to pay for a world organisation where all can meet, but it is disturbing. The problem is—and it is perceived with grief and anger by those who most need humanitarian aid—that the doctrine of territorial integrity too often effectively prevents the UN's humanitarian mandate from being carried out.
In the Sudan, for instance, governments will work only through the UN's Operational Lifeline Sudan to take aid to the deeply oppressed people of the south. However, the OLS has to accept and respect the Khartoum Government's designation of key airstrips as no-go areas, so no aid can be got through to those who need it.
The UN Working Group on Slavery has described the regime's revival of chattel slavery in Sudan as a crime against humanity. But the UN is powerless even to mount a UNICEF-sponsored child slave tracing programme there. What is the point of the Security Council passing resolutions on sanctions against the Sudan if it cannot implement the most basic humanitarian aid there? Equally, in Nagorno-Karabakh, recognition of the sovereign integrity of Azerbaijan means that, although the UN gives extensive humanitarian aid to the Azeri refugees, it can do nothing for the at least equally deserving and suffering Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh without Azeri permission, which is usually not forthcoming.
No UN agency has set foot there, and, as in the Sudan, where the UN does not go, the ICRC does not go either. Thus in Azerbaijan and the Sudan, and, incidentally in Burma—and in the past in Cambodia—nothing can be done. Yet the EU was able to recognise the break up of Yugoslavia, and recognised, as did the UN, Croatia and Slovenia as independent states. So the rules can be varied. Of course the principle of territorial integrity is vital if we are to have a stable world, but, as a result, a few countries which are members of the UN and claim all the advantages attaching to that, are free to enslave, persecute and oppress ethnic or religious groups within their borders (the Kurds are another example) while the UN is powerless to bring in aid to the sick, the wounded, and the children. Where the UN does not go, nor will the ICRC or governments.
The trouble is the Security Council and the veto, and that is indisputable. But should we consider giving more of our humanitarian aid bilaterally through the NGOs which are free, as the UN organisations at present are not, to get the aid through to the persecuted and the needy? Perhaps with the advent of Mary Robinson at the UNHCR that issue may be forced onto the table and examined in the UN.
By all means let us celebrate the fact that the UN remains a place where all can meet, although there are now rather too many other organisations which have

143
proliferated—the OSCE, the EU, and even NATO in its political mode—and which are replicating the same pattern of talk with only a very low level of useful action. Let us make it a more efficient business, as some UN organisations and operations already are. We must pay a tribute to many of them. Could we perhaps consider whether we could not drive through a new principle—an obligation on UN members not to obstruct the delivery of humanitarian aid (medicines, food, special help for children and the old at the very least) to groups within those countries which need their help?
I do not suggest political intervention by the UN. That is of course out of the question. The UN is, in any case, a totally inept organisation as a decision-making body. We should face the fact that its humanitarian organisations are often seriously inadequate. That is one of the aspects of the UN which to me, and to many people, is the most important.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, we all owe the noble Lord, Lord Judd, a debt of gratitude for having raised the question of reform of the United Nations. I said "the question", but in his brief intervention he raised so many questions that the Minister would need 10 times the 12 minutes allotted to respond to them. Perhaps over time we will have answers to some, or indeed all, of them.
I shall add just one thought. Reform of the UN has rightly been a main theme of international debate since the end of the Cold War. The situation in which we found ourselves then made the UN both more necessary and less adequate as an instrument. If one looks back over the reports which have since been written, one discovers quite early on the right theme, although perhaps not, since then, the right answer. I shall quote from the first of the reports under the name of the long-term Under-Secretary-General, Sir Brian Urquhart, in 1990 in which he says, and I fully identify myself with the statement:
"The UN system, for all its shortcomings, is unique and- cannot be duplicated or reinvented. It is the only available universal system. It now has to live up not only to the demands of governments but also to the increasing expectations of the peoples of the world. It therefore has to adapt itself to this changing world or run the risk of becoming irrelevant in important fields of human activity. Effective leadership will be crucial to this transition".
I hope that we have such effective leadership. I am afraid that the conclusion has to be that the leaders of the great countries of the world have been preoccupied as much by their national, and in some cases regional, concerns as with the wider concerns of the world and that of the UN.
Of those Secretaries-General who followed Mr. Perez de Cuellar, I hope that it will not be said one day that one of them had the vision but not the ability to put it into practice and the other had a great sense of administration and organisation but not enough of the vision of where the organisation should go. Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali's Agenda for Peace was an important and good document. Unfortunately, it is not possible to
144
conclude that that document became the vision for the UN. He was less able than many of us would have wished to put into practice what he wanted.
Dr. Kofi Annan's proposals are good for an effective organisation of the UN. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, cited many of them and they deserve our support. He said also in a recent interview, to my dismay, that he thought that member states and the Security Council had been too ambitious when they discussed the Agenda for Peace of his predecessor and that more modest goals were necessary. He also said that he wanted to move economic and social affairs back to the centre. That is a pity because it seems to me that peacekeeping, perhaps more than peace-making, and also peace-building are two of the central functions of the United Nations and should be seen as such. I do not mean only peacekeeping and peace-building where there are old-fashioned wars but also where nations are violently torn apart and where there is terrorism. In that connection, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in her comments on new kinds of conflict. I refer to peace and human rights, including the care of those who suffer from infringements of their rights, not least the many refugees in this world.
I should prefer a United Nations which defined that as its objective and then went about it in an effective and limited but mission-oriented manner; a manner also in which its legitimacy is established by the transparency of its actions, its appointments and its decision-making processes. I believe that the Government and the United Kingdom should support the reforms of the Secretary-General but should strongly encourage him to remember that there is more than administration—or even effective administration—to the United Nations and perhaps take a lead in defining some further-reaching objectives.
6.1 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for this exceedingly timely debate. The Christian Churches, both through the World Council of Churches and the Vatican, have been fully supportive of the UN from its inception. The Anglican communion is privileged and glad to be able to have a permanent observer there, Bishop James Otley. I warmly welcome the proposed reforms to make it a more effective instrument of human and Christian aspiration.
I wish to restrict my remarks to three elements of the international system, which I believe are interconnected. The first is the issue of armed intervention. The late 1980s were a period of considerable optimism with respect to UN peacekeeping. In retrospect, the euphoria of the end of the Cold War generated unrealistic expectations of what UN peacekeeping could do. But that role is still crucial.
When we consider the question of intervention, I believe that the ancient just war framework provides a robust and challenging set of criteria through which to address the issues. For example, the first criterion is that the use of armed force must always be declared by the supreme authority. Increasingly in the modern world,

145
that is understood as requiring the approval of the United Nations and therefore usually a resolution from the UN Security Council. It is therefore essential that the UN Security Council is seen as being a more widely representative body in which Third World countries also find their views reflected.
Secondly, the functional definition of "just cause" must be linked essentially to the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights before armed force is contemplated. Thirdly, war must be a last resort. This means that the diplomatic efforts of the United Nations and its member states, as well as the early warning systems locating trouble on the horizon, are vital requirements. I am glad that the need for that is stressed in the proposed reforms.
Those three and the other criteria of the just war tradition provide a clear intellectual framework for assessing whether the international community can and should use armed force. But they do not tell us whether the political will to carry out such tasks will be forthcoming. They do not tell us anything about the readiness of nations to contribute troops and thereby risk their lives. They do not tell us anything about the readiness of UN member states to pay for peacekeeping or to train their armed forces for effective participation. A relatively small number of nations have had a distinguished record in UN peacekeeping operations, Britain included. We should continue in this distinguished tradition and make it clear that deployment of personnel from our Armed Services in the context of UN peacekeeping is an honourable and necessary part of our international obligations.
The intensive debate of recent years suggests that more is required of the UN and its member states than traditional peacekeeping between the conflict parties, with the agreement to the belligerents. What is less clear, despite recent cases such as former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Somalia and Rwanda, is whether a clear doctrine of peace enforcement and the readiness of member states to implement it has emerged. In short, military protection of humanitarian convoys delivering aid is one thing, as the noble Baroness properly emphasised; but what about the possibility of peace enforcement against the wishes of at least one side in the conflict? That is another matter altogether. That needs to be addressed at the level of doctrine, UN institutions and military planning in member states. Britain is well placed to make a significant contribution to that debate.
The second area to which I wish to draw attention is the need for effective judicial remedies. One of the points which Sydney Bailey, the distinguished Quaker thinker on the role of the United Nations, emphasised early on was the need for an international criminal court. It is good that in the proposed reforms that need is asserted without equivocation.
The third and final area to which I wish to draw attention is the responsibility of the international community, and therefore the United Nations, for post-conflict peace-building. The term may at first sight seem vague, but that is precisely the challenge—how to make a precise and containable package of measures that the international community can help to provide, in
146
conjunction with societies which are emerging from the trauma of often protracted warfare. In that context, I wish to draw attention to the role of the United Nations and the success it has had in supervising and monitoring elections. That aspect of UN work is easily overlooked, but it is vital in the role of peacekeeping.
The new Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, is to be congratulated on moving so quickly to present a realistic and challenging set of proposals. Our own Government have indicated their positive inclination in responding to those proposals. One should not under-estimate the difficulties of the task at hand, but it is surely in the interests of the common good, in the widest possible sense, that the United Nations is both effective and cost-effective in seeking to make the term -international community" a reality as well as an aspiration.
6.7 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Judd, introduced this vast subject, he must have realised that it would be complicated. However, I wish to introduce a new aspect into the debate; I wish to speak about the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which is an organisation of parliaments as opposed to an organisation of governments. I take as my reference point paragraph 216 of the Secretary-General's report on reform. It reads:
"There are other constituencies of growing importance to the United Nations that warrant special consideration. Parliamentarians are a primary case in point. The agreement of 24 July 1996 between the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (see General Assembly resolutions 50/15 and 51/7) provides a promising base for extending the UN consultative relations with this important group".
As we speak, a UN conference is taking place in New York which has a specific parliamentary dimension. David Marshall, a Member of another place, recently elected chairman of the British group, is leading a small all-party delegation. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, who might otherwise have spoken in the debate, is one of the keynote speakers on the subject of challenges facing representative governments. That is a very important subject.
What does the IPU do which is of value to the United Nations? There are many values, but I wish to mention three. First, it promotes the cause of parliamentary democracy worldwide. It is the great forum for doing that. Secondly, it enables MPs worldwide to exchange views and benefit from each other's experiences, particularly bilateral group visits in either direction and in conferences which take place internationally every six months. Thirdly, it is a worldwide repository of comprehensive information on parliaments and parliamentary practice.
Obviously having mentioned those three—and there are many others—there is a clear need to co-operate closely with the United Nations. If the United Nations is to change, so must the IPU in order to be better prepared for the 21st century. The IPU started with two members and now has 138 member countries. In effect, it is the united nations of parliaments. But as presently structured it does not appear to succeed adequately in influencing governments. I wish to give one specific example.

147
The United States of America does not attend IPU meetings very regularly. The US is a great promoter of democracy and frequently lays down democratic principles and practices as a condition for having relationships with other countries. Therefore, it is surprising that it does not participate in the most international democratic forum which exists anywhere in the world.
At the recent IPU conference I mentioned that matter and I urged our Government to do something about it. In fact, I reported that matter when I wrote to the Foreign Secretary subsequently. I am not sure whether anything has happened about that at all. If the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is not able to comment this evening because she has already been asked dozens of questions, perhaps she will write to me about that. It is a serious matter.
The IPU is in the process of change. The British group was one of the two founders of that organisation in 1889 and has always played a leading role. Obviously, the British group will continue to do so, especially as the organisation in Geneva needs to adapt to the enlarged membership and changing circumstances. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will continue to support this very worthwhile activity.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has certainly done us a great service this evening by raising this important issue. I notice that all earlier speakers in the debate have made it more complicated for the Minister who is to reply by following completely different lines. That is exactly what I intend to do. I have a particular interest to declare at the outset. I am chairman of the national committee of this country of UNICEF. That is one of the organisations which will be affected directly by the negotiations for reform now taking place, and I shall explain why.
In my view, the heart of the negotiation in New York is a deal. The purpose is to enable the United States to rejoin the United Nations as a financial contributor and to wipe out the arrears of American contributions. The price which the United States requires is a reform of the secretariat in New York. To the American perception, and particularly in Congress, the UN secretariat is over-large, over-bureaucratic, over-privileged and, above all, wasteful. If the secretariat can be down-sized to his satisfaction, Uncle Sam will rejoin; if not, not. That is the essential change which the United States seeks and many Americans believe that the previous Secretary-General, Boutros Ghali, lacked the determination to carry it out. Dr. Boutros Ghali's own view of his priorities, I observed, was rather different: he thought that he was trying to keep the world's peace as best he could. But certainly his successor, Mr. Annan, knows the problems intimately from the inside and to his great credit he has grasped the nettle. He has been conducting some intensive studies and soundings for a solution through Mr. Maurice Strong of Canada, an experienced wheeler-dealer in the realm of UN politics.
148
I first heard of those goings-on two months ago after a report—a world exclusive, I think—appeared in The Times. From that it seemed that a new superagency would be created in New York which would in effect merge the UNDP, the development programme, the World Food Programme, the UN Fund for Population Activities and UNICEF into a body called the Development Operations Group—DOG. It was not clear to me who was to wag its tail or whether the animal itself would be able to do that.
We discussed that subject very fully at the annual meeting of national committees of UNICEF in Morocco in May and made representations to our executive director, Carol Bellamy. Our anxieties were, first, that UNICEF must retain its separate identity and specific mission on behalf of the world's children. Our overriding concern must be the best interests of children everywhere. Our field representatives must have the freedom to approach local governments direct about their programmes as the need arises, often in emergencies, and should not be subordinate in that respect to the prior permission of the local UN co-ordinator.
Even more important, the national committees need to be able to show their supporters that we still have our own financial system separate from the United Nations budget. That is the situation at present. UNICEF is unique in the UN family in that it is not part of the UN budget and raises its own annual budget of I billion dollars entirely from voluntary contributions. Of that, the national committees furnish 300 million dollars annually; that is, one-third.
Next, we do not want our funds, which are raised to help children, to be diverted to fund the new agency. Finally, we need to maintain UNICEF's own board, in control of its own activities, since the national committees and NGOs provide through the board a degree of public participation unmatched elsewhere in the United Nations.
I am glad to say that the Secretary-General has acknowledged the unique role of UNICEF and has taken full account of our comments in his proposals to the General Assembly. In the light of that, our executive director has given her support to them.
We were able to support that proposal because it meets our broad concerns. Our executive director will be a member of the executive committee of the new development group. We can agree that our field offices should be located in the offices of other organisations at country level and use the common services available. That is a sensible economy, under the broad supervision of the resident co-ordinator. We shall still maintain our own executive board which may meet together with or immediately after the other boards of the development group. That will in no way dilute or compromise the distinctive character and identity of UNICEF, which will retain its full accountability for the funds raised from its supporters. That said, as a national committee we shall have to keep a close eye on the way in which the arrangements work.
I believe that there are more objectionable practices in the UN which do not occur in the agencies mentioned in the reorganisation. UNICEF has just undergone a

149
major review and I believe that we have a lean and effective organisation. But the situation is often different in some of the free-standing specialised agencies such as the FAO, UNESCO and the WHO. Their chief executives are not appointed by the Secretary-General but by their own members. To my knowledge, there have been regrettable cases in which the chief executives concerned have done private deals with governments to promote their own personal interests rather than the objectives of the agency in question. In my opinion, that is where reform is most needed.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, Mr. Annan described the 95-page document which outlined his plans for the reform of the United Nations as a quiet revolution. The reforms that he proposes are intended to focus on the fundamentals: alleviating poverty and enhancing the prospects of developing countries. However, his plans have been criticised by some as being too quiet; they say that he is doing little more than moving the boxes around. I believe that that is unfair because most of the proposals which he put forward are quite fundamental in relation to giving a new direction for the UN.
I have picked out a few of the proposals which I believe are most important. The first is the creation of the development fund, which would be financed by staff and administration cuts which would raise about 200 million dollars by the year 2000. Although that is not a large amount of money, it means that the UN is giving a lead to the major donors, which are cutting their aid contributions at the moment. The UN is leading the way.
It is proposed also to cut the amount of bureaucracy and to consolidate it by reducing the number of staff from about 10,000 to about 8,800 in New York. Indeed, it intends to cut the 3.98 million pounds of paper used, which would go some way to meeting its Rio commitments.
It proposes also to put the six aid agencies into two co-ordinated groups under the title of Humanitarian Affairs and Development. I know that that caused a degree of concern to UNICEF because it was worried about the loss of its independent voice, but I believe that those worries have been answered adequately.
Another proposal made, not before time, is to put sustainable development as a central priority of all UN action. It is proposed to devolve the responsibilities for human rights to a newly appointed High Commissioner. I believe that that would have been very useful in the conflict which took place in Zaire. It is also proposed to create a new disarmament department. After the conference in Ottawa on anti-personnel mines, I very much hope that the UN will take a lead role in the fight against such mines. There are also calls for a rapid reaction capacity. I believe that there are many problems attached to it, but if the finances could be found, as well as countries willing to supply the men, it would be a valuable contribution to peace-keeping.
However, the question must be asked as to why such reforms were necessary. I believe that the UN fundamentally needed reform, but the budgetary cuts are
150
prompting the organisation at present. Although Mr. Annan talked about a "quiet revolution", I do not believe that he could have done it any other way bearing in mind the political minefield in which he finds himself.
One of the major problems faced by the UN at present is its budgetary crisis brought about by the United States. I very much hope that the new Secretary-General will be far more diplomatic in his dealings with America in persuading the biggest donor actually to start paying its contributions. I found it an interesting fact that 60 per cent. of the House of Representatives do not actually have a current passport.
I believe that the UN at present finds itself very much on the back foot. One of the proposals that I found most worrying was that the current zero growth in the UN budget should be superseded by a "results budget", whereby funds will be apportioned on the basis of the actual financial needs of specific programmes. I find that quite worrying because it actually goes to the heart of questioning the nature of the United Nations. Of course, the UN was set up after the Second World War by people who had a vision of a world body which could foster peace. It raises the proposition that, if the UN did not exist, I do not believe that we would actually set it up today.
In conclusion, I have some questions for the Minister about UNESCO. Although I welcome the Government's rejoining of that organisation, I believe that the £11 million annual contribution to UNESCO is being met this year out of the contingency fund and not out of the DFID budget. Can the Minister confirm that next year that £11 million will have to be met out of the DFID budget? Moreover, will new resources be made available to meet the UNESCO contribution?
6.22 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, only those who can remember the hopes with which the United Nations was created at its inception can measure the dismay that they now feel when the very mention of the UN is a cause for cynicism and laughter. I say that because, after all, it has, alas, been a failure in its primary purpose; namely, to improve the life chances, if you like, of the inhabitants of this globe.
Therefore, like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, we turn to read the document in the hope that there is a new beginning. I must say that I found the document deeply depressing. All the suggestions that are made for improving the internal arrangements in New York are no doubt desirable in themselves, but the document does not confront the reality. Indeed, at the beginning it shows that the new Secretary General, who may have admirable characteristics, is removed from that reality. For example, he says that we must look at the great achievements of the United Nations, but the only one he quotes is decolonisation. I should have thought that decolonisation has been the major catastrophe that this globe has faced in the past half century. My noble friend Lady Park referred to sub-Saharan Africa relapsing into tribal warfare, genocide, and kleptocracy, with the ability to use for these purposes modern weapons and modern bank accounts. That is not very promising.

151
Again, we all have our memories. Indeed, I remember Paris in the 1950s and the enormous consensus of opinion among young opinion-formers about the necessity for France to withdraw from North Africa. If those young people had been told, "What you will witness in 1997 are families—men, women and children—in rural villages having their throats cut in the name of religion", they might have felt a little less acutely favourable to Algerian nationalism.
However, even in the great challenges to peace, the United Nations apparently has no instruments. Let us take the most obvious example. Many noble Lords will have mentioned the visits to London of the admirable Swedish head of the arms investigation mission in Iraq, Dr. Ekeus. I have heard him say that even when he finds or suspects that Iraq is in fact preparing weapons of mass destruction, which may threaten all of us in the end, he cannot get enough drive from the Security Council (which is his master) to get any action taken to enable his investigations to be pursued or followed up.
Therefore, we have the extraordinary situation of a country like Iraq, governed by a small group of obvious criminals. All we can do, which is not much, to prevent them continuing their threat is to impose sanctions—a favourite word in the United Nations—which means that we starve the people in order to get rid of their rulers, and achieve the former without achieving the latter.
Until we get some consciousness in the countries which make the policy of the United Nations, and upon which the UN depends, we will get nowhere. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the shift in American opinion away from an interest in the external world is the most threatening element in our current situation. I do not expect the Minister to tell us how that can be improved; but, until it is, the United Nations and all of us face a very bleak future.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for having raised this question. I warmly welcome the proposals by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the reorganisation, which I believe will bring about a better and more efficient structure. However, I wish that he had perhaps gone a little further and followed the recommendations which Brian Urquhart made in 1991 towards a more effective United Nations. At that time he suggested five Deputy Secretary-Generals, each with a broad area of responsibility, which would take much of the load off the Secretary-General himself.
My interest in the matter, somewhat naturally, is on the peacekeeping side. That is partly because I established and largely ran a peacekeeping force 34 years ago in Cyprus and also because, as Chief of the General Staff and Chief of the Defence Staff, I was responsible for providing contributions to UN forces and ensuring that those forces were properly trained and did their job properly.
I am at a bit of a disadvantage in speaking on the subject because I have not seen the full report; indeed, I am wholly dependent on executive summaries and on the
152
account of a press conference. However, I am confident that Dr. Kofi Annan is fully alive to the organisational need for better performance in New York in the establishment and control of United Nations forces because when he was an assistant secretary-general he was responsible for this area. He chaired an important meeting in 1993 of ex-commanders who all had the advantage of the knowledge gained from an important study carried out for the United Nations by General Sir David Ramsbotham before he took another job.
The essence of what was recommended then was that there should be military advice given to the Security Council in the form of a senior officer appointed for five years—who preferably had experience of command of a United Nations force—as a military adviser to the Secretary-General and the Security Council. In his previous job Dr. Annan appointed an experienced three star officer as assistant secretary-general in the appropriate department. However, the Secretary-General himself and the Security Council do not have expert military advice when they discuss whether they will set up a force.
The other important recommendation which I hope will be implemented is that a force commander should be selected early and when a force is set up there should be a military committee, under the adviser to the Secretary-General, consisting of representatives of those countries which contribute to the force. I am glad to say that in the press conference that Dr. Annan gave he rejected a proposal which Sir Brian Urquhart made, and I think Boutros Boutros Ghali made, and which we often hear—we have heard it in this House—namely, that there should be a permanent United Nations force available to the Security Council. I am wholly opposed to that. Kofi Annan gave some good reasons as to why that is not a good thing. I am not even in favour of earmarking specific stand-by forces. I do not believe that is a satisfactory answer. It is far better that a country should say, "I am willing to do what I can when the time comes, depending on the time. I have forces which can be viewed any day which will be fully capable of doing their job because I shall train them to do so".
I support the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that the organisation and the procedures which are appropriate for peacekeeping are not perhaps appropriate for peace enforcement. The most extreme form of peace enforcement took place in Korea and the Gulf. If one must have a peace enforcement force—I am not in favour of that unless it is the only answer—the most satisfactory procedure is for a member of the Security Council to be nominated and agree to provide the overall command of that force. That is the only efficient way of doing it. I do not think that the situation in Bosnia with NATO is satisfactory and I do not think that the United Nations has any control over it at all.
The whole question of what the United Nations force does needs to be approached with a great deal of caution. If one goes too far along the road mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Dahrendorf and Lord Redesdale, one works towards what one imagines is a world

153
government, but what one produces—that is almost being produced now—is a form of world imperialism run from New York. We do not want that.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, not for the first time my noble friend Lord Judd has afforded us an opportunity to discuss an initiative relating to the United Nations before the options are foreclosed. It is a pity that constraints of time have compelled us to produce such succinct contributions. I hope that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, will forgive me if I do not follow him this evening.
The first lesson which emerges from the Secretary-General's report is that the balance between national sovereignty and global vision, between fragmentation and integration, has moved, and is moving, in the direction of national sovereignty and fragmentation. The Secretary-General and the secretariat were seen by the founding fathers as representing concerted action but that was balanced by a General Assembly monopolised by nation states. The report indicates that the demarcation line between them has been progressively invaded by the General Assembly, and the power of the secretariat to take decisive action has been both fragmented and reduced, not to mention starved of resources. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will forgive me if I say that what is remarkable is how much has been achieved by the United Nations. The first need is to redefine the powers of the Secretary-General to carry out his leadership role.
The second clear lesson is that there is little co-ordination within the organisation, or between the organisation and the specialised agencies. That is partly deliberate. The fathers sought to protect the agencies from too great a political interference by the General Assembly. I fully understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, but to all things there is a season, a time to cast away stones and a time to gather stones together. C.S. Lewis said that the strategy of the devil is to have everyone running around with fire extinguishers when there is a flood. The need now is for greater co-ordination, both centrally and in such local situations where the United Nations operates. Whatever the merits of the debate, the spectacle of UNICEF on 28th October last year having publicly to criticise the operation of the Security Council's boycott against Iraq emphasised the need for an organisation which embodies one world to behave as though it were one organisation.
I make one further point. If the United Nations is to respond to demands which are wholly disproportionate to its resources, it must involve in its work not only governments but the people of the world, however their voices and their contributions are channelled, and often that is best done through the non-governmental organisations. After all, the NGOs are usually on the same side as the United Nations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said. I agree with her and the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, that it is sensible to enrol them in the team. At a recent meeting of NGOs and ambassadors, the representative of Oxfam, which works with the United Nations in numerous emergencies, was
154
driven to say that he learns of the thinking and the activities of the Security Council from radio and television.
There is a more pleasing recent example. In 1999 we shall see the centenary of the first international peace conference at The Hague. The General Assembly has decided that that should be marked by a further peace conference. Happily, it is involving the NGOs and they are working together on a number of agenda items. When my noble friend replies to the debate I hope she can tell us whether Her Majesty's Government plan to consult the United Kingdom NGOs on that matter. I have to declare a double interest as president of One World Trust and of the world disarmament campaign. I hope that my noble friend will not hold that against me. I did not have an opportunity to warn her that I was going to ask that question. If she prefers to write to me, I shall understand.
A more effective United Nations does not amount to a monolithic takeover of freedom of action from national governments, only a recognition that national governments are not the only places where discussions should take place. Mr. Paul Streeter has said that the state is too big for the small things and too small for the large things. There is a whole hierarchy of discussions which in the contemporary world need to take place. Decisions which affect only a parish should be taken by the parish council. But decisions affecting war and peace, the ecology of the rainforests, the pollution of the oceans, human rights and the ending of world poverty, can sensibly be taken only at global level. If they are not taken effectively, we shall all be the losers.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the problems of the United Nations in the West and among the richer nations of the world generally arise largely from the relative indifference of the mega economic, financial and military power of the United States of America. That attitude in America seems to have grown steadily and has led to the United Nations facing its own problems of not having a secure financial base. That is due to the perception by the public of the United States, rightly or wrongly, of the ineffectiveness of the United Nations and the impression created of it being excessively bureaucratic and too cosy by half. I have no doubt that the United Nations needs new leadership and new vision, which preferably should come from within the United States.
Having said that, I wish to confine my speech to asking a few questions which arise from the "highlights" of the Secretary-General's report issued by the United Nations. I wish to deal, first, with the question of the revolving credit fund. It is proposed to set up a billion dollar lending facility—in other words, an overdraft. Who will back it? When the Minister replies, perhaps she will tell us the Government's perception of who is to back the fund? The fund must have backers, otherwise it will not exist. If it is only to be a temporary matter, have the United States Government given an indication of whether or not they will back it?

155
Secondly, with regard to the changed management culture and the elimination of 1,000 staff posts, is that real saving or cosmetic? I ask that because, regrettably, the highlights of the report are in highly bureaucratic language. That creates a bad impression for anyone used to having a report on perhaps a business enterprise. Will money be saved or will the work simply be transferred to consultants and advisers, which will mean an administrative saving but an expense elsewhere?
Thirdly, I refer to the overwhelming human resources policies and practices to ensure staff have the,
"necessary skills and enjoy requisite conditions for effective service".
That is bureaucratic-speak, as I have always understood it, for better pay and conditions, and an increased bill. If that is the impression being created in the United States, I am not hopeful for a better response in the United Nations.
Fourthly, I refer to the proposal for the Office of Development Financing with a new deputy secretary-general taking the lead in initiating an innovative means of mobilising new financial resources for development. That sounds alright, but how is it to be co-ordinated, with for example, the work of the World Bank? Is it to be a new initiative? Will it cross swords, or cross tracks, with the operations of the World Bank and other organisations?
Fifthly, what role will the United Kingdom take at the ministerial level commission when it is suggested that it should examine the need for fundamental change through review of the UN Charter? What do the Government think are the essential and fundamental changes required in the Charter to bring about a more effective organisation?
Sixthly, and lastly, on the proposal for the "Millennium Assembly", what will be the Government's own objective for that assembly? It seems to me that it is a vitally important suggestion. If we are to have a change of direction, a change of heart, in particular in the United States, that would be the right time to bring it about. But what will be the Government's objectives with regard to that assembly?
I share the view that the United Nations needs new leadership. I am absolutely convinced that the United Nations has also performed marvellous work despite all the criticisms of it. Without it we would be in a dreadful state. It is time that the United States realised that we look to it for leadership which behoves a country with its enormous financial and other resources.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, there is no denying the need for greater accountability of United Nations spending, with a clear management responsibility for performance of the system, including measures to improve secretariat practices. I am comparatively optimistic about the managerial initiatives and longer-term Track 2 proposals, but I see two sides of the coin. On the up-side, the redefinition of four strategic sectors with human rights as the common denominator and the appointment of a senior
156
management group, together with the proposal to create a Deputy Secretary-General, are imaginative. The test will be in the quality of those appointments, but Mr. Annan has excelled already with Mrs. Robinson.
Rejection of a slash and burn approach, and deciding to equate reform with reductions in expenditure and staff, while reducing some activities but increasing others, should achieve much of the desired effect. Yet it must not be forgotten that the United Nations is already hopelessly under-resourced for the many tasks that are expected of it.
Significantly, therefore, increased emphasis and resources towards programmes on human rights, drugs and crime, development and disarmament and proposals not to recommend abolishing any major existing programmes, as many had expected, are welcome.
Mr. Annan has successfully juggled a central element of US congressional proposals in demanding a no-growth budget in nominal terms in a dollar for dollar trade-off. His proposals to reduce administrative overhead expenditure substantially over a number of years, and that rather than passing those savings on to member states through reduced budgets he recommends passing them to economic and social programmes in poorer countries, is excellent news and will come as a relief to many.
So what of the reverse side of that coin? There is a clear case for more emphasis on co-ordinating agency duplication and overlap. The Secretary-General was vague about possible mergers, but why are there three system programmes in Rome, for example, dealing with food? Will the Government consider supporting a proposal that member states review the mandate and governing bodies of all specialised agencies?
However, what is of real concern to me is that the United States is seeking to reduce its percentage of the regular budget from 25 to 20 per cent. How can it be right that 184 members be assessed according to an agreed formula and that one should decide, essentially unilaterally, how much it wishes to pay? In addition, the creation of a proposed "centralised arrears account" for payments which member states refuse to make is widely viewed in Washington as a thinly veiled attempt to write off up to 500 million dollars of arrears by the United States. That is not on. Debt relief must be reserved only for those too poor to pay. Will the Minister please give an assurance that under no circumstance will she contemplate agreeing to such a measure?
The United States believes that Mr. Annan's proposals do not meet its goals. But I believe that it is important to understand that the American agenda is not simply about efficiency but rather the role of the United States in world affairs. Senator Helms believes that the reform agenda is a conspiracy to diminish American sovereignty. It must be explained to the senator that being the world's single superpower does not give it the right to dictate to other members, and that it would save itself a lot of heartache if it was seen to be a team player.

157
But I wish to conclude on a positive note. Regionalism on a global scale is the only way forward. I was particularly pleased, therefore, that the new American Ambassador to the United Nations stressed recently:
"True reform will depend in large part on the United Nations' ability to come to grips with, and adapt to, the vast transitions already under way in the international system and in particular the move towards regional integration and co-operation".
Who knows, maybe there is hope for us yet.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, this has been an astonishingly rich debate. It is not possible for me to comment on all the speeches that have been made, but perhaps I may mention in particular the detailed study of the proposals for reform put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to whom we are extremely grateful for introducing this debate, and also the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in respect of these proposals. I hope that I may mention other speakers in the course of my remarks because this has been a very constructive debate.
Perhaps I may first address the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. He set out clearly before the House what seems to me one of the most important aspects of the United Nations, for all its weaknesses and failings, and that is that it is attempting to make a set of global norms, a set of global moral imperatives by which we may begin to live.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, pointed out that the United Nations has suffered from the fragmenting and weakening of the authority of the Secretary-General. That is absolutely right; it is the nature of the crisis. But the nature of the aim is one we should not forget.
I believe that the four recent world conferences conducted by the United Nations at Rio, Cairo, Copenhagen and Beijing were all attempts to establish new concepts—if you like, new road maps for the future. Perhaps I may mention one or two: the concept of the sustainable environment which came out of Rio; the concept of mutual respect between the genders which came out of Beijing; the concept of responsible attitude toward social justice which came out of Copenhagen; and the concept of approaching the issues of world population which came out of Cairo. Those concepts have made a huge contribution to the nature of international discussion and debate and, I believe, have changed the terms of that debate in ways we should not forget when we rightly criticise some of the detailed aspects of inefficiencies or problems at the United Nations.
I was somewhat saddened by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, but I agree with him strongly in one respect. I believe that he pointed to a real problem in arguing that the sanctions against Iraq, which are now having momentous consequences for children, minorities and others in Iraq, have had almost no impact on their tyrannical government. I believe we all have an obligation to think of other ways in which we can reach
158
not the peoples but the leaders of these rogue states. It may be that our Government will think seriously about ways in which that might be done. Let me mention just two possibilities: the sequestering of personal funds and the attempt to embargo flights and travel by the leaders of such states. In the same context I might mention the great problems we had in Nigeria, where again we have failed to reach the leadership to show the disgust and concern of the whole world.
I should like next to mention my own interest in this matter, in the way that other noble Lords have done. I was a member of United Nations advisory council to Mr. Boutros Ghali, then the Secretary-General, for the Fourth World Women's Conference at Beijing. It is important to say that we often underestimate the anticipatory consequences of United Nations conferences. I know for certain that countries like Malaysia, India, the Philippines and others introduced legislation concerning domestic violence and the role of women in economic development precisely because that conference was going to take place. I cannot easily forget when we went back to see the Secretary-General to ask for resources to follow up the agenda set out at Beijing how he almost broke down in tears when he explained that he had no resources to carry out these highly desirable purposes.
I should like to say a word about peace-making and peacekeeping, on which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, made such a distinguished contribution. Here I again declare an interest as a member of the international crisis group. Will the Government consider how we might shore up the civic dimension of these peacekeeping operations? So often, as in Bosnia, the peacekeeping operation is mounted and is militarily successful but the civic dimension is neglected and therefore one sees what Mr. Wolfensohn, in his introduction to the recent development report of the World Bank, described as "collapsed states" which simply do not have the capacity to establish a rule of law. It is a difficult issue, to which we could perhaps ask the Minister to respond—if not now, at some later date.
With regard to the excellent agencies which are doing remarkable work, we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, about UNICEF. I put in the same context the astonishing work on human development of the United Nations Development Programme, which I believe is finding a clear mission for itself.
Let me now turn to the proposals. First, I take it that the Government fully support memberships of the council for Germany and Japan. I should like to ask them to give due consideration to the case for India, the second largest country in the world and the largest democracy. It seems to many of us that the Permanent Council of the United Nations is now no longer representative of the peoples of the world and we must go some way to bring about change.
Secondly, do the Government support—as I take it they do—the redistribution of contributions among the member states of the United Nations along the lines of the European Union initiative?

159
Finally, perhaps because of my own association with that country, I plead with the Government that as regards the position of the United States, so movingly outlined by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, they should take note of the fact that the position taken by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, Senator Jesse Helms, is not representative of the whole of Congress, and not even of the whole of the Republican Party, as the recent remarks of Congressman Leach so clearly show. Will the Government consider bringing pressure to bear, not on the Government of the United States—who are favourable to the reforms, though not sufficiently strongly so—but on Congress itself? There is a special relationship. This is the moment when that special relationship should be used to make clear, on the basis of legislature to legislature and government to legislature, how vital it is that members of Congress stand up to be counted on the issue of the appalling arrears which the United States owes to the United Nations and 'on the issue of membership of that world body.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his initiative in leading this debate and to echo many of the words of the noble Baroness who preceded me.
Throughout the world the United Nations is a byword for peace and security, democracy, human rights, the rule of law and economic and social progress. I believe its role in development policy is a major contributor towards the wider goal of peace and security and thus, less publicly but no less importantly, the United Nations should be praised for providing food and shelter for millions of refugees, for combating disease and malnutrition and channelling aid to the poorest and most deprived.
In that context, we give the Government our full and unqualified support in continuing Britain's commitment to be present at the birth of an invigorated and updated United Nations, referred to by many noble Lords this evening, which will be equipped to face the new global challenges of the 21st century. Those challenges, in my view, include a lasting, meaningful and enduring partnership for sustainable development, including solutions to climate change and the pressure we are increasingly placing on our environment and natural resources.
But, before we can determine the UN's new agenda, I believe there is an even more compelling reason for radical reform. The UN in the 21st century must not be a byword for waste, inefficiency and excessive bureaucracy, otherwise it will simply not survive. We need to find root-and-branch solutions to reform its unwieldy structure, its secretariat and its financial problems before the huge spread of demand on UN resources can be effectively prioritised.
On that note, I welcome Secretary-General Kofi Annan's Track 1 and Track 2 programmes designed to set the UN on the road to reform. His commitment to a
160
confident and efficient organisation ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century deserves international resonance and approval.
Equally, I welcome the Government's statement that they intend to be heavily involved in that process and assure the Minister of the Opposition's support for their continued, wholehearted commitment to a strong and effective UN, both bilaterally and through the European Union and the G8.
However, I wish to concentrate my remarks on the severe financial crisis which continues to dog the United Nations—a point alluded to by other noble Lords. That is because without reform of the UN finances, the organisation will simply be unable to carry out its work, although improvements to peacekeeping, enlargement of the Security Council and the future of the UN's agencies are all important and indeed contentious topics, which merit more discussion than we have been able to give them this evening.
The UN currently runs at an operating loss equal to almost 10 per cent. of turnover. It has no capital or reserves left and is not allowed to borrow. It funds itself by the simple expedient of not paying its bills. Its main asset is the unpaid contributions from member states. As at 15th December last, outstanding assessed contributions to the UN totalled 2.26 billion dollars. Of that sum, 1.71 billion dollars was for peacekeeping operations.
The UN is not a business but it should be an efficient organisation. Likewise, short-term, questionable accounting practices, such as borrowing from peacekeeping accounts in order to replenish its sinking regular budget and meet day-to-day expenses, should have no place at the UN.
Thus, we shall, of course, lend our full support to government action taken to ensure that contributions are paid promptly and in full and that arrears are cleared, since failure to do so severely damages the ability of the UN to carry out the policies that we all wish it to carry out and which have been voted by member states. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that the European Union's proposals are the best basis for an agreed solution to the UN's financial difficulties. I hope that the Government will continue to press hard for a solution based on negotiated settlement.
In the last minute remaining to me I should like to follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and ask the Minister a few questions. What priority do the Government place on a fundamental review of the specialised agencies in terms of function, value and contribution to development, in order to reduce overlaps and inefficiencies and to wind down obsolete bodies? How far do the Government believe that such a review has been achieved? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of UK withdrawal from UNIDO membership on developing countries? Have the Government carried out any comparative studies on the benefits of channelling the same resources elsewhere in terms of value and efficiency?
I am cautious about references to the reform of the Security Council. I should hope that we long retain our seat on the UN Security Council. There is an important

161
link between that seat and the continuing effective role that we contribute to UN peacekeeping operations. That was pointed out in a different context by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.
Both as a member of the Security Council and in peacekeeping operations, we exercise our powers wisely and are respected globally. I hope that the Government have no intention of changing our status and influence in either of those roles. We have played our full part in UN peacekeeping operations and the outstanding performance of our Blue Berets, who have served from Angola to Georgia, stand testament to that.
We have a moral and practical interest in supporting a stronger, more effective United Nations, a United Nations whose focus in the next century will, in my view, shift to preventive action, to nurturing the fragile roots of democracy when necessary, and to encouraging stability by bridging the gap between humanitarian aid and development.
Ultimately, the UN is only as good as its members. Some may cavil at the perceived failure of the UN to achieve the nirvana of permanent peace. But the true litmus test of a successful United Nations equipped to meet the millennium will be a United Nations which remains a beacon of hope for people across the world in search of peace, stability and prosperity.
7.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Judd for giving the House the first opportunity under this Government to debate the renewal of the United Nations.
This Government are firmly committed to the United Nations and our commitment is based on a straightforward assessment of British interests and British objectives. We are the world's fifth largest aid donor, resolved to halve poverty by the year 2015. We are the third largest provider of capital to the developing world. We are firmly pledged to open and fair trade. We are a leading contributor to peacekeeping operations worldwide, committed to work for the just settlement of disputes, from Cyprus to Bosnia. And we have put human rights, the environment and the fight against drugs and organised crime at the heart of our foreign policy.
A safe, decent, open world is, then, manifestly in our interests. The UN Charter, which we helped to frame, is dedicated to just that: peace, human rights, international law and social progress. For this Government, reform is about re-equipping the United Nations to meet those tasks in the coming century. It is not about cost cutting. In a world more complex, more fragile, yet more promising than the United Nations' founders could have imagined, its legitimacy, universality and neutrality count for more than ever before.
Let me start with reform of the structure of the UN. I shall then try briefly to outline our policy on finance and the Security Council before trying to address many of the specific points raised by your Lordships in the course of our interesting debate.
162
Our objective for structural reform is that we want the UN to do better what it does best, to focus on those activities where its unique status give it comparative advantage and to do them as efficiently as possible. That is the aim of the Secretary-General's proposals too. They mark a real advance—not just tinkering at the edges, as some critics, particularly in the United States, would have it; and they build on reforms which are already under way in individual UN bodies, from the regional commissions to the funds and programmes.
Under the proposals, key activities will be strengthened. For example, the main development agencies will now work together more closely, while keeping their own identities; anti-drugs, crime and terrorism operations will be centred on Vienna, with greater efficiency and greater coherence; the UN's rapid reaction capability will be improved and post-conflict peace-building enhanced; and the profile of human rights will be raised across the United Nations' work.
There should be other benefits too. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, said, co-ordination throughout the system will be improved. The expertise of NGOs and business will be better tapped. Staff will be better managed. Budgeting will focus on results instead of on inputs. Crucially, reviews of specialised agency mandates and the role of the United Nations are at last in prospect.
Meanwhile, tighter management, coupled with self-restraint by governments, should cut administrative overheads by one-third over the next five years. At Denver, we and our G8 partners called for savings to be directed into programmes for the poorest countries. Kofi Annan has taken that up. By the year 2002, he estimates that over 200 million dollars should be freed up for development, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, pointed out.
Those are the most ambitious reform proposals in the history of the United Nations. We shall lead in working for clear endorsement of the reform process by the General Assembly in the autumn and, during our presidencies of the European Union and G8 next year, for early implementation of change.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, reminded us, reform cannot succeed without proper funding. The UN is now owed 2.4 billion dollars in unpaid assessments. Britain meets its obligations promptly and in full. We look to others, particularly our friends in the United States, to do the same. More generally, we need to put the United Nations finances on a modern, fair and transparent basis. Britain helped to pioneer a new approach, based on capacity to pay. That is now a common European Union proposal, as several noble Lords pointed out. Of course, we support it. Under it, most member states would pay less than they do now. The bulk of increases would fall to developed countries. It is just, straightforward and workable. We shall work hard to have it adopted.
I come to the Security Council enlargement, to which my noble friend Lord Judd drew our attention. Our position is plain. We want the council to be more representative, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop

163
of Oxford said, while remaining effective. We hope that a framework decision on enlargement can be drawn up by the end of the year.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, the Government support permanent membership for Germany and Japan. We also support increased representation from the developing world either through new named permanent members or rotating permanent seats. That is for the developing countries themselves to decide. We would not, however, support an increase only in non-permanent membership. It would prove a temporary solution at best. Aspiring permanent members would not be satisfied and before long the debate would be re-opened.
Whatever is agreed, the Council must remain effective. That is in the interests of all UN members. The present council of 15 can react quickly and clearly to crises. Its mandate to maintain international peace and security demands that. In our view an extension beyond 20 or 21 risks becoming too cumbersome to act decisively. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we have no intention of changing our own status on the Security Council.
Many noble Lords raised the peacekeeping and peacebuilding functions of the United Nations. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, gave us a rather gloomy view of the effects of some of our peacekeeping efforts and the prospects for justice with peace. The Government are strongly committed to improving the UN's ability to deploy peacekeeping troops as quickly as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said we should. We have seconded officers to the UN secretariat; we are training potential troops, particularly in Africa. We welcome the Secretary-General's recommendation to enhance the UN's rapid reaction capability further.
We have learnt lessons from Bosnia, not least the important role that organisations like NATO can play in peacekeeping. My noble friend Lord Judd and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred to our policy on stand-by forces. We provide information to the UN on troops and equipment which may be made available for peacekeeping operations. We are looking at other options as part of our strategic defence review.
The Secretary-General also proposes to enhance the UN's role in post-conflict peacebuilding—an important part of the UN's role, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us. We have backed moves to develop a coherent international approach. The recent OECD guidelines draw substantially upon the United Kingdom's input.
Many noble Lords were exercised too on issues concerning human rights. The United Nations has a pivotal part to play on human rights. It is the most important international forum to advance human rights. We want it to be as effective as possible. We welcome the Secretary-General's plans to strengthen its human rights programme by raising its profile across the system and strengthening the secretariat in Geneva. It will build on the work already carried out on management efficiency in the Centre of Human Rights, with advice
164
from British-funded consultants. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, suggested, Mary Robinson, the new High Commissioner, will have a crucial role in pressing forward with the reforms. She has been tasked to review the United Nations human rights machinery in its entirety. We have every faith in her abilities and stand ready to help further.
I turn to the international criminal court. The Secretary-General strongly supports that establishment; so do we. There is a clear need for an international legal mechanism to bring to justice those who commit the worst violations of international law—genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. We support the holding of a diplomatic conference next year. In the meantime our delegation will play an active part in discussions at the preparatory committee which resumes next week.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, questions the UN's efficacy on some humanitarian issues. The Secretary-General plans to improve co-ordination on assistance and raise the profile of humanitarian issues within the UN system, and we welcome that. My noble friend Lord Judd raised the important matter of responsibility on internally displaced persons. We welcome the work being done by the UN rapporteur, Francis Deng. The UN will need to find a way of ensuring that the needs of displaced persons are properly addressed; giving the UNHCR responsibility should be one option.
The emergency relief co-ordinator needs to have the authority to do his job effectively. He will need the active support of the Secretary-General. He already has substantial access to the Security Council. The co-ordinator should have the power to appoint UN humanitarian co-ordinators in the field and to set priorities for consolidated appeals. We hope that he will do that in consultation with the humanitarian agencies concerned.
The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, referred to the important work done by parliamentarians. Last year's co-operation agreement with the Inter-Parliamentary Union was a useful step. We look forward to the report and the General Assembly in the autumn.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for drawing our attention to UNICEF's work. As chairman of the UK national committee, the noble Lord has helped to make it an example for other national committees to follow. The Government are a firm supporter of UNICEF. I know how pleased my honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development was to participate in the launch of the Annual Progress of Nations' report in London last week. I understand that she had useful discussions with Carol Bellamy, UNICEF's executive director. We hope that UNICEF will take a lead at headquarters and in the field in making the new development group work while preserving UNICEF's special character.
The question of the funding of UNESCO was raised, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Our subscription for UNESCO will be met from the DFID

165
reserve this year. For next year it will come from development funds, subject to forthcoming resource rounds this summer.
In the time left to me, perhaps I may touch upon one or two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I will write to him in detail on those if I may. Our wish is to see fewer but better trained staff. We believe that the Secretary-General reductions are a real step in that direction. We look forward to further details of the revolving credit fund. Your Lordships will understand that without this the Government cannot decide whether or not they will contribute at this stage.
The question for us now is whether the Secretary-General's package amounts to a real advance. We believe that it does, as my noble friend Lord Judd acknowledged in his opening speech. Our EU partners, the Americans and Canadians, have also welcomed it. The proposals meet key objectives from the G8 Summit in Denver—the review of specialised agencies; the channelling of efficiency savings into development programmes; better co-ordination and improved conflict resolution.
166
As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, we want to see a confident, efficient United Nations with a renewed sense of purpose. We want that clear endorsement from your Lordships. Thanks to the Secretary-General's resolve, member states now have an unparalleled opportunity to press ahead. Britain's UN credentials are strong. Our scope for influencing the debate, particularly under our European Union and G8 presidency, is significant. Fifty years ago we played a leading role in shaping the United Nations for the future. We intend to do the same today. In the first General Assembly in London Ernest Bevin said, "We will try to make the best contribution we can and use to the full every instrument which is created under the UN's auspices". The Government stand by that pledge today.

Kings College London Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock.