Lords Sitting of 22 May 1997

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.
Lord Parry—Took the Oath.

Merseyside Museums and Galleries: Admission Charges
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will intervene to prevent the introduction of an admission charge to galleries run by National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, planned to take effect from 1st July 1997.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside already charge for admission at some of their collections. It is for the board of trustees to decide whether or not to introduce admission charges at other NMGM museums and galleries. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be meeting the chairman of the trustees shortly to discuss this issue.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will the Government consider taking steps to stop all further introductions of admission charges by public museums and galleries within the UK? Will they consider abolishing charges currently operated by public museums; for example, at the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery where attendances have fallen drastically since charges were introduced in 1992?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the formal position is that the Government have no power to decide whether or not museum trustees impose admission charges. However, as noble Lords will be aware, the Secretary of State, Chris Smith, has declared that he is against admission charges, and will seek to find ways of maximising access to our museums and galleries. At the same time, it must be said that that statement should not be taken as an indication to museums and galleries to come to government with a begging bowl to make up the deficit in their budgets. Ways must be found of maximising access to our museums and galleries and of course it is desirable for that to be done without admission charges.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to explain the alternative for museums and galleries other than to go to the Government with a begging howl if they take away the discretion to make charges?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not suggesting that the Government were going to take away the discretion to make charges. As the noble Lord will well know, the power to make charges was introduced by the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Act 1972 under the Heath government. When we had the Wilson government in 1974 it was possible, by persuasion, to get the museums and galleries to remove their charge. It is only by persuasion that we can get our museums and galleries to maximise access, unless we were to change the law which we have no present intention of doing.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the proposal by Merseyside may have an adverse effect on bequests, including the important bequest by Sir Denis Mahon which will be cancelled if the charges are introduced?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Sir Denis Mahon is of course a generous contributor to our museums and galleries. He has three pictures on loan in the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool. If my noble friend is right when he says that the effect of charges would be that he would withdraw all his pictures on loan in our museums and galleries that would be sad, and we should have to consider it.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest in that my wife is a trustee. Is the noble Lord aware that the charge of £3 for a season ticket, admitting to all six museums, will not yield a huge amount of income? What will yield income is the ability to reclaim VAT, once their charitable status is altered. Will the noble Lord tell me the Labour policy on VAT, and whether there is any chance of the Government abolishing VAT on charities?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can confirm, as the noble Viscount said, that one of the advantages to museums of making charges is that they can reclaim the VAT. I can also confirm that the proposed annual charge of £3 and £1.50 for concessions for all of the Merseyside museums is not, as he says, onerous. The issue of VAT on charities is rather wide of the Question, and I do not think that I can answer it at present.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in his first supplementary, the noble Earl made a comment—if I heard him correctly—about the drastic fall in the number of attendees. Does the noble Lord have any statistics as to what extent attendances have fallen since the introduction of charges?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is true that in general introducing admission charges causes a severe reduction in attendances, although the evidence is that attendances tend to rise after a certain time. The problem with obtaining the statistics has been that before the introduction of charges there was not necessarily a good count of the number of people entering museums and galleries. However the

495
Government have commissioned the Glasgow Caledonian University to carry out research into the whole question of the economics of admission charges. We are expecting its report in November. We are looking to see whether that deadline can be advanced.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Mahon bequest will be cancelled only if the actual museum introduces charges, unlike my noble friend's implication that it will be withdrawn from all galleries? For example, the bulk of the collection will go to the National Gallery which, happily, does not charge and does not intend to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that correction. It seems to me highly desirable that the Secretary of State should meet Sir Denis Mahon and talk about it, although I have no control over my right honourable friend's diary.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while it is a good idea to have free days for schoolchildren and old age pensioners who are finding payment difficult, many of us really want to pay to go into museums so that they can invest that money in making their exhibitions more exciting?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I confirm that from my personal experience. I certainly have found no difficulty—indeed, I have found pleasure—in making a voluntary contribution when I go to the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art in New York. I am sad that last November the Victoria and Albert Museum found it necessary to move from voluntary charges to a compulsory charge.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that it is the Government's view that the decision about whether charges shall be made for admission to national museums and galleries should be for the trustees and not for central government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I confirmed that in my first supplementary answer. It is a matter legally for the trustees and not for the Government.

The French Embassy
11.15 a.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have had any discussions with the Government of France about the external condition of the French Embassy in Knightsbridge, SW1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, officials have been in contact with the French Embassy since October 1996 and have relayed the concern of Westminster City Council and the Knightsbridge Association. I hope that
496
the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, will be pleased to learn that the French Ambassador recently informed the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that restoration work, estimated to cost £530,000, will commence in June and take several months to complete.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am delighted with that Answer and I thank the noble Baroness very much for it. I hope that all her replies from the Dispatch Box will be as encouraging as that. Will the Minister agree that in its present condition, with the paint peeling off the walls and filthy dirty, it is a disgrace both to France, which is of course their business, and to London, which is ours?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am pleased with the noble Lord's delight. I cannot promise always to delight him quite that much. The condition of the French Embassy has obviously caused widespread concern, as he remarked, and we are all very pleased to learn that the French Embassy will be taking steps to ameliorate it as quickly as possible.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, will the Minister accept that her announcement will be warmly welcomed by many people, including the Royal Fine Art Commission which has been concerned with this problem for even longer than the Government? As the site is a premier part of London, can the noble Baroness obtain assurances from the French Ambassador, who is a good friend to this country and understands the situation well, that this work is carried out regularly in future so that the listed building will be as fine in appearance as its twin, the Kuwaiti Embassy, which is just opposite?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the French Government, like our own, have had to face some pretty tough public expenditure cuts and the project has had to take its place in their list of priorities. However, diplomatic missions are expected to comply with the terms of their leases, with local planning regulations and the like, and with what we would expect.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this unhappy state of affairs stands in marked contrast to the state of the British Embassy in Paris, which is one of the greatest ornaments of that fair city?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the external conditions of the buildings speak for themselves and I am happy that the noble Lord is so pleased about our embassy in Paris.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, will the Minister agree that even though the French Embassy is starting repairs in June, it has already faced very heavy costs with the total refurbishment of the residence and the French Institute, which have only recently been carried out?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, indeed, I would agree and also reiterate what I said a few moments ago. While we have been pressing the French Embassy on this point, it has had difficulties over its public expenditure. That is not a difficulty unrecognised by the Government and we are pleased to learn that it is commencing the work and we hope that it will be finished quickly.

The Baltic States: Policy
11.18 a.m.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the Baltic states.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, British policy is: to support the sovereignty and independence of the Baltic states; to encourage them to continue political and economic reform; to reinforce Baltic links with western countries and institutions; to encourage regional stability, including improved relations with Russia; and to promote bilateral trade and investment.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer and I congratulate her on her position in Her Majesty's Government, which I hope will be long, successful and rewarding.
The present Government have been in power for only three weeks and have not had time to fashion a more progressive policy. Will they use their increasing influence at the heart of Europe to press at the Intergovernmental Conference for the early inclusion of the three Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—in the European Union? Will the Government consult urgently with their NATO colleagues to try to find ways in which the security of the three Baltic states can be enhanced?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Earl has asked two supplementary questions: one about EU membership and one about NATO membership. The Government are a strong supporter of enlargement of the European Union. We believe that that will entrench stability and prosperity across Europe; end historic divisions and bring about practical benefits such as increasing the single market to nearly 500 million consumers. Member states will take a decision towards the end of this year on the readiness of the Baltic states and other countries for EU membership, taking into account the opinions of the European Commission which are expected in July.
As regards NATO membership, the Government will not take final decisions on candidates until nearer the date of the Madrid Summit, which is on 8th and 9th July. As the NATO enlargement study makes clear, we shall need to consider both the credentials of individual countries and the wider security background.
498
But I stress to the noble Earl that in any event NATO is determined that security of those countries not invited to join should not be diminished by the Madrid decisions.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate what are the express views of the Commission so far with regard to its agreement or otherwise to the policies which she outlined in answer to the original Question?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to write to my noble friend on that point.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that if and when the three Baltic states apply to become members of the European Union, their applications will be treated separately rather than en bloc? Secondly, can she tell the House anything about the current situation in Narua in Estonia where, as I am sure she knows, there is a very substantial Russian population, which is a potential flashpoint between the two countries?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the applications of the three countries will be considered separately. As regards the second matter which the noble Viscount raised, the Government welcome the progress made in Estonia in addressing the anxieties of the Russian minorities, but further progress on that very difficult question is required.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, perhaps I may go back to the second supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Carlisle which the noble Baroness may have slightly misunderstood. I did not understand my noble friend to suggest that the Baltic states should become part of NATO but he is concerned about enhancing the security of the Baltic states and about consultation with NATO partners as to how that is to be achieved. It might be achieved if there were consultation with Russia about it as that would be an essential part of a security agreement.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I did understand the terms of the question but I apologise to the House if I did not make myself clear. We are determined that the security of those countries which are not invited to join NATO should not be diminished by the Madrid decisions. We wish to enhance co-operation with non-members of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the Partnership for Peace.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, as regards bringing the Baltic states into the European institutions, what is the relationship at present between the three Baltic states referred to and the Council of Europe on the one hand and the Western European Union on the other hand? Is there any relationship between those three Baltic states and those two European institutions?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to give the answer of a new Minister in a new Government and say that I shall write to my noble friend on those matters.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I visited Estonia between the wars when it was independent. Estonia is the smallest and most vulnerable of the Baltic states. Will the Government bear in mind the need not only to ensure the defence of Estonia but also to persuade the Russian Government that infiltration must be brought to an end?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will wish to do as the noble Lord suggests. Indeed, referring back to the historic links with Estonia, the Government are very much looking forward to the UK playing a full part in celebrating the 80th anniversary of Estonian and Latvian independence next year in the light of the Royal Navy's role in that independence in 1918.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are many in this House who welcome the new emphasis on enlargement? Will the Minister agree further that, as regards public debate, it is now surely time to shift our attention from the common currency question to that much more fundamental question?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government see the two questions as being mutually exclusive. The question of enlargement is important as, indeed, is the question of a common currency.

Northern Iraq: Turkish Incursion
11.26 a.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in response to the Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq and reported killing of civilians in Erbil.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have expressed concern about the Turkish incursion into Northern Iraq against the PKK, a terrorist organisation. We have urged Turkey not to exceed measures to protect her own territorial integrity and legitimate security concerns. We have also stressed to it the importance of respecting human rights and not endangering civilians. We are watching the situation closely.
We have raised the reports of the killing of civilians in Erbil with the KDP. It has said publicly that although it took action to close PKK offices in Erbil, it denies the allegations of rape and murder of civilians.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that repeated Turkish incursions into Northern Iraq are a violation of the United Nations charter and at the very least, the Turkish authorities have an obligation,
500
which rests on every state that crosses an international frontier, to report its action to the Secretary-General of the United Nations? Has that been done? Will the Secretary-General lay a report before the Security Council to see whether Turkey's legitimate security interests are involved or whether it is part of a wider Turkish plan to secure total domination of Northern Iraq with the KDP?
As regards the killings, has the noble Baroness seen the well authenticated reports from Kurdish sources which indicate that five women were raped and then executed in public in the streets of Erbil; that seven patients were dragged from their beds in the local hospital and murdered; and that 16 others were taken from offices and executed personally by the KDP military commander in Erbil, Jamal Mortaqa; and that the local correspondent of Med-TV has disappeared? Will the Government make it clear to the KDP and its Turkish masters that those crimes will become punishable by the International Criminal Court when it comes into operation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not quite sure how many supplementary questions the noble Lord has asked. However, perhaps I may deal first with the very serious allegations of infringements of human rights which the noble Lord has drawn to our attention. We have raised this matter with the Turkish Government and we have no hard evidence of the incidents which the noble Lord related to the House. We have spoken to both the Turks and the KDP about avoiding civilian casualties. The KDP has denied categorically any wrongdoing in Erbil such as that described by the noble Lord.
Further, we understand that Turkey has no wish to challenge Iraq's territorial integrity in the way that the noble Lord suggested and, of course, we too respect Iraq's territorial integrity. I stress to the noble Lord that we have urged Turkey not to exceed measures necessary to protect its own interests. We wish to stress to Turkey, as the EU presidency has done, that the solution to those problems is political and not military. Indeed, on 16th May the presidency called on Turkey to exercise the utmost restraint, to respect human rights, not to endanger the lives of innocent civilians and to withdraw its military forces from Iraqi territory as quickly as possible.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware that the protection of human rights was one of the central planks of the Mission Statement outlined by the Foreign Secretary—a statement which cost £54,000 to stage. Can the Minister say whether threatening Turkey with talks is a new and dynamic way of dealing with this obviously serious abuse of human rights? Further, is it not high time to talk turkey to Turkey?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that we appreciate the noble Viscount's pun. However, I am sure that we all take very seriously the allegations that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has put before the House. As the noble Viscount rightly pointed

501
out, this Government have placed human rights at the heart of our foreign policy. We are reminding Turkey—indeed, we did so even this last week—of the importance of respecting human rights and of avoiding endangering civilians in the region. The Turks have told Her Majesty's Government that the Turkish forces will be scrupulous in their protection of civilians and that there will be full respect for human rights.
The noble Viscount asked whether we would be taking the matter further. I can tell him that we intend to take a fresh look at how agreed principles in international fora can best be used to encourage a productive and constructive response from Turkey. We agree that much more needs to be done and that quicker progress needs to be made to bring Turkish performance closer to what we would regard as European norms. We know this and the Turkish Government recognise our position on the matter.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the Government take the incidents of human rights violations by Turkey, and the incursions across international frontiers by that country, as a signal for initiating European discussions to prevent arm sales to Turkey? Surely that would be compatible with the Foreign Secretary's position.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the question of arm sales to governments whose record on human rights is not all that it might be is, of course, a matter of great concern to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. As my noble friend knows, the Government have an eight-point guidance memo about such sales of arms, which I am sure will form the basis of decisions as regards arms sales to all countries.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness if I may congratulate her upon her clarity of expression?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords; the noble Lord may certainly do so. I thank him.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the only safe rule is that international frontiers should only be crossed with the approval of the Security Council? Will the noble Baroness take up the matter with the Secretary-General so that proper discussions can be held at the assembly? We should remember the dangerous precedent of the 1930s when previous experience showed that tolerating the crossing of international frontiers was a dangerous and slippery slope which led to vast international conflagration.
As regards the murders in Erbil, is it correct that the United Nations still has personnel in the region? If so, will they be asked to report on the allegations? If there are no UN personnel there, will the international community ask Masood Barzani, the leader of the KDP, whether he will admit the UN rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, Monsieur Bacre Waly Ndiawe, so that he can conduct a thorough and impartial investigation of the murders?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord asks very specific questions about the role
502
of the United Nations. I shall be happy to write to him on the specific points that he has raised in the last part of his contribution. On the question of incursions into other territories, I have expressed our concern. However, at the same time, the Government understand Turkey's aim to maintain her own territorial integrity and protect her own legitimate security interests.

Business of the House
11.35 a.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Under Standing Order 70(1)(a), no Motion to approve an affirmative instrument may be moved in your Lordships' House unless a report on the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has been laid before the House. The joint committee has not yet been appointed so it has been agreed through the usual channels that the standing order should be dispensed with today to allow your Lordships to consider this important Northern Ireland instrument.
Moved, That Standing Order 70 be dispensed with to enable the Motion to approve the draft Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 (Revival of Section 3) Order 1997 to be taken this day notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the draft order has been laid before the House.—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is the first opportunity that I have had publicly to congratulate the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip on his appointment. From this side of the House, we would like to wish him the very best of success. The noble Lord will find that this House is a surprising one, especially when it chooses to disagree with what I am sure the noble Lord would regard as the finest of government policy. As I so recently filled the post of Government Chief Whip, I know to my own cost that that happens from time to time.
As regards the Motion, as it is so early in this parliamentary Session and we are still at that stage of good will and co-operation, I should like to say that we are happy to agree with the Motion. We do not wish that to be seen as a precedent; but it should be seen in the spirit of good will. If in the future it turns out that we are obliged to disagree more often than we agree, I hope that the noble Lord and the Government will look back at this period with some joy in their hearts.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, both noble Lords who have just spoken are absolutely right; this is most certainly an unusual Motion. However, I find it unusual for a different reason than that which has so far been stated. It is the last two lines of the Motion to which I would like to draw your Lordships' attention. Reference to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is normally made during the

503
Minister's opening speech on the order and not in a Motion. Being an oddball myself, I am very pleased to see it where it is today. The joint committee of seven of your Lordships and seven MPs on which I was honoured to serve during the last Parliament, but which is so popular that I would not be surprised to be elbowed off in this Parliament, is a technical but very important part of our legislative process, dealing as it does with the nuts and bolts of Acts of Parliament—some 3,000 of them a year, only a minuscule number of which get to be debated on the Floor of either House.
As the noble Lord the Chief Whip said, the new committee has yet to be appointed so obviously it could not investigate this order for vires or for any other reason as regards its remit. However, I understand that Sir James Nursaw, the committee's legal adviser on affirmative instruments, has reviewed it and found nothing on which he would have liked to advise the committee had it been sitting.
I hope that the very reference to the committee in the Motion of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal means that the Government will take the committee's work seriously and not regard it as a thundering nuisance as governments have occasionally, and most certainly some Ministers have done, in the past. Indeed, I further hope that the last two lines of the Motion presage good relations between the Government and the committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has explained the circumstances which have required the Government to table the Motion. I believe that the case he made is overwhelming. We certainly support it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords for the way that they have received the Motion. I should like to thank the Opposition Chief Whip for his kind words. I am not sure why the good will and co-operation has to be concerned only with the early days of this Session. I certainly intend to see that that continues right through the Session. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords who congratulated me and wished me well. I am a little concerned about the number of noble Lords opposite who have said they are delighted that I am the Chief Whip. However, I am extremely grateful for all the good wishes that I have received and for the way in which this Motion has been agreed to. As regards the question of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on the appointment of the JCSI, discussions are proceeding through the usual channels as a matter of priority.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Public Service
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
504
Moved, That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the present condition and future development of the Public Service in Great Britain with particular regard to the effectiveness of recent and continuing changes and their impact on standards of conduct and service in the public interest.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 (Revival of Section 3) Order 1997
11.40 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I go into the details of this draft order I hope I may say what a privilege it was for me to have been asked by the Prime Minister to serve as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. I pay tribute to my predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. She is held in high esteem in Northern Ireland. It is difficult for me to follow the high standards that she has set.
I turn to the draft order we are considering today. It would bring back into existence the forum for the discussion of issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding that was established by the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act last year. The forum, as your Lordships know, is not a part of the talks themselves, and the Act makes clear it has no authority over them: but it was envisaged it could play a useful role complementary to the talks in the pursuit of political advance. It was open to all the delegates returned in the elections that were held in connection with the establishment of the talks.
The forum was suspended by order in March, following debates in this House and another place, because the then Secretary of State concluded that the Northern Ireland multi-party talks, which agreed on 5th March to break until 3rd June, were in the terms of the Act, suspended: and he was therefore under a legal duty under the 1996 Act to suspend the forum as well.
The talks will return on 3rd June, and it is right that we respect the original plan, and revive the forum. We hope to be able to achieve that by 3rd June although the Whitsun recess and the pressure of other business in the other place may make that difficult. In fact the forum will not be able to meet on 3rd or 4th June, because the talks will be in session then. But it will be free to meet after that. The forum's remit, relating to the promotion of dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland, is self-evidently central to political advance in Northern Ireland. If the forum were to concentrate its attention on that role, it could have a real chance to be a positive force in the pursuit of a settlement in Northern Ireland.
The promotion of dialogue and understanding, with which the forum is concerned, will be of the greatest importance in coming months. We are determined to do

505
all we can to inject a new dynamic into the pursuit of a political settlement in Northern Ireland. That applies to the whole Government, from the Prime Minister down: our commitment is evident from the fact that he has in his first two weeks in office visited Northern Ireland, made a major speech there, and met the leaders of the main political parties, as well as the Taoiseach and Tanaiste.
The central focus of the effort to move matters forward must be the talks. That means doing all we can to get the talks over the hurdle of decommissioning and into the discussion of the substantive issues that need to he resolved if there is to be a hope of a more stable and prosperous future for the people of Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland had high hopes of the talks process: and it was clear that the stagnation that ensued caused dismay there. But hopes are still cherished that, with the elections out of the way, the process could become fruitful. I believe people in Northern Ireland will expect their representatives, as well as the Government, to bend every effort to secure all possible advance.
I should say one word about Sinn Fein in the talks process. We want them in the talks, because that would open the way towards the widest possible agreement to a settlement. We have also made it crystal clear what must be done to secure their invitation: there must be an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire, which is clearly reflected in deeds as well as words. But if that does not happen, we are fully determined to proceed without them. The Prime Minister made that clear last week: as he put it, the settlement train is leaving, we want Sinn Fein on board but it will leave anyway. So that our position is clear to Sinn Fein, and so that we can better assess their readiness to commit themselves to peaceful politics alone, officials yesterday met representatives of Sinn Fein.
We believed it was very important to the success of the political process of which the talks, and indeed the forum, are a part to make absolutely clear the position of the Government on key areas of policy in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister set out many of these in his speech on 16th May. In particular he made clear our complete commitment to the principle of consent. Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom so long as that is the wish of a majority of its people. There can be no change in its status without the clear and formal consent of a majority. Within that context we are looking for a political settlement that is widely acceptable in the community in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland must be a place where all traditions can feel equally at home. The confidence of both traditions—I stress both—must be reinforced. We have outlined a number of areas in which we think that can be done.
It is for the people of Northern Ireland to work out arrangements for their own future within those guiding principles. Nothing will be imposed. The Government's agenda is entirely on the table; nothing is hidden. We aim at the greatest transparency to avoid the suspicions that have bedevilled political advance in the past. I am glad to put forward this order to revive the forum because I believe it has potentially an important role
506
in the pursuit of political progress. It is an institution particularly valued by Unionist participants in the talks, and it is important that we ensure its revival at an early date. I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th May be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
11.47 a.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I begin,
after welcoming the Minister most warmly to his new post, by commending to all who care about Northern Ireland the full text of the Prime Minister's speech on 16th May. It includes a generous tribute to John Major and sets out with heartening clarity and firmness his Government's commitment to the principle of consent, saying clearly that his agenda is not a united Ireland and that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK for so long as a majority there so wishes. It gives full support to the police and promises that both police and Armed Forces will continue to bring their full weight to bear on the men of violence. He puts the blame fair and square on Sinn Fein/IRA for excluding themselves from the talks by renewing the campaign for violence. All this is most reassuring, as is the fact that his decision to allow talks between Sinn Fein/IRA and officials is both to explain our position and to assess whether they are genuinely ready to give up violence. He has said that it is not about negotiating the terms of the ceasefire. It is to be hoped that Sinn Fein/IRA will not be let off the hook but will be required to come clean about their true position.
All that is admirable. I hope, however, that the Prime Minister will, with the new Secretary of State, look very carefully at the record of the talks with officials and ensure that Sinn Fein/IRA are asked some tough questions. Everyone has leaned over backwards to accommodate them. What will they do, representing only 17–18 per cent. of the total vote in Northern Ireland, to meet the proper concerns of the 82 per cent. already represented at the multi-party talks, and the concerns of the two Governments?
The IRA ceasefire is only the beginning. Sinn Fein/IRA then expect to be allowed into the talks without preconditions. They expect a time frame to be set for negotiations—why?—and they expect confidence-building measures on such issues as prisoners, and the "reform" of the RUC. They also expect decommissioning to be dealt with, not before but in parallel with, the talks—I believe that arrangements for this are already in hand as a result of the talks.
Martin McGuinness told the BBC last week that,
"If it were established that Sinn Fein/IRA could join multi-party peace talks, then we might have a case to put persuasively to the IRA for a new ceasefire".
This statement, coupled with his initial churlish and hostile response to the Prime Minister's speech, with its references to the militaristic agenda of the British Government, and the statement that he was "not at all impressed", is typical of the arrogance of the Sinn Fein position.

507
I hope very much that since these talks evidently carry in Sinn Fein/IRA eyes no obligation to offer anything themselves, they might be asked in some detail what confidence-building measures they will offer: for instance, the end of punishment beatings, and exclusions of their own people; the end of protection rackets; the end of violence and the planning of violence; and, not least, the details of where the bodies of their past victims are buried—something grieving families have long wanted and been refused. Their agenda is, as they have repeatedly said, Brits out and a United Ireland. It is difficult to see how this could be negotiable in talks, although we must undoubtedly offer them the opportunity. Indeed, one fears that their purpose in entering the talks might be to destabilise them rather than to reach any agreed conclusions.
Furthermore, Gerry Adams has added in the past that Sinn Fein seeks the transformation of all Irish society, not only in the occupied areas, but throughout the whole of Ireland. Sinn Fein/IRA command only 2 per cent. of the vote in the Republic of Ireland, and some 18 per cent. in the North, yet they expect to push this through while at the same time rejecting the right of the 82 per cent. in the North to have a voice on the specious grounds that,
"negotiations need to take place in a climate where no section of our people holds an undemocratic power of veto".
That is what, in Sinn Fein-speak, a majority vote is. Sinn Fein's inclusion of decommissioning on the topics for discussion is aimed, incidentally, at requiring the Armed Forces to leave Northern Ireland or give up their weapons. Gerry Adams has declared roundly in the past that the IRA will never give up a single weapon, and we have all been told that this is a cult issue which has to be accepted. Reform of the RUC means, in Sinn Fein-speak (according to a Sinn Fein document of 1995) the abolition of the RUC and Special Branch and the creation instead of a People's Police for the nationalist areas—jobs for the IRA.
I raise these questions because I hope they will be specifically raised in the talks with officials and the answers fully reported to Ministers. Sinn Fein must not be allowed to destabilise the current talks if it has no serious negotiable agenda to offer once it is included. I do not for a moment suggest that it should not be included if it meets the condition set of a full and verifiable ceasefire. The talks are getting somewhere, very slowly, and the next step could be for the 82 per cent. there represented to go on to discuss socio-economic policies and a strategy for inward investment, as the Unionists have suggested. The Forum, whose renewal we are considering today, is a promising place for people of differing views to come together. People have had a taste of peace and they like it. I firmly believe that, whatever happens about Sinn Fein/IRA and the talks, if the new Secretary of State follows her present line and, as my noble friend Lord Brookeborough recently urged, gives more power back to the district councils, the grassroots revolution which has been bringing people together to work for peaceful,
508
practical, pragmatic aims could gather momentum. That is wholly in accord with the Government's plan for Northern Ireland as formulated in the gracious Speech.
Let the main talks reconvene. Let the parties there represented go on working together. Do not let it all be blown off course and destabilised by Sinn Fein/IRA, which are much more interested in disinformation, media-speak, and their own agenda than in the rebuilding of real bridges.
I hope, too, that as confidence-building measures are being considered, the new Irish Government once elected can be reminded that a move to review Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution could also be a powerful reassurance for the Protestant community, and could go far to advance real confidence in, and support for, various initiatives in cross-border co-operation between two separate countries with real common interests. It seems to me that that is the nub of the matter.
Finally, I should like to welcome most warmly the clear statement in Washington of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the present talks will continue and no new or different initiative for talks will be contemplated. The problems of Northern Ireland are nothing if not complex. I believe that Senator Mitchell and his co-chairmen are a wise team. Let us stay with them and with the Mitchell Principles.
11.55 a.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs on his appointment to the Northern Ireland office. In doing so, I should like him to make preparation for leaving that job as quickly as possible because it is my fervent hope—a hope that I trust will be realised—that by the end of this Parliament agreement will have been found in Northern Ireland so that it will be unnecessary to place orders such as this before the House.
Within five years we shall enter a new millennium. I have used the word "fervent" and I have used it advisedly because I realise that many difficulties and obstacles have to be overcome before we can find political agreement in Northern Ireland. Only this morning, with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, I read a report of the debates in the Northern Ireland Forum as at present constituted. It makes very dispiriting reading.
When we first promulgated legislation to bring the forum into existence, I think that my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees and myself expressed reservations. We did not believe that it was necessary. We have been told this morning that it is a fact. But one must be guided by past experience in relation to forums, assemblies and congregations in Northern Ireland.
In 1982 in the wake of the hunger strike in Northern Ireland, the then Secretary of State, Lord Prior, brought into being an assembly in Northern Ireland. It was to bring about something called rolling devolution. If agreement could be found among the various political parties in that rolling devolution assembly, it would have been quite acceptable to any government on this side of the water. However, immediately after those elections took place in 1982, Sinn Fein won seats.

509
It won them in the emotional atmosphere which existed in the wake of the hunger strikes of 1981. Sinn Fein said, "We shall not attend this assembly". Much to my amazement, and indeed despair, the SDLP said exactly the same. It said, "We shall not attend either". I believe that the death knell for that rolling devolution assembly was the refusal by major political parties and interests in Northern Ireland to accept what, after all, was a democratically elected institution. The assembly and indeed this forum have been elected by the people of Northern Ireland. I never had much faith in the forum but the Government insisted that it should be brought into being.
I refer to this as the Lazarus debate because we are seeking to bring back into life something that is already dead. It was killed by the non-attendance and withdrawal of the SDLP and Sinn Fein. We have already had the experience of the 1982 assembly. It staggered on, month after month, reflecting only one point of view—the Unionist point of view, and the Democratic Unionist point of view. I do not believe that any reason could be expected to be found in such an assembly.
In the Prime Minister's speech of 16th May he gave an undertaking to the majority in Northern Ireland that there would he no change in the constitution of Northern Ireland. We are having all these new aphorisms. He said that there would be a settlement train. If one looks back in Irish history one finds anecdotes about the way in which Northern Ireland will be governed. One cannot have a settlement train unless the vast majority of the parties are on that train in order to reach a destination which, it is to be hoped, will be peace.
We are bringing the forum back into operation. I make an appeal. I do not suppose that it will be listened to, from my experience in Northern Ireland. I make an appeal that the SDLP and all the other elected representatives take up their seats in that forum. We must face the fact that there is a majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland, and there will be a majority of Unionists elected to that forum. There were 10 Unionists elected to Westminster in the recent election. So however we may try to evade the issue, we are faced with the fact that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are Unionist. The SDLP cannot say, as they seemed to be saying when the forum was first brought into being, "We're not going there because they're all Unionists"; and Sinn Fein said much the same. You will never reach any agreement if you do not sit down and have dialogue with people whose views are diametrically opposed to yours. It is only by doing that that you have any hope of bringing about agreement in Northern Ireland.
One of the favourite phrases of the leader of the SDLP when I read what he says and see him on television, and one on which he lays great emphasis, is, "agreement, agreement, agreement". Agreement cannot be reached if people will not sit down and talk to their political opponents. My plea is that all political representatives attend the reconstituted forum.
We are told that the forum can have no effect on the talks. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has more experience as he has been involved in the main talks
510
which have been taking place in Northern Ireland. The Government have made great concessions to Sinn Fein and seem intent on trying to get them involved in the talks. I am not too sure how successful they will be. However, if Sinn Fein is admitted to the talks there is a strong possibility that some sections of the more extreme Unionist Party will walk out—so Sinn Fein may be included but a certain section of the Unionists will not be there. I make the same appeal to them as I made to my former colleagues in the SDLP. Unionists and Democratic Unionists will have to sit down at some point with Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. The electors gave 127,000 votes to Sinn Fein candidates in the recent Westminster election. In Sinn Fein they took a seat from my former party, the SDLP.
I have been a bitter opponent of Sinn Fein since it first entered the Northern Ireland political arena. But whether we like it or not, it is a fact of life. During the recent election we heard the Prime Minister of the Republic, the Prime Minister of Britain and various other speakers in Northern Ireland, telling the Northern Ireland electorate that if they voted for Sinn Fein they were voting for murder and violence. The people to whom they were talking do not seem to have paid much attention to that plea. Are we now in the position of saying that 127,000 people voted for a continuation of violence? Did they vote for the campaign so tragically waged by the IRA over the past 25 years? I should like to think that is not the case. I should like to think that Sinn Fein received its support from many sources in Northern Ireland and not particularly in support of Ireland. I say very little in support of Sinn Fein, but it does have good public representatives. Its public representatives in the various councils throughout Northern Ireland work assiduously. I believe that is one of the reasons why Sinn Fein received a larger vote than was expected.
Yesterday afternoon, local government elections were held; the count is going on at the moment. I am quite certain that Sinn Fein will have gained other seats. If Sinn Fein can sit on local authorities in Northern Ireland with the DUP, the extreme Unionist party, the official Unionist Party, the Alliance party and all the other independents, then all the parties could reciprocate; they could return to the forum.
No one can guarantee the forum any success. I just read the reports of the debates that took place there, and they provide no reason to be optimistic. However, the forum presents an opportunity. Incidentally, it represents a large financial expense for the British taxpayer; we are not getting it for nothing. I hope that every effort will be made to bring all parties into the forum, so that the people who live, breathe, work and die in Northern Ireland will be able to reach some agreement which will make it unnecessary for this House to debate such orders as this in the future.
12.5 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that the forum has a much better chance of success than the talks process itself, simply because it is open to every elected member of it to come to the forum and engage in discussions; whereas there

511
are many more difficulties in the peace talks in achieving the objective that the noble Lord and I would dearly love to see achieved.
I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, most warmly on acquiring what I believe is by far the best job in government. Unlike a London-based Minister, he will find that his senior Ministers are far too busy with matters of politics, security and overall finance to interfere very much with the way he and his permanent secretaries run the sub-departments in which he serves. He will already have found that Northern Ireland is different, in both a constitutional and a political way, to any other part of the United Kingdom.
In his contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech on Monday, my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, who, alas, cannot be here today, quoted from the recent Hayes Report on the Northern Ireland Civil Service. That showed very clearly the difference in the constitutional position. Even if the noble Lord the Minister has no time to read the report itself, I urge him to look at the second half of my noble friend's speech on Monday. He will find that the department and not the Minister is subject to judicial review or any other legal proceedings. He may find that comforting. People are always saying that Northern Ireland is run by civil servants, and there is more than an element of truth in that. As the report says,
"In common parlance they"—
that is, Ministers—
"are described as 'Minister for' but it is not always understood that this is a courtesy title".
I leave the matter there.
The important point that needs to be made is that it is an undesirable facet of what we call "direct rule" that everything that happens in the departments of Environment, Health and Social Services, Education and to an extent Economic Development is done by a mixture of civil servants and quangos. All the best people are not budding politicians wanting to go into local, and ultimately provincial or even national politics. They go into either quangos or the Civil Service. Where is the next generation of Members of Parliament of the quality and training that the Province's electorate deserve to come from?
I asked that question as a Minister. I received no reply. I have asked it as a Back-Bencher in debates answered by my successors. I received no reply then either. I ask it again today. I expect no reply. I genuinely believe that there is no satisfactory answer that could be given to this conundrum.
But as my noble friend Lady Park identified, the problem is soluble. It is soluble in a way that should appeal to this Government, because it involves devolution—not in the grand, broadbrush way that is planned for Scotland, but by slowly devolving individual facets of the Northern Ireland Office to the existing local authorities, which do practically nothing—the three R's as they are called across the water. I call them LCT—litter, cemeteries and tourism. I am probably being slightly unfair, but as the noble Lord will, I am sure, already have discovered, it is a
512
demonstrable fact that local government has the very minimum of powers in Northern Ireland. There is no earthly reason why education or planning, great chunks of environment, housing for example, social services and health, should not be the remit of local councils under a strong but possibly slimmed down Northern Ireland Office at Stormont—or indeed, Stormont itself.
In his much to be quoted and very well received speech last week—except, as my noble friend Lady Park said, by Mr. McGuiness—the Prime Minister said:
"There may be only one chance given to a new government to offer a way forward",
in what he called a fragile and fraught situation. He was of course speaking in the context of a resumption of the talks. He is spot on in his thinking, as I am sure everyone will acknowledge. He went on to say realistically that governments are not new for ever. You can say that again, my Lords! Governments are given honeymoon periods when they are new and again when they are in office, when there is a new Prime Minister. We saw the latter when my right honourable friend Mr. Major became Prime Minister. Honeymoons though do not last; some are long, some are short but nothing lasts for ever.
In Northern Ireland, in particular, the situation is constantly changing. It is not the same as it was in 1969: successive governments and chief constables of the RUC have seen to that. Nor today is it the same as in 1979 or even in 1989. One thing that I have identified that has changed in the fairly recent past is that people on the ground, while being grateful for what the Northern Ireland Office has achieved in the past 25 years or so, now want to manage more of their own affairs.
I am sure that that will become blindingly clear in the context of the revived forum which is the subject of today's debate. Even though the people elected their Members of Parliament on 1st May, there seems to me to be a growing disparity between the electorate and the MPs. I believe that the latter are hankering after a revived Stormont, perhaps with slightly different powers—what in other words I have just called devolution on a grand scale. As the Minister goes round the Province and talks to ordinary people, not the higher grades of the Civil Service or the members of quango boards, he will find that at a local level people do get on and do function as a local entity. In Derry and in Fermanagh, in Tyrone and in County Down, people of all backgrounds, however they vote, get together for the common good. And it works. It works in the charities, it works in all kinds of local associations up and down the Province. It works too with the volunteer and poorly paid helpers in the social services. It would be a risk to give them more power, of course it would.
Back to the Prime Minister. He said:
"There are times when to calculate the risks too greatly is to do nothing. There are times too when a political leader must follow his instinct about what is right and fair".
What I want him and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to do is to follow the instincts of my noble friends Lady Park and Lord Brookeborough as well as my instincts. If they do, they will find that it can

513
be done easily and quickly and that it need not be done all at once. Nor need it interfere with the resumption of talks which we would all welcome.
Naturally this order will sail through both Houses—and so it should. The long-term aim is a final solution, but I venture to suggest that it will be a long time coming, notwithstanding what Mr. McGuinness was reported as saying earlier this week, that one of his conditions is that the talks should finish within six or nine months of starting, should he attend, if only because the participants are great talkers and great arguers. A consensus, even if Sinn Fein eventually comes to the table, is a long way off. I should like to use this opportunity to deliver a message: "Please, Prime Minister, don't waste your honeymoon. The lives of everybody in Northern Ireland will continue to be the poorer if you do".
12.13 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, since I am speaking in the gap, I shall be brief. However, I could not let the opportunity pass without publicly congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We are glad to see him in the Northern Ireland Office and I am sure that he will carry out his duties with the greatest efficiency.
I was glad that the Prime Minister stated that he is prepared to go ahead without agreement from Sinn Fein/IRA. For far too long, things have been held up by the previous government pandering to the IRA, to try to entice them to come and talk. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, if they did get talks, their aim would be more likely to try to disrupt the talks rather than to reach agreement. I welcome the Prime Minister's statement.
We must also be careful not to have any tampering with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The objections raised by Sinn Fein have nothing to do with the individual religious or political beliefs of individual members. Why they are against the RUC is because it has been so effective in dealing with the IRA attempts at murder and destabilisation of all kinds. They would like the police to be people who would not be too hard on them and not frustrate their plans in the way that the RUC has managed to do.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to congratulate and pass on good wishes to the Minister on his appointment. I know that we can look forward to the same kind of courtesy, candour and commitment which so characterised the tenure of his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. We appreciated her work very greatly and know that we can look forward to similar good relations and sterling work with the new Minister and new Government.
One of the things I am sure the Minister will find in Northern Ireland is that our difficulties bring out both the best and the worst in all who participate. As we turn to this piece of legislation, I fear that in some aspects it has brought out the worst in people. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, pointed out that I am a member of the forum and there could be little greater contrast between the
514
dignity and respect with which the affairs of this House are conducted and the affairs of the forum. It was only within a few days of its commencement that relationships began to run into great difficulties. It is important to point out that although we had been successful in persuading the SDLP to participate in the elected body—the first time that that had been possible in over 20 years—within just a few days of the commencement of that body, Unionist politicians found themselves getting in a great state about whether the Union flag was flying in the chamber, outside the chamber or not at all. Along with the whole run-up to the Drumcree business, repeated last summer, it led to the SDLP withdrawing. Whether it was for a good reason or a good excuse may be another matter, but there is no doubt that it was a tragedy that the SDLP chose to withdraw. Neither the Unionists nor the SDLP distinguished themselves.
If we reflect on some of the events in another part of this building, it is notable that representatives of the Republican movement of Sinn Fein were elected to that forum—a forum where they did not need in any fashion to sign an oath of allegiance or declare anything that they would find objectionable. However, Unionists had accepted that their attendance and participation would be entirely appropriate, given that they were already participating in local authorities. But the representatives chose not to come where they could come and to come here where they could not. One must therefore regard with some scepticism the bona fides of those who would claim to be nothing other than the due representatives of their people. In all those problems in Northern Ireland, one must be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.
When it comes to the other side of matters, I have been remarking on the unsavoury presentation that one finds with elected representatives in Northern Ireland but good has been brought out. One of the great goods brought out in this House and the other place was that the previous government had such overwhelming support from both Opposition parties in all they tried to do constructively in Northern Ireland. It must be said that the former Prime Minister, Mr. Major, put in an enormous effort and received enormous support from the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. That shows that the best can also be brought out. I trust that that kind of bipartisan or tripartisan approach will be continued in the new dispensation.
It has started well. Mr. Blair delivered himself of a particularly fine speech in Belfast. When he did so, I note that he paid due tribute to his predecessor. It was not a matter of feeling that once in government one must always criticise those who are now in Opposition. If they did good things then, that should be supported. That was a good tenor on which to embark upon the next phase of the peace process in Northern Ireland and an instruction. It was an example of how it would be better that politics were conducted at home in my part of the world.
Having said that, I think it would not be unfair of me to point out that there are three or four elements in the conduct of the peace process during the period of the

515
forum and the talks where the previous Government perhaps may offer a lesson in what not to do. I trust that the new Government may learn from them.
The first concerns the matter of openness. When Mr. Blair came over, he advised the people of Northern Ireland that he intended to instruct officials to meet with Sinn Fein. One could not help but be reminded of the fact that the previous Government had maintained that there was no way that they would have talks with Sinn Fein officials and that such discussions had not been taking place, but that subsequently it emerged that there had been such discussions. Whatever one thinks about such meetings, it is always advisable to be open with the people about the fact that they are being held. Even if people disagree with you, it is infinitely preferable to having them distrust you. I praise the new Government for taking the line that, when they were doing something, whether or not it was very pleasing, they would at least be open about it. That improves trust, even if everyone does not agree.
Secondly, I welcome a sense of realism that is being brought in. I have found it difficult to understand over the years when it has repeatedly been said that everything is on the table, when I and the people of Northern Ireland know perfectly well that everything is not on the table. There is no prospect of an agreed move to a united Ireland and no prospect of an agreed move to integration with the rest of the United Kingdom. We all know that. When it was repeatedly said that everything was on the table, it only made people believe that there was no honesty and realism in the minds of those who made the comments. So I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is setting up a realistic framework and making clear that what we are indeed talking about is some form of agreed power-sharing devolution with protection for minorities and that Northern Ireland remains within the UK for so long as the majority of people want, but there also have to be constructive practical and probably, indeed, institutional relations with the rest of the island because we share so much together. It is a recognition too of the aspirations of the nationalist minority. So I believe that that realism is very important.
The third important matter is that we must see a timescale. One of the impressive facts about our colleagues in South Africa who made such remarkable progress is that they set themselves a timetable and worked to it. In the legislation that we are considering this morning, there is a timetable of 12 months. I appeal to the Government to see that as the outside limit within which there can be discussions. One might very well say that after so many hundreds of years of disagreement, surely a month here or there is not important. That is not the point. We all know what we have to deal upon; we all know what the outcome needs to be if there is truly any commitment of the parties to achieving anything. It can be done within that time. If not, it were better that we know that the parties are not going to agree with each other. Then it becomes the responsibility of the British Government in particular but in co-operation with the Irish Government to move ahead with whatever is appropriate.
516
In that regard I caution the Government a little against declaring that they are never prepared to put anything in place unless everybody agrees to it. That is simply a recipe for nothing ever being put in place. Previous governments found themselves putting things in place and congratulating themselves afterwards. I caution the Government against saying that they will never put anything in place without everyone's agreement.
Finally, I comment on the question of fairness. There has sometimes been a tendency from outside to say that fairness is basically a matter of doing the same for one side as is done for the other. It does not matter much what is done, so long as it is done for both sides. It may be a balance of imperfections but, so long as it is a balance, that is all that is needed. That may sometimes mean that so long as you are criticised as heavily by one side as the other, you can be satisfied with your performance. I do not believe that that is the way to go. I believe that one sets down fundamental principles, adheres to them and applies them to everyone.
One classic and perhaps the key and fundamental example of that is the mixing of democracy and violence. The strategy of the Armalite and the ballot paper is not one that we can subscribe to, connive at or accept. When it is clear that that is being done by the Republican Movement, it is absolutely right that we make clear that there is a price for being involved in democracy. There are rules. One of them is that violence and the threat of violence is not mixed with democracy and the ballot box. But we cannot make fish of one and flesh of another.
If that is the case—it is rightly so that it is the case with the Republican Movement—we must apply exactly the same rules to anyone else, and particularly the Loyalists. We must be honest with ourselves. They may claim that there has been a ceasefire and that their ceasefire is intact. But it is increasingly a threadbare ceasefire, if it exists at all. The chief constable—a very fine man indeed and we are fortunate to have him—has made it clear that all the elements of the combined Loyalist military command, in their own individual fashion, have breached the ceasefire. It is no matter then that the CLMC itself claims that its ceasefire is intact.
I do not make such an appeal in order to drive anyone out of talks. I make it so that when we start the talks on 3rd June we shall emphasise to those who are there, as much as to those who wish to be there but are not, that we must all abide by those fundamental principles. If it is said that the Republican Movement must have a ceasefire in word and in deed, we similarly must make a demand on the Loyalists that words are simply not enough and that ill deeds will also be judged against them.
I wish the Minister well. I wish the new Government well. I wish the forum well, though I have some foreboding about having to sit through its sessions, as some noble Lords will understand and appreciate. I look forward to the Minister's comments and replies.
12.27 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I too am pleased to have the opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to his place on the Front Bench. I congratulate him on his appointment and express delight that, when commenting on it, he used the word "privilege". I believe that it is a privilege to hold that position for Northern Ireland and I was delighted to hear that he felt so too. If I must hand on the baton, though I have a feeling that it was snatched from my hands, I do so with much pleasure, passing it into a safe pair of hands. Already I must congratulate him on his influence because, as noble Lords sitting alongside him will understand, to do Northern Ireland business before noon verges on the miraculous.
I hope that the noble Lord will have better success than I did in ensuring that his colleagues understand what a much harder task it is to be the Lords' Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. There will be few occasions when we discuss business for which the noble Lord is responsible, and there will be many times when it will be other Ministers' business. Also, I suspect, with the not insignificant majority of his party in the other place, there will be times when he will have to make the journey backwards and forwards while his other colleagues are—I believe the term is "slipped". I hope that he will ensure that they recognise the task that he is undertaking. I have discovered in the past fortnight that while actors out of work rest, Ministers out of work sleep. Nevertheless, the post gives to the occupant a great sense of enjoyment.
I praise the speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. It has always been a pleasure to have more voices from Northern Ireland participating in Northern Ireland debates. I and, I am sure, the House look forward to welcoming a new voice in the near future, when the former Leader of the Unionist Party joins us.
I am delighted to welcome the return of the forum. I had the task of standing it down and did so reluctantly. I wondered whether legislation was necessary to set it up, stand it down and set it up again when the talks did not need that. But it had to be stood down by legislative necessity and needed to be brought back quickly. I am sure that the House understands that that turn of speed was necessary for that matter. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is driving a train in Northern Ireland which is rather slower than the bullet speed at which the Chancellor is driving his train. It always seems to me to be useful that trains should stop to pick up passengers, and perhaps the Chancellor might consider that.
In supporting the return of the forum I praise its chairman, who has carried out his job with enormous patience and much humour. There are a number of jobs in Northern Ireland which one would be grateful not to have; I suspect that chairman of the forum is one of them. The current applicant has not made that obvious.
I praise the forum without the pessimism shown by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. It is an ideal opportunity for new players to gain experience for the exercise of responsibility that must come. I support all noble Lords in their view that the sooner we can dispose of a
518
democratic deficit the better. For instance, "Making Belfast Work" is the job of the city council, not the Government.
I join other noble Lords also in asking the Government to do everything they can to encourage the SDLP to return to the forum. It will bring enormous benefit. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who asked for a timetable; my sympathies are more with the Secretary of State's expression that timetables can so easily become hurdles that one then has to move. I fear that there are many areas in Northern Ireland where people will use paint brushes that only paint into corners, and the fewer there are of those, the better.
I commend the useful work I saw of the committees of the forum, which gave members the opportunity to explore in detail the activities of specific areas. I wonder what the noble Lord's view would be on their request for Ministers to attend and discuss the policies with them. I look forward to his response. I share too the view of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that it is an expensive exercise; no one would deny that. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider persuading his colleagues to look at the question of those facilities being made available to voluntary groups when possible. They were refurbished at considerable expense and there are times when, for voluntary groups, they would provide a useful meeting place.
In the new forum I hope that the long-standing politicians will show a more welcoming attitude to members of the Women's Coalition than has been the case in the past. If this Government intend to try to take the "Yah-boo" out of the other place, perhaps they would also concentrate on taking the "Yah-boo" out of the forum. The lack of courtesy that has been shown brings peace no nearer and the previous silence of women's voices on the political scene could be one of the problems. I suspect that the women are underwhelmed by the success that the men have had in the past in achieving peace.
I look forward very much indeed to working with the noble Lord; I welcome his instatement into the Northern Ireland Office. I offer a warm welcome for the reinstatement of the forum. I echo the views of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that the warmth in this House for Northern Ireland is second to none. I have appreciated the bipartisan approach expressed in past years and I hope that that will be something the noble Lord will feel also.
12.35 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank all Members of the House who expressed their good wishes to me. I find it an exciting opportunity. I love the people of Northern Ireland; they are extremely warm, helpful and supportive. I have met many of them in the past two-and-a-half weeks. The people of Northern Ireland have one characteristic among many which is endearing; that is, they are extremely helpful in coming forward to give me lots of advice as to how I should do my job—a characteristic I notice shared by all Members of this House who have spoken in the debate this morning.

519
I appreciate that many Members of this House know a great deal about Northern Ireland and have made positive contributions and suggestions.
I welcome also the fact that the Prime Minister's speech at the Balmoral Show was so widely welcomed. It sets a clear pattern as to how this Government will move forward in Northern Ireland and I appreciate the helpful comments many Members made about the details of the speech.
I turn to some of the specific points raised this morning. First, I turn to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park. She made a brief point about the outlook of Sinn Fein. I am sure many other noble Lords will have sympathy for the points that were made. Nevertheless, we must be careful that in this debate we do not enter into the substance of the talks which are to follow. Some of the points made in the debate are matters of substance for the talks. It would be improper for me today to involve myself in details when they are clearly being left to the participants to resolve in the talks which start next month.
We want the talks to be inclusive. They have to be achieved within the criteria that the law lays down, including an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire. I am sure that the points made by the noble Baroness will be included in the substantive agenda of the talks that will then follow.
I turn to the question of SDLP participation in the forum. As your Lordships know, the forum will have an important role to play in promoting dialogue and mutual understanding in Northern Ireland. SDLP participation would certainly enhance the forum's ability to discharge that role. The Government would like to see the widest possible participation in the forum and seek to encourage that. Ultimately, it is a matter for each of the parties to decide as to whether or not they will enter the forum. But your Lordships will appreciate also that the decision by an individual party not to participate in the forum, has no bearing on its eligibility to participate in the multi-party negotiations. I hope that that will be helpful.
A suggestion was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, that the facilities used on occasion by the forum should be made available to voluntary groups on other occasions. I shall look into that. I have met a number of voluntary organisations at work in Northern Ireland. They consist of committed and energetic individuals. I have a great deal of sympathy for the voluntary sector going back over the many years of my involvement with it in England and I shall certainly look into the suggestion to see whether there is any way in which the facilities could be made available.
My noble friend Lord Fitt knows a great deal about Northern Ireland and hopes that I shall leave my job as quickly as possible. I understand the spirit in which he made that remark and in that sense I agree. On the other hand, I also hold responsibilities for both the environment and agriculture in Northern Ireland and those responsibilities will continue even if we move towards a peaceful conclusion on other matters in Northern Ireland, which must remain the main priority at this present time.
520
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, urged me to read the Hayes Report. I shall do that. I put it in my briefcase this morning to read over the coming weekend. He asked a question to which he said he has not had an answer. He asked about an increase in the powers of local authorities in Northern Ireland. We have no doubt about the desirability of increasing the responsibilities discharged in Northern Ireland by people responsible to the electorate there. That will be a key focus of discussion in the multi-party talks. It is very likely that the enhancement of local government powers will be one of the issues addressed. However, as the noble Lord also knows very well, the question raises very strong feelings on both sides and has to be approached delicately. I suspect he will say that, as usual, he has not had an answer to his question. But, at this stage, I think that is the best I can do.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves on, he answered a point which I made, but not the question that I asked. I asked where the next generation of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament will come from.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, that is a very wide question indeed and one which I suspect would be better for debate on a future occasion. If the talks process proceeds successfully, and if the forum proceeds successfully, there will be more opportunities for Northern Ireland people to develop their political skills. That may contribute in some way towards answering the noble Lord's question. However, in other ways, it is a very wide question indeed, and I am sure he will understand why I do not want to answer it just at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made a helpful contribution which I welcome. He has made constructive efforts to help in dealing with the problems of Northern Ireland over a period of many years. The whole House will recognise that when he speaks of the importance of bipartisanship and co-operation he does so from the standpoint of knowledge and personal experience. He is right in that and we shall hope for, and indeed expect, bipartisan support just as we gave it in opposition. We look forward to maximum co-operation from within the political parties in Northern Ireland. That, rather than the imposition of any panaceas, is the best way in which we may proceed.
The noble Lord also spoke of the need for openness. He is absolutely right in that. To the greatest extent possible the Government will aim to be as open as possible in all our approaches to the matters of Northern Ireland, even if on occasion being very open will result in us receiving perhaps a little more criticism than we would if we kept things quiet and rather secretive.
A point was made about how women in the forum will be treated. I hope that the forum will show tough and fair debate and that there will also be courtesy from all members of the forum towards all others. I hope and trust that the women members of the forum will be robust enough to speak for themselves. It would be impertinent of me to suggest how they should be treated by other members of the forum except to say that courtesy and fairness should be the watchwords of the way in which the forum will proceed.

521
This has been an interesting and useful debate which has gone wider than the strict terms of the order before us. I thank the many noble Lords who have spoken for their helpful contributions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EU R&D Framework Programme: Science and Technology Committee Report
12.44 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne The Earl of Selborne rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee. EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2nd Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 49).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, first let me say what an enormous pleasure it is that this debate affords the House the opportunity to hear the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, deliver his maiden speech. Any maiden speech is a notable event, but one from the Government Front Bench is a most unusual event. However, it is not quite so unusual today as there are to be two. We very much look forward to hearing the noble Lord's reply on behalf of the Government. I know I speak for all Members of the House in welcoming him to his office.
When the Select Committee is reappointed by the House, as I am very confident it will be, I shall no longer be the chairman. I rotate off under the remorseless but very necessary rules of the House which limit the period anyone can serve on the committee. It has been an enormous privilege to chair the committee, particularly so as I am not a scientist myself. There has been a very strong interest from all sides of the House in the committee. Such has been the pressure from noble Lords to participate that quite the hardest job I have ever had is trying to explain to highly distinguished scientists and captains of industry why at least for the time being there was no room for them on the committee.
The first report produced in my four years as chairman was on the fourth framework programme. It was a short report and we did not take a great deal of evidence. The report we are considering today is on the proposed fifth framework programme, which deals in greater detail with some of the same issues we identified as shortcomings in the fourth framework programme four years ago. But before I refer in detail to the findings of our inquiry, I should like to pay tribute to our specialist adviser, Sir Arnold Burgen, and to the two Clerks who successively helped the committee, first Dr. Philippa Tudor and then Andrew Makower. Anyone who has participated in the affairs of a Select Committee will recognise that that is no empty tribute.
The report was carefully timed to contribute to the discussions on the fifth framework programme which are now under way and which are likely to continue for some months. The new Minister responsible for science, Mr. John Battle, is already engaged in the Council of Ministers. The costs of previous framework programmes have been substantial. We refer to that
522
in paragraph 1.12 of the report. The current total budget for Framework Programme 4 is 13,200 million ecus, or about £9,500 million, representing about 3 per cent. of the EU budget. The United Kingdom contribution is £390 million, which is about 10 per cent. of our publicly funded civil research budget. The sums of money are considerable. It is important for Parliament to be satisfied that there is a need for these programmes, that they are appropriate for the European Union budget and that they are well managed.
Our witnesses supported the need for a European framework programme. The United Kingdom does well in attracting funding. Although nobody could tell us precisely how well we do, it appears to be common ground that we do well. To undertake the calculation as to how well we do would apparently not be considered conducive to harmonious relationships between member states.
A successful research and technology development programme goes to the very heart of the United Kingdom's and Europe's ability to create the jobs and the skills necessary for us to succeed in the next century. After the Whitsun break, my noble friend Lord Cranborne will initiate a debate on Europe's competitive status. This research programme will be recognised as an important component in trying to achieve global competitiveness.
Having said how important the European framework programme should be and how it was supported by our witnesses, it must also be recognised that there was widespread criticism, which can be summed up in three ways: too little focus, too many objectives and inappropriate centralised management. Throughout the consultations, which have gone on over the past year or so—the Commission is to be congratulated on the way it has opened up the debate—it has been evident that the Commission itself has accepted the need for the programmes to achieve better focus. The evidence we received from the Commission emphasised how important it saw its focus to be. Yet the working paper from the Commission, which we reproduce in full at the end of the evidence volume, did not meet our expectations.
After our Select Committee reported, the final proposals were published in April. The Commissioner, Madame Cresson, has, frankly, still not satisfied me at least—and, I suspect, other members of the Select Committee—that there will be a sufficiently robust approach to selectivity; that is, to reducing existing parts of Framework Programme 4 before new "key actions", as described in the proposals, are added to make the Framework Programme 5.
We still cannot see a properly defined strategy for a European research programme. That is something which the former Commissioner Davignon, who chaired the evaluation panel for the Commission, also called for in his report published in February. He said that the research policy lacks focus and is under-achieving. Those are his words and not ours.
We accepted that there are programmes which can he better conducted at the European level. We accepted that it is appropriate for there to be a European research

523
programme. We noted that a number of projects from the previous framework programmes have indeed proved successful.
But before a review of that nature is undertaken on the components of the fifth framework programme, two questions must be answered. First, are the components of the proposed programme best conducted at member state level or European level? Secondly, will the proposed programmes complement the existing programmes of member states? Without a clear strategy, firmly based on an intimate knowledge of member states' programmes, there will continue to be a lack of focus and a lack of a clearly defined strategy. The Select Committee and, for that matter, the Davignon evaluation panel, both considered that to be the most serious concern.
Again, before putting in place a new framework programme, there needs to be an adequate, systematic evaluation of results. The annual monitoring report is a helpful innovation, but it concentrates on administration and has little to say about scientific quality and results. Present evaluations rely heavily on participants. We are asking for something of a rather more systematic approach.
We are critical of the culture of centralisation, which permeates many of the functions such as planning and financial management. We would like to see much of this carried out closer to the actual research work. In paragraph 2.689 we draw attention to the acronym AMICA. I apologise for having to explain what this strange acronym stands for. It stands for "A molecular initiative in community agriculture". It is an attempt to move the management closer towards the research. We at least thought that it was a precedent that should be followed up. I shall be interested to know whether there is any prospect that that will continue into Framework Programme 5 or at least the concept which is incorporated in this delegation.
The Joint Research Centre is something that we referred to in the previous report four years ago. Since then it is true that an element of competition has been introduced for its funding, but it is still the case that it enjoys an anomalous status. We felt that it should be opened up to competition, peer review and assessment by an independent group, at least to a greater extent than at present. There is a lot of special pleading within Europe about the need for an independent source of scientific advice. Quite frankly, I believe that is overstated. There are many ways of getting independent scientific advice. Bearing in mind the Prior Options Review in this country, it would be odd if we were not to recognise that the element of competition would be desirable.
There is an element of the programme which seeks to achieve the EU's cohesion objectives. The economic and social cohesion of the Community is a desirable objective. But there are structural funds designed for that. If one uses the framework programmes to achieve the same objectives, we felt that there was a danger that cohesion would be used to justify mediocrity.
Last week this Parliament acted as host in London to a parliamentary conference on the EUREKA programme, which is a separate European research initiative embracing more countries than those of the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, chaired the meeting most expertly. From that meeting came a request for greater synergy between the two programmes, EUREKA and Framework Programme 5. I am sure that we would wish to endorse that. Also, I believe that we would recognise that the EUREKA programme is putting in place some organisational and administrative procedures which perhaps can be recommended to the framework programme. Quite frankly, they are simpler and more user friendly.
In paragraph 3.22 there is a specific problem whereby the universities are caught in a cross-fire between Customs and Excise and the Commission over VAT. Can the Minister say whether there has been any resolution of this annoying problem?
We have referred to the undesirable consequences of our policy of attribution. That policy assures adequate accountability for public funds and that of itself is a perfectly respectable concept. It means that someone has to account for the money even if it is spent through the European funding allowance. The only problem is that other member states do not use the same procedures. Therefore, our departments and research councils have a vested interest in not attracting European funds to their area of interest whereas we would obviously like to see them act as champions for their sector. This is a long-running problem which the Select Committee has drawn attention to before. Apparently, it has been impossible for the Treasury to work out how to resolve it. I hope that the Minister, with his fresh mind and great commercial expertise, will take this matter on board and perhaps achieve an easy win here. I am sure that it is a good one to tackle. There must be a way of achieving accountability without making people chary of obtaining research funding in their sector.
I have been, I fear, critical of many aspects of the framework programme, as has the report of the Select Committee. We have been critical in a constructive frame of mind. We are looking for some radical changes. However, we recognise that there is much, particularly in the overall concept of the framework programme, which is good. Perhaps I may look at what we commend; for example, the Training and Mobility of Researchers Programme. We believe that the Commission should be drawing on the best practice within member states. We would like to see Framework Programme 5 succeed and the Commission and the member states achieve focus on a limited number of clearly defined objectives. I know that our new Minister for Science, Mr. John Battle, will be doing battle in what will clearly be some protracted negotiations. Their outcome is of great importance to the future of European and indeed British research and development. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee, EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2nd Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 49).—(The Earl of Selborne.)
12.57 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, perhaps I should first declare an interest. I am a research worker and an academic professor at London University. I apologise to the House if I find that I have to leave before the conclusion of this debate. I have just had notice that there is a crisis meeting at Hammersmith Hospital because of a deficit in our health budget of over £500,000 for just my own directorate. That means that we shall be cutting the number of beds, reducing the number of nurses and I am also likely to lose a number of research medical staff. So I hope that the House will forgive me if I go to this meeting if I feel that time is pressing.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for his outstanding chairmanship of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. As undoubtedly the newest member, I was quite scared of meeting him, knowing that his great-great-grandfather was responsible for the launching of Dreadnoughts. I have only experienced his very courteous and skilled leadership of that committee, which he has chaired with great distinction for some four years. Sadly, I did not sit on that committee but on Sub-Committee II, very ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg.
I am sure that the House is also greatly looking forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, making his maiden speech. I am sure that the whole House would wish to congratulate him on his appointment as Minister of State at the DTI and to wish him well. I do not know whether in taking the name of Highbury we share a certain enthusiasm for a particular sporting club, but some of us can fervently hope that events at Highbury next year might elevate us from third place to first place in the Premier League.
One of the most serious problems which I fear that we face in this country is not only our removal from first place to third place, but actual relegation from the Premier League. I am referring, of course, to the increasing threat to our science base, partly because in my view it is chronically underfunded because it is undervalued, and partly because of the self-evident and increasing threats to higher education, on which much of that base is laid. That will have serious consequences for our national economy in the future. No matter how hard we try, we shall never greatly increase our national wealth through the mere brawn of manufacturing goods which can easily be mass-produced more cheaply in the developing world. We need to invest far more in our brains and to exploit their innovation.
In that respect, although I have no wish to cause my noble friend the Minister any embarrassment, I must say that the mute nature of both major parties in the run-up to the general election left most scientists feeling a good deal of disquiet. It seemed extraordinary that so little mention was made of plans for improved scientific endeavour and their importance to the whole of our economy. I hope that the new Labour Government may grasp that staff for our nation's health much more vigorously. There is huge support for the Government among scientists and academics and we must ensure that
526
their enthusiasm and optimism is riot only justified but increased. As a research worker, I know how much a feeling of optimism and of the innate value of what one is doing—or attempting—buoys up scientists during the long hours of loneliness that most research comprises.
The Select Committee's report is excellent and its members are to be congratulated. The report is both constructive and usefully critical and I commend it to the House. As the noble Earl mentioned, our spending on the framework programme amounts to about £400 million, which is about 10 per cent. of our non-defence scientific research spending. It is a hefty whack of the total research budget. It needs to be spent wisely.
Perhaps I should say clearly now that what I am about to say does not in any way alter my firm conviction about the value of the European Union and our need to collaborate most closely if we are to maintain innovation and competitiveness.
The report highlights a number of important issues to which I should like to refer. Not surprisingly, my first concern has already been raised. I refer to selectivity. It is frankly ludicrous to have a large sack full of well-sounding projects—a scientific omnium gatherum, as it has been called—designed in part to alleviate all the concerns and pet thoughts of individual contributors and member countries in the way that is currently proposed. Such European-based research should be almost entirely focused on issues which can only or best be dealt with by serious collaboration in a wider environment. Examples might be "big science" (although, as the report points out, on the basis of need rather than on the basis of mere prestige) and those issues which are of clear value to the European Community as a whole. Selectivity, as applied well in this country, must mean emphasising the strengths of European science.
Perhaps I may take just one example of what I mean by the need for selectivity. The thematic objective of the framework programme, "Unlocking the Resources of the Living World and the Ecosystem", covers a huge range of scientific endeavour which is bound to he wasteful and hardly relevant to a truly European endeavour. Given the growing importance of biotechnology to our science base and its particular relevance to the European economy in, for example, the drug industry, how much better it would be to focus on aspects of molecular biology and health issues.
We have already seen the genome project, an international project which was admittedly based largely across the Atlantic but which also had a good deal of European flavour. It will allow us to print out the entire sequence of the code to life—the basic blueprint of life. It will give us a complete encyclopaedia, which is made up of the volumes which make up individual chromosomes. It will give us print-outs of the individual genes which make up the proteins. The problem is that once the genome project is finished, we will have an encyclopaedia, but it will he unreadable. Although we will know the letters which comprise it, they will be meaningless unless we can translate them and understand the proteins which are responsible. That will require a huge international endeavour. It cannot be

527
done by a single nation. It is too complex; it requires collaboration. We should try to find some satisfactory solutions to that problem within the European framework programme.
I shall come later to the poor level of dissemination and exploitation of much of the research activity. An issue of prior importance is the evaluation of the programme and the transparency of the evaluation of the research. There is a need for better peer review. That issue was eloquently raised by Sir Dai Rees who gave evidence to the inquiry. The report emphasises the need to take note of the mechanisms of peer review of well-established organisations with an excellent track record, such as the UK research councils and the European Molecular Biology Organisation. That reform of thinking is clearly overdue. Sir William Stewart, another witness, drew attention to the issue when he pointed out that he saw,
"researchers winning grants in the Framework Programme, who would not stand a chance in the peer review system in the United Kingdom".
That is a particularly poignant remark given that so many excellent researchers in this country are currently turned down through lack of funds. I am reminded of the story of one senior researcher with whom I collaborate occasionally in my own institution. In the past eight months that biochemist has placed four detailed project grant applications with different research councils. Each was alpha rated—that is to say, was rated as of international standard—by peer review. However, none was funded. Effectively, that research worker has entirely wasted eight months of his research. It is true that he might gain something in knowledge, but he cannot apply that knowledge in a more constructive scientific endeavour. That is deeply disappointing, but it is a common theme in the United Kingdom.
The report also mentions the question of cohesion, about which the noble Earl also spoke. As Sir William Stewart mentioned, it justifies mediocrity. Researchers can possibly improve their chances of getting grants by taking on potentially less able researchers from other countries which are still somewhat scientifically depressed. That may be a noble objective, but it is not necessarily the best way to plan a programme. It is not acceptable that some of the less scientifically developed countries can hold the framework programme over a barrel, possibly even considering refusing funding unless there is concentration in a particular area of which those countries are fond. One of the challenges facing the European Union is to find satisfactory solutions to such concerns to ensure the health of the programme.
I have mentioned the dissemination and exploitation of research activity. Much of that will be taken up by the Select Committee on which I have the honour to serve which is considering innovation. Perhaps I should not say any more on that now, save only that there has been some doubt about the evaluation of the exploitation of the framework programme.
Finally, I turn to one of my own pet areas, the public understanding of science. This brings me back to my remark at the beginning of my speech about the lack
528
of value that is often given to science. Politicians are influenced by public perceptions, but sadly we live in a technology-suspicious environment and that often acts against the best interests of scientific endeavour as well as against our long-term economic strategy. This may be a minor area to fund, but it is of great importance in Europe.
Perhaps I may be allowed to use the paradigm of Dolly, the cloned sheep. We all saw Dolly in the newspapers, but what was not said in the newspapers was that Dolly was a remarkable scientific breakthrough of great importance. She will give us an insight into the ageing process by helping us to look at how mitochondria act in the cell and where they are important where nuclear DNA is not. A study of cloning will enable us in time to revolutionise transplantation technology by providing tissues which could be used to provide stem cells which might make blood tissue, skin tissue, muscle tissue or nervous tissue to control Parkinson's disease. That is a whole range of activity which is of great importance in medicine.
The central interest of Dolly is the nature of that remarkable reprogramming of the developed nucleus in the cell—the fact that it can be made to go back to its beginning and to start to express genes from the very beginning of embryo genesis. That is truly remarkable. It centres therefore on the way that the cell may be controlled. It is important for a whole range of human diseases such as cancer. There are also useful environmental issues such as the control of endangered species and the cheapening of the xenograft transplants in man. All of those things come essentially within the remit of the framework programme, but the ignorance of science led none of those things to be expressed, and what happened was a largely damnatory press. So much so that political leaders in Europe, including President Chirac, condemned that research and suggested that it should be halted. That is wrong.
This is an excellent report and an excellent example of the value of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in this House. It is a matter of considerable anxiety that the framework programmes, which have been in place since the 1980s, still have so many areas of criticism which have yet to be addressed. The report concludes that Framework Programme 5 must achieve a higher standard of scientific outcomes, with a better record of commercial exploitation. It must be focused and resourced adequately, properly and openly managed, and above all capable of meeting the needs and opportunities of the future. I commend it to the House.
1.11 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for introducing this debate on an interesting and comprehensive report on the EU framework programme. I shall therefore confine myself to a few brief remarks. I, too, welcome the maiden speech of the Minister to which I shall listen with interest.
It is obvious from the report, and from the comments of witnesses to the Select Committee, that considerable changes should be made to the framework programme

529
before commencement of Framework Programme 5. As an engineer in industry for 40 years, I am well aware of the importance of R&D to our wellbeing and future technology, and other scientific areas.
From reading the report, I was surprising at the vast extent of those programme. I had not realised that Framework Programme 4 covered some 10,000 projects at a cost of £9.6 billion. I wonder whether that number of projects is too large to be managed reasonably. I note also that that sum represents about 3 per cent. of the total public and private sector research budget within EU member states.
The truly international flavour of the framework programme is shown by the statistics for the highly successful project establishing the complete sequence of chromosome III of yeast to which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred. Some 140 scientists, working in 35 laboratories in 10 member states, were involved. I wish that we could all co-operate as successfully as that.
However, all in the framework programme garden is not roses. Not only are there concerns about the focus of Framework Programme 5, there are obviously enormous administrative problems at all stages of projects, from the receipt of bids, their authorisation, monitoring and the final dissemination of those results. Those problems are all well detailed in this excellent report, and need to be rectified before the inception of Framework Programme 5.
There are in addition some problems peculiar to our UK administration, to which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred. I refer to the VAT issue, government departmental attribution considerations, and university funding. I do not consider that involvement in framework programme projects should result in such heavy financial disadvantages to our universities, as have been noted in the report.
The report examines in detail the proposals for Framework Programme 5, and their relationship to those of Framework Programme 4. I agree that Framework Programme 5 needs to be far more selective in its objectives and geographical outlook, with its emphasis on the strengths of European research, and on either major supranational projects beyond the scope of national bodies, such as JET and CERN and other large scientific facilities, or major international areas of concern such as global warming and other environmental issues. In any event, value for money is an essential key element.
There are also problems with the termination of Framework Programme 4 projects which need to be resolved before the commencement of Framework Programme 5. I agree with the committee that a contingency fund is a better method of dealing with unforeseeable and urgent research requirements such as the BSE crisis. Suitable provision should be made for that in Framework Programme 5 with controls to prevent its misapplication.
The funding of basic research is obviously controversial, and was referred to in the report. I agree with the committee that provision should be made on a basis similar to that of the UK research councils. It is
530
essential to maintain the continuum of basic, strategic and applied research to underpin individual projects, if necessary.
As stated by the committee, the role of the Joint Research Centre needs to be reassessed, and limited to those areas of activity where a distinctly EU view of the questions involved is required.
One point about which I wondered related to national versus European research projects. Presumably there needs to be some process to minimise duplication of effort in such fields. The situation with regard to the involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises is one for which it is difficult to find a totally satisfactory solution. The wide range of such enterprises makes it difficult to propose a single and adequate answer. The most important objective is to ensure that the results of framework projects are disseminated widely in well written and presented reports. Where practical, SMEs should be involved in relevant projects.
The programme for the training and mobility of researchers is, I believe, one of the most valuable parts of the framework programme. That type of programme is most beneficial to an international understanding, in linking the member states of the union and breaking down cultural barriers between them. Once again, I commend this report to the House, and look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
1.17 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Ellesmere: My Lords, perhaps I may begin, like earlier speakers, by saying how much I welcome this first debate on science and technology in the new Parliament and with a new government. In particular, I, too, look forward to the first appearance of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, and to hearing his reply to the debate. I trust that he will not feel too constrained by the conventions governing maiden speeches by restricting himself to non-controversial issues.
Many of the key points in the Select Committee report on the plans for Framework Programme 5 have been made by earlier speakers, not least by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who chaired this study, as he chaired the Select Committee, with his customary tact, skill and firmness. As he is now retiring as chairman, and as a member of the committee, perhaps I may express to him my appreciation of the way in which he has led the committee and introduced me and other newcomers to its procedures and objectives. We shall miss him.
I shall be brief. I have some concerns which are well known to my friends as hobbyhorses that I customarily ride. My first concern is that the DTI and the Office of Science and Technology in their advice on Framework Programme 5 seem still to adhere to a model of research and development underpinning innovation that has long been considered unhelpful. That is often described as the linear model, though my mathematician friends, jealous of their definition of linear, would prefer to call it the sequential model.
According to that model, the development of new products and processes starts with basic research, goes on to strategic research and applied research, then to

531
development, production, marketing and sales. There are obvious flaws in that model, which have long been recognised. Thus it is well accepted that successful products require continuous updating, and that that requires the feedback of information from sales to development, from development to applied research, and often from applied to basic research. This feedback, an interactive process, applies equally in the other branches of research, including medical, environmental and agricultural research, as well as that leading to advances, more obviously, in industry.
It was therefore a great disappointment to your Select Committee to hear that the DTI and the OST wished to exclude basic research from funding under Framework 5. As the report observes in paragraph 3.15, this view is in direct conflict with a statement in the 1993 White Paper. Realising our Potential, and I trust that the DTI, now under new management, will adopt a more up-to-date view of the role of basic research, consistent with reality. Happily, the European Commission itself appears to have recognised this need in proposing that each programme in Framework 5 should permit unlimited support for generic technologies and basic research.
Much has been said already about the need for Framework 5 to be a focused programme. Perhaps I may add a plea, which also appears in the report, for the programme to include provision for flexibility so that new problems can be addressed when they arise. One example will suffice to illustrate the need for flexibility and it also relates to my earlier remark about basic research. The problem I have in mind is that of BSE; bovine spongiform encephalopathies. This problem emerged in full force during the course of earlier framework programmes and that made it difficult for a concerted scientific attack on the problem to be made on a European basis under the umbrella of the framework programme. Flexibility is clearly needed and, associated with that, the ability to respond quickly to the need for action.
BSE also illustrates the need for basic research to be a part of the programme. As noble Lords will realise, BSE lays bare the truth that we do not yet have adequate understanding of many aspects of basic biology, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has already told us. Although we now have a very promising hypothesis concerning the nature and mechanism of action of the infective agent in BSE, this hypothesis is not yet universally accepted and, as we heard in this House yesterday in a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, we do not yet have the ability to detect the presence of the infective agent or the early stages of the disease. Further basic research of the highest quality is clearly needed.
Finally, I must emphasis the point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen. The funds allocated to research groups under the framework programme have not covered the full costs of the research. This has grave consequences for research groups in universities, whose work under framework programmes has to be supported also by resources provided to universities through the Department for Education and the funding councils. I hope that Sir Ron Deering and his committee, who are
532
now considering the funding of research in universities, will give proper attention to this fact and that, in responding to the report of the Dearing Committee, the Government and all the departments concerned will ensure that all the universities in the UK are able to play their full part in association with industry in this important research programme.
1.24 p.m.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, perhaps I may add my appreciation for the skilful way in which the noble Earl, Lord Selbourne, conducted this inquiry. It was a difficult task, considering the financial constraints of the research community and the universities these days. It was, indeed, difficult to detect criticism at all from the recipients of these programmes since it must be dangerous, to say the least, to bite the hand that feeds you. We had great difficulty in extracting any real points from people who gave evidence.
Perhaps I may also use this occasion to pay tribute to the noble Earl for his very successful leadership of the Select Committee over the years of the previous Parliament. I would also like to welcome my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury on making his maiden speech in this debate. We look forward to his winding up speech with great interest. I believe that it is called "jumping in at the deep end".
This is, in my opinion, a most important study. I have been involved with the European R&D programme since the late 1970s. I cannot recall a more complete, subjective critique in all that time, and I must compliment the clerks and our expert advisers on their splendid support in the drafting of this report.
There has, since the beginning of the framework programmes, been a good deal of schizophrenia about the purpose of the whole exercise. It was never clear whether the aim was best science or cohesion; in effect, to spread the work around to bring in everybody, almost irrespective of their capability. That has been mentioned by several speakers, including my noble friend Lord Winston.
In addition it has oscillated between pre-market and near-market research. Almost at the change of the commissioner, the emphasis changed from one framework programme to the other. There is a good deal of difference between these two. The net result has been a scattergun effect where a hell of a lot of activity has taken place with comparatively little result. Please take note; this after expenditure of nearly £20 billion—and that is a lot of money.
Multinational co-operative research is expensive, and a good deal of the expenditure goes to the travel industry and to telecomms as well as the excessive time spent by the researchers on co-operative meetings.
I do not disagree with the Commission that cohesion is important, but it would be far better dealt with as a separate programme with its own finance, and the R&D programme should concentrate on good science. It is interesting to note that the Germans have made the same comment during meetings in Brussels.

533
I also do not believe that co-operative research is an effective way of conducting near-market activity. There must be a lack of incentive and a continuing squabble regarding intellectual property rights. It is my opinion that it would be far better for the European Union to concentrate on pre-market activities.
It became obvious to me during the inquiry that there is a lack of sound, objective, independent technical assessment and audit available to the Community. Considering the magnitude of the sums involved, it is clearly essential that this must be rectified.
As I previously said, this is a most important report. I sincerely hope that the new Minister of Energy, Science and Technology will use it in his future negotiations in Europe.
1.28 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, to this House and to his new appointment, and I wish him well. Furthermore, I strongly associate myself with the well deserved words of praise said today about our chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. Not only has he been an excellent chairman but, when I had to chair one of the sub-committees, he was extraordinarily helpful, encouraging and kind. I am most grateful to him.
In our committee's invitation to submit evidence to the inquiry, we posed the question:
"Can it be demonstrated that the UK gets clear value for money from participation in the Framework Programme?"
It came as a surprise to me that a vast sum—no less than £21 billion across Europe—had been devoted to Framework Programmes 1 to 5. And if "guestimates" are right, Framework Programme 5 may well cost more than £11 billion. However those sums are calculated, they are large. We examined a number of witnesses but failed to unearth any evidence of a serious or systematic attempt to evaluate, assess or monitor the out-turn for that large investment in research. Even allowing for the many difficulties in giving meaningful values to research projects, I feel that the European taxpayer who foots that enormous bill should be entitled to some indication as to the value of that expenditure.
The conclusions that we draw in our report are either anecdotal based or peripheral to the actual research effort. There must be added value to garner from getting both universities and firms to collaborate and share knowledge across European frontiers. But it is difficult to quantify. There was widespread support for the training and mobility of researchers' programme, with its focus on people rather than projects. Even though it receives only a small percentage of the Framework Programme 4 budget, it was seen as one of the most valuable—but again unquantifiable—parts of the framework programme. It is fair to ask how much of that value should be attributed to cohesion and social gains rather than to a plus for scientific research.
An area of the Commission's business which should be more amenable to cost-effective analysis is administration. An annual monitoring report is a valuable innovation and will concentrate initially on the many glaring weaknesses in administration. Those are
534
well known and acknowledged by the directors general concerned. But it was still very depressing for us to learn of some of the problems at first hand. Witness after witness expressed exasperation about the inefficiencies, whether in the high costs of administration, poor internal communication, inadequate delegation, over-centralised slow and secretive peer review and delays in awarding contracts. It makes a depressing paragraph 3.19 in our report.
I fear that so much effort will be expended on tackling that that it will be a long time before improved evaluation systems are put in place for Framework Programme 5. We press for those, recommending that cost benefit analysis and, where appropriate, targets and milestones are adopted. Those should lead on also to cataloguing the commercial successes.
It is that bottom line which at present features only little if at all in any review of the return on the very large research funds which are made available by governments. Although we pressed our witnesses, their examples of framework programme successes while in individual cases sounded most impressive—and as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, reminded us, there has been a particularly successful one in the genome studies—they did not, in total, seem to deal with and explain the £21 billion which had been expended.
Even a detailed scrutiny of our report will unearth little of substance as an answer to the question that I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. For more than 40 years, I was exposed to a most searching Treasury scrutiny process of all main Ministry of Defence expenditure. It may have been rigorous, but one had to take that in good part because it was right to account for public expenditure of the large sums devoted to defence.
It is rather galling to find that there appear to be large fields of expenditure in the Euro-scientific areas which do not yet seem to be given anything like that same tight supervision. Bearing in mind the other very large Community programmes which Select Committees of both Houses have examined—for example, fishing and the common agriculture policy—we still seem to have a long way to go to tighten up our Euro-expenditure audits.
Finally, I should like to draw attention to one comment in the POST study which we mentioned several times in our report. It draws attention to the extent to which evaluations rely on framework programme participants to assess the value of the programmes from which they have benefited. We testify to that problem from our own experience in our inquiry. Our witnesses proved reluctant to criticise the goose which lays such golden eggs. I wish the new Government success in their efforts to tighten up in this important area of European financial collaboration, even at the risk, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, of not being conducive to harmonious relations within the Union.
1.35 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I begin, as have other speakers, by thanking my noble friend Lord Selborne for initiating this debate on his committee's excellent report and my noble friend and

535
the committee for their efforts in analysing carefully the complex evidence and representations that were placed before them.
The committee consisted of four Conservative Peers, two Labour Peers and five Cross-Bench Peers. The fact that they could produce such an excellent, clear, unfudged unanimous report shows the important and effective role that your Lordships' House has in the conduct of this country's affairs.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, on his appointment and to wish him very well in his Front Bench duties. It is unusual for a maiden speech to be made from the Dispatch Box but, without having yet heard it, I am absolutely certain that the Minister will do the occasion the fullest justice.
We welcome the Select Committee's report. It has highlighted areas of the EU's research programmes which could be improved. That is essential if European Union research is to be effective and provide value for money. It makes the absolutely key point that research and development are central to industrial competitiveness. By drawing on a wide range of scientific expertise, the report offers an authoritative analysis of the EU's framework programme.
The first of the four chapters into which the report is divided is factual, dealing with present facts and future intentions of the Framework Programme, the present five-year plan and the forthcoming one. The Framework Programmes are an essential tool in co-operation in scientific and technological research throughout the European Union. They are exactly those matters which the European common market was intended to support rather than some of the grandiose plans which emanate from Brussels.
The United Kingdom has contributed substantially to the first four Framework Programmes, taking a leading role. The last Government had committed us to similar participation in the forthcoming programme to begin in 1998. As my noble friend Lord Selborne has told us already today, the United Kingdom's contribution for 1996–97 is £391 million, which is more than 10 per cent. of the Government's planned spending on civil science and technology. Although it is difficult to measure these things, my right honourable friend the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the committee that Britain receives back in benefits at least as much as we contribute.
I do not propose to take up your Lordships' time by going through the introductory section of the report in detail. As is clear from the excellent contributions to this debate, your Lordships have read the report carefully. However, I should like to pick out one or two items which have struck me particularly.
The main aim of the successive programmes is to increase European industrial competitiveness. The report states that the record of the United Kingdom in research is an enviable one. Our record in development and taking discoveries to the market is perhaps less to be envied. It has been ever thus since the end of the war, from the development of the hovercraft onwards. That is not a matter solely for
536
governments. British bankers and industrialists need to be prepared for more risk taking than hitherto. In that respect, the Minister's former company, BP, is to be congratulated on its plans, announced just last weekend, to increase its sale of solar energy equipment tenfold from £100 million to £1 billion over the next 10 years.
However, remembering that the programme involves research and development, European governments must be prepared to co-operate over the exploitation of discoveries and inventions in the same way that they do over the development of military hardware and civil aircraft. Exploitation of new discoveries also produces for Britain more than a juste retour in the terms of profitable new industries and new jobs. We are glad to see that the Commission in its Green Paper Inventing Tomorrow proposes to give more encouragement to exploitation. That is essential if the programme is to achieve practical success.
The Commission proposes to give grants to bring in young researchers from outside the EU to work on FP5 projects. There must be a caution placed against this, laudable as it sounds. What has to be avoided is merely funding political correctness and tokenism. The one and only qualification for grants must be the academic capabilities of candidates for grants and their ability to transfer what they learn back to their own countries. As the Office of Science and Technology said in its evidence, the framework programmes should not be tempted to stray into the fields properly the province of the structural programmes. The committee accepted the evidence on that point of Sir William Stewart, when he said:
"Cohesion has been used to justify mediocrity"
and confirmed the belief that researchers think that they can improve their chances of getting EU funding by including a token researcher from what they call a "cohesion country". On the other hand, the projects for training and mobility of researchers and research training networks are welcomed by the committee as a valuable means of sharing the results of research programmes. The committee urges that for Framework Programme 5 the process of selection should be improved.
One disturbing fact brought to light by the committee's investigation is that there is no task force theme aimed specifically at information and communications technology. The vast sum of £691 million swallowed by the Joint Research Centre this year includes only just over 1 per cent. for this very important area. We simply cannot rely on the USA and Japan, nor can Europe allow itself to seize the high ground on this most important development for the future. Equally, we may not be able to rely on the provision of finance by such leaders in the field as British Telecom, if the Government are going to confiscate part of its assets which would otherwise be available to fund research and improved infrastructure.
At the end of the factual part of the report the committee refers to the Commission's claim that, in 1995, 1,782 smaller firms participated in the Framework Programme and accounted for 15 per cent. of the

537
budget. But the Commission admits that the current level of participation of small and medium enterprises must he improved; and we agree that it must.
I shall not spend too much time on chapter 2 of the report, which contains a summary of some of the evidence taken by members of the committee who dealt with much of it in their conclusions. The Economic and Social Research Council wanted decisions on the funding of projects to be based on majority voting rather than unanimity on the fallacious grounds that it would reduce "horse trading". On the contrary, it might increase the opportunity for deals on the basis of, "You vote for our project and we will vote for yours".
There is more demand for funding than there are funds available. The only projects which should be helped are those that command unanimous approval. The Engineering and Physical Research Council wants to concentrate projects in states that are capable of undertaking research to the highest standards but giving fair access on a Europe-wide basis, while Professor Routti, the Director General of Directorate XII, is in favour of subsidiarity, defining what we need to do together and what can be done separately.
I am pleased to note that the committee confirms that the
"focus should be on the strengths of European research and development …of Europe's best researchers and centres of scientific excellence".
However, I find it strange that, with it being admitted that the resources are limited, Professor Routti and Commissioner Cresson propose that socio-economic research should have an element of the available funding—hardly, I should have thought, within the definition of the type of practical science with which the Framework Programme is, or should be, concerned.
It is also disturbing to note that the administrative costs of the framework programmes are so high-8 per cent. compared with the UK's research councils which cost under 5 per cent. Then there are the inevitable financial irregularities. In November, the Court of Auditors reported irregularities in just eight research projects amounting to some £385 million. The committee makes reference in its conclusions to administrative inefficiency but I very much trust that the Minister in his new capacity of responsibility for trade and competitiveness in Europe will take vigorous action to put an end to those complaints.
I now turn to the succinct conclusions of the committee with which, as I said at the outset, I am pleased to say we substantially agree. I shall select just some of them because I know that noble Lords will have read them for themselves. First, there is the need for the next framework programme to be focused on a smaller range of better defined subjects and to urge the Government to force the Commission to honour its commitments in that respect. Secondly, the framework must play to the strengths of European R&D and its best researchers and its centres of excellence. Thirdly, there is a need not to indulge in too wide a range of international collaborations outside the European Union. Then there is the importance of the training and mobility researchers programme and realistic funding for academic posts.
538
Further, in response to the debate on whether the funds should be allocated to basic research or projects closer to the market, the committee recommended that the Commission should follow the model of UK research councils. Perhaps I may add my own personal endorsement of that particular recommendation. When I had the responsibility for carrying a research councils order through your Lordships' House in 1995, I had to brief myself on their structure. I can only agree that our European partners would do well to follow that.
Probably most important of all, we share the committee's view that the Commission should be encouraged to envisage dissemination and exploitation as an important activity, especially in assisting smaller firms, and also to address the problem of venture capital. Making a scientific discovery is one thing; bringing it to the market and making money and creating jobs from it, or curing disease from it, is no less important but much more difficult.
I understand that the Commission's formal proposals for FP5 were to be published at the end of March, when we were all preoccupied with the general election, and that they were to be considered by the Council of Research Ministers on 15th May. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us what transpired. However, if he cannot do so today, then perhaps he can write to me shortly. Perhaps we may also have a statement when final agreement is reached between the Council and the European Parliament, which I understand will be some time next year.
The United Kingdom has only 1 per cent. of the world's population but carries out 6 per cent. of its research, produces 8 per cent. of all scientific publications, and achieves 9 per cent. of its citations. Funding for our science and engineering base has risen by 10 per cent. in real terms in the past decade, and the science budget increased by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. British companies have increased their R&D investment for six consecutive years—4.2 per cent. in this last year alone. A recent study, the European Report on Science and Technology Indicators, showed that in the 20 to 24 year-old age group there are more science graduates in the United Kingdom than in the USA, Japan or Germany. All of this was achieved under the last Government, disproving the constant allegation by the party opposite that we were neglecting science and industry.
We do want a more competitive and prosperous Europe. Framework Programme 5 should concentrate on that. The committee closes its report with the words:
"The United Kingdom and the European Union have much to gain from Framework Project 5. All those involved in the negotiations over the coming months need to work together to ensure the Programme is focused, adequately resourced, properly managed on the basis of uniformly open competition and capable of meeting the needs and opportunities of the future".
Those are sentiments with which we can associate ourselves entirely.
1.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, it is a somewhat daunting honour to speak in conclusion

539
today on this important subject of research and technological development in the European context to which your Lordships' committee has given such diligent attention. Indeed it is perhaps so early in my attendance in this House that it is ambitious to comment on this first occasion where so many distinguished committee members have combined to offer their joint experience.
I am encouraged on this first occasion, however, by my good fortune—which, frankly, one learns to appreciate after 36 years in business and industry, particularly in oil—not only to have been generously welcomed in this House by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, but also by many others speaking today. I have good fortune not only in that respect; on this occasion I hope I shall also be able to speak from the practical experience of my recent past. I speak both with great respect and much personal enthusiasm for the body of opinion expressed in this report which we are discussing today. I hope this will not turn out to be what we would have called a "dry hole".
My government and ministerial role will no doubt offer further opportunities to speak on the twin themes of Europe and competitiveness. My BP career from university apprentice to the chair of the board which I left but two weeks ago was conducted more in Europe than in any other geographical area. As has been noted kindly today, I am proud to say that BP has not wanted in terms of competitiveness of late, particularly in the solar area. Your Lordships' report offers evidence that we must insist on good research, good science and above all clear focus in technology development and application if we are to win the future battles on competitiveness that this Government are committed to win, both with our European partners and for the UK within the Union. As has been mentioned, the impact of global competition on both manufacturing and, perhaps more recently, on service industry development in the UK and Europe certainly requires a vigorous commitment to improvement on the part of both industry and academic research in order better to use our science base, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, commented.
The report rightly concentrates not only on the vital identification and selection of research topics but also on the need to improve the management of this large planned expenditure and also on the exchange and communication of learning and the development of individuals in the process. As the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, noted, the crucial building of a first class European network binding researcher and users together is the only way to ensure real value and value added from this important spend of some £400 million annually for the UK, and perhaps, as we noted, up to £13 billion in Europe over the four years of the Fifth Framework Programme.
In this light it was encouraging to hear mention of how well supported was the 8th Eureka inter-parliamentary conference hosted in London by the Department of Trade and Industry. I am glad to say that there was strong support from Members of your Lordships' distinguished committee. This is the year of Britain's chairmanship and the House of Lords Select
540
Committee took on the role of host in case there were no parliamentarians from another place. In the event they were only just finding their way around the Palace of Westminster, never mind the Eureka conference. It was a successful conference and it gave more focus to applied research which is an important issue.
After those short personal reflections, as this is my first appearance in the House of Lords I offer the Government's thanks for this timely and perceptive report. I am pleased to be able to say that the Government agree with and welcome most of the report's findings. I hope that our positive attitude to Europe will be reflected in our attitude towards the framework programme. The Government are also particularly pleased that events have conspired to enable us to have this extremely interesting and constructive debate before the Government put pen to paper to frame their written response to the committee. I am extremely pleased about that because it allows me to say that many of the detailed questions of today will be answered in our written response. In saying that, I am also pleased to record my gratitude and my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and his colleagues for the excellent report and for their skill in securing this debate which has given us the opportunity today to obtain much more information.
Since the report was published on 6th March the Commission has produced its formal proposal for the Fifth Framework Programme. The proposal has responded in some respects to points made by the Select Committee. For example, it recognises the value of support for the training and mobility of researchers and has proposed a significant increase in the resources devoted to that part of the programme. In other respects, however, improvements which the committee and the Government would like to see, particularly on the structure of the programme, are still lacking. The UK and other member states—we are not alone in this—made clear their concerns on these points at the research council meeting which my honourable friend the Minister of State attended last week. The structural questions are still very much under discussion. The committee's report has proved absolutely invaluable as a firm and clearly argued backdrop to the Government's position in ministerial and official level discussions on the Fifth Framework Programme. We are much obliged to noble Lords for their thorough and helpful work on all the issues that have been raised.
Before I end my comments on the programme, I wish to say a few words about the current Fourth Framework Programme. As a newcomer to this rather broader sweep in the area of European co-operation I have been particularly struck by the high level of UK participation in the current framework programme. I hope that that continues into the fifth programme. Our researchers take part in over half the fourth framework projects. In some areas that proportion is higher. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, when I say that in biotechnology, for example, UK teams are currently taking part in approximately 70 per cent. of all funded projects. In other important areas, such as communications technology, the figure is over 70 per cent. They are involved in 65 per cent. of the projects in the telematics programme.

541
Across the framework programme both industry and universities figure strongly. That performance is a real measure of the quality of the UK's research teams in both the public and private sectors. It is a performance we need to be careful not to undermine in our approach to the next framework programme. That said I in no way wish to underestimate the value to our universities of top class collaboration in Europe but it is clearly vital if we are to maintain and improve on our competitive position in world markets that the framework programme research and development should in future address the sort of medium-term issues and priorities which will attract a strong field of industrial participants from the UK.
I do not think this is the place to comment on linear models and the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. However, we agree with him that linear modelling will not be the answer to the problem. We need to focus as soon as possible on good projects from the activity programme where industrial application is clear. We know that we have to concentrate on improving the European Union's industrial competitiveness. We have currently a disappointing competitive position relative to the United States and Japan in the research field. It is undoubtedly due to the fact that we are spending less on research and development. There is wide scope for discussion on the reasons; I do not wish to go into them now. However, it is not just a question of raising the budgets but of focusing the spend. That point has been echoed often around the Chamber this afternoon.
In summary, the Government's response to the report is extremely positive. We agree that we want our research objective led and on the industrial side with an applications bias to the programme.
With my business training, I should like to respond to some of the points. I believe that they can be responded to quite quickly. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, mentioned the AMICA project. We are much in support of that and would like to take that process further. He asked about VAT. I am extremely pleased to be able to announce that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has negotiated the right response. That will be reclaimable. There will no doubt be some administrative problems because then it will worry about double VAT reclaiming. However, the matter is in hand, which is good news.
As I said in reply to the question about biotechnology from noble Lord, Lord Winston, I am sure that it will come through strongly in our bids in the next programme. Indeed, we shall look to Dolly's example and, I hope, take that further in the way that we structure our research bids.
I have mentioned the linear model of research. I do not think that we want to support that very much further.
I much appreciated the businesslike summary by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and her welcome, too, to this Dispatch Box. We are in agreement, I understand already—I hope that that may continue long in my career here, however short it is—on many of the points in the summary. We shall be writing a report following the council meeting attended by my colleague
542
John Battle. We shall respond to further points; with the election, we have been waiting. With the council meeting now having been held, I hope that we shall be able to give a better response.
With those brief points in summary, and the clarification that we shall respond in written form to many of the further points raised, perhaps I may say how grateful I am for the debate and for the kindness shown on my first opportunity to speak. Perhaps I may add myself to the long list of contributors who have offered particular thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on his outstanding chairmanship of the committee. I regard it as a very important committee. I regard it as an important spend in terms of competitiveness, and as regards innovation and entrepreneurship which our country needs to develop as strongly as we can. I thank all speakers for their kind words and encouragement.
2.3 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, it is with great sincerity that I rise to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, on his distinguished maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. He hoped rather tentatively that it would not be a dry hole. I can assure the noble Lord that it was a very productive strike. It has been a most positive response from the Front Bench. All members of the Select Committee will be absolutely delighted. We expected no less. With the noble Lord's practical experience—36 years in industry, a clear understanding of the issues that we debate today, and great experience of the Bank of England—we knew how lucky the House and the Government are to have attracted his services. Perhaps I may say how gratefully we are in the noble Lord's debt for having made his great expertise available to us all.
Normally it is customary to urge a maiden speaker not to wait too long before he rises to his feet again. Quite frankly, the Minister has no choice. He will be back time and again. But we look forward to that enormously. If the noble Lord is as positive in future as he has been today—and I am sure he will be—we shall look forward to that with great interest.
It is clear that there has been a great measure of unanimity from all parts of the House. Everyone has been surprised by the sums of money which were quoted time and again. It is an area where clearly we all feel that the framework programme needs focusing. It needs attention. I hope that when the Select Committee is reappointed it will keep a close eye on future negotiations. I thank all those who have spoken in the debate today. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Chinook Helicopter Accident Inquiry
2.5 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review the findings of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the accident involving Chinook helicopter ZD576 in June 1994.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Before explaining the background, perhaps I may offer a warm welcome to the noble Lord on his first appearance at this Dispatch Box as Minister of State. This is, of course, not his first tour of duty as a Minister, and he brings to this House a formidable fund of knowledge of defence matters.
More than 30 years ago I made my own maiden speech in your Lordships' House from the same Dispatch Box as a Minister of State but then without the political experience of the noble Lord. I welcome his appointment in the confidence that we shall receive from him the same consideration and courtesy as we were accustomed to receive from his predecessor, the noble Earl, as a Minister in the previous Government.
In that context perhaps I may say at once that I ask this question in no confrontational or contentious spirit. It is an attempt to clarify a matter which has been a mystery to me for some time, and, as it became clear from a recent, and quite remarkable television programme on the subject, has been a mystery to many other people as well.
The story which lies behind this question begins on 2nd June 1994, when a Chinook helicopter of the Royal Air Force crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland on a flight from Northern Ireland. It was carrying 25 passengers, most of them senior members of the British Intelligence Services, and it was manned by a crew of four—two pilots and two loadmasters, all from the Royal Air Force Special Forces. All 29 people on board were killed in that accident.
After a year of investigations into the crash, a Royal Air Force board of inquiry concluded that the two pilots—Flight Lieutenant Tapper, the captain, and Flight Lieutenant Cook, the co-pilot—had been guilty of gross negligence and that that negligence was to blame for the disaster. My purpose in raising this issue now is to suggest that to the families of the two pilots, and to many knowledgeable people both inside and outside the Royal Air Force, that verdict constituted a grave injustice to the two young pilots.
The important point of departure in this analysis, and one that one must keep in the front of one's mind throughout any consideration of it, is the apparently unambiguous guidance issued by the Royal Air Force relevant to accident investigations of this kind. With the leave of the House I shall quote it verbatim, because it is important. It states:
"only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased air crew he found negligent".
The simple and fundamental question is: was there in this case absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the cause of the accident?
For me it is the only question. Speculation about aircraft serviceability, inadequate equipment, even the dark possibility of intelligence-related cover-ups and sabotage is entirely unsubstantiated. But it can also be argued that negligence on the part of the pilots is equally unsubstantiated and the history of this episode
544
demonstrates clearly why there is a widespread belief that this was not a case in which there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
Let me go briefly through the sequence of events. In the first place the initial findings of the president of the very thorough and comprehensive Royal Air Force board of inquiry contained the following conclusions:
"There were many potential causes of the accident and, despite detailed and in depth analysis, the Board was unable to determine a definite cause".
With regard to Flight Lieutenant Tapper, the board's findings were:
"it would be incorrect to criticise him for human failings based on the available evidence":
and on Flight Lieutenant Cook,
"The board concluded that there were no human failings with respect to Flight Lieutenant Cook".
The officer commanding Royal Air Force Odiham, the parent station in this case, reviewing these findings, referred to a possible failure to ensure the safety of the aircraft, but observed:
"In assessing human failings, the evidence is insufficient to he specific".
And the station commander RAF Aldergrove, the station from which the flight originated, noted:
"I am impressed by the meticulous and detailed examination of events which the Board has provided. However, I believe that the exact train of events can never be determined with absolute certainty".
So far, so good—all the opinions and evidence indicating that up to this point the Royal Air Force view, the view of the board of inquiry and two station commanders, was that this was certainly not a case of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
However, in reviewing the proceedings of the board of inquiry, Air Vice-Marshal Day, the air officer commanding No. 1 Group, interpreted the same evidence differently, coming to the conclusion that Flight Lieutenant Tapper and Flight Lieutenant Cook were both,
"negligent to a gross degree";
and Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten, at that time the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Strike Command, although conceding in his review—this is a very important qualification made by the air chief marshal—that:
"there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact",
nevertheless concluded that:
"the actions of the two pilots were the direct cause of this crash. I also conclude that this amounted to gross negligence".
It is important to be clear that these two senior and experienced reviewing officers had every right to disagree with the opinion of the president of the board of inquiry, as they are an integral part of the whole inquiry procedure. It is not over until they have concluded their review.
I have been able to discuss this issue with both these senior officers. They are clearly both men of great experience and total professional integrity, who would not do anything which they did not believe to be fair

545
and in the interests of the service. However, the families of the two pilots, among many others, find it difficult to understand, in the light of the opinion of the president of the board of inquiry and the other officers concerned, how they could possibly have come to a conclusion that there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" about the cause of the accident.
Their judgment was delivered in April 1995. But they were not the last words on the subject. Because the accident took place in Scotland, early in 1996 a fatal accident inquiry was held under a civil judge, Sheriff Sir Stephen Young who is a distinguished legal figure. After hearing all the evidence, including that of the president of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry, the sheriff came to the conclusion that there was no proof that the pilots were to blame. I quote a crucial passage from the judge's determination:
"I have found myself unable to accept the conclusion reached by …the [RAF] board of inquiry…It may then be asked what was the cause of the accident. For my part, I can only say that I do not know …in the absence of any evidence from eyewitnesses aboard the aircraft or of information that might have been recorded from a cockpit voice recorder or an accident data recorder, I do not think any useful purpose would he served by my speculating further on the matter".
It seems to me that in the light of all that it must be a matter for grave concern that two young officers of the Royal Air Force Special Forces, officers with exemplary records and considerable flying experience, should be found guilty of gross negligence and held entirely responsible for a disaster of this magnitude when two thorough and comprehensive inquiries—one military and one civilian—have clearly been unable to identify beyond doubt the cause of the accident. It is impossible to imagine a more terrible indictment of two professional service officers than that they have brought about by gross negligence their own deaths and the deaths of 27 other people, not to mention the total destruction of the aircraft which was under their command.
Apart from the appalling impact of that on the families of the young men, the episode must inevitably involve the jealously guarded honour of the Armed Forces. It seems to me that there would be nothing dishonourable in now conceding that the verdict of gross negligence was severe and unjust, however honestly and sincerely it might have been reached.
When the television film was made—and it was a quite remarkable documentary film—the Ministry of Defence complained subsequently to the programme makers that the Royal Air Force side of the case had not been adequately represented. In concluding, I express the hope that if the Question today does nothing else, it will provide the Minister with an opportunity to repair that alleged omission and to explain precisely why, in the absence of evidence and in the absence of a situation where there was no doubt whatsoever, these young men were found guilty of gross negligence. I hope too that the Minister will be able to go further and agree to review the whole matter in the expectation that it might be possible to restore the reputations of two young officers and bring at least some comfort to their families.
2.17 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, let me say at the outset that I warmly welcome the Minister to his new position in this House and hope that his past considerable experience in the Ministry of Defence will make it easy for him to hit the ground running.
I speak to this Question with a great deal of reluctance. I am not aware that there is any new evidence or information which is relevant to the cause of the tragedy. Of course, if there were, then it could be a reason to re-open the inquiry. I assume that there is not and that the Minister will confirm it when he speaks.
My reluctance arises because to discuss this tragic event yet again may be distressing for relatives of many of the 29 who were killed three years ago on 2nd June 1994. I hope most sincerely that what I say will not add to that distress. However, as noble Lords will appreciate, I know a great deal about Royal Air Force boards of inquiry, their importance and the way in which they are carried out.
The two senior officers and others involved with the inquiry are well known to me. I have not read the full report of the board but I have on a number of occasions discussed the contents and findings with Air Chief Marshal Wratten, Air Marshal Day and others. I have absolute confidence in the integrity of those officers, but what I say is entirely my own view.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has spoken to the Question in his admirably lucid and cogent way. I listened to his speech with the closest attention, which it fully deserves. The nub of his call for a review is where he asks whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the cause of the accident.
The civil Air Accident Investigation Branch—the same organisation which established the cause of the Lockerbie accident and many others of extreme complexity—was able to rule out categorically any structural or technical malfunction. Sabotage and terrorism were also ruled out. The Chinook was climbing close to its maximum forward speed and the navigational equipment was functioning up to the point of impact. That the Air Accident Investigation Branch, with help from the manufacturers, could establish so much factual evidence from the wreckage not only points to their expertise; it has an important bearing on the findings.
To my mind, the key question is not: what may have happened on board the Chinook in the remaining seconds before it crashed? The question to ask is: why was it advancing in poor visibility below a safe altitude? Why was the Chinook being flown in that way? Noble Lords will note that I refer to "the Chinook" and not to "the aircraft". A Chinook, any helicopter, has much greater freedom of manoeuvre in the air than a fixed wing aircraft, which must keep moving forward to remain airborne.
Until shortly before it reached the cloud covered Mull, the Chinook was flying in clear conditions. The pilots were in visual contact with the sea, a few hundred feet below them. If the Mull had been clear of cloud and they could have flown over or around it while relying on visual references to fly safely, they could have

547
maintained their planned route at low level to Scotland. If, however, cloud or poor visibility on their planned route precluded reliance on visual references, there were two options to ensure the safety of the Chinook and its passengers. Both would be covered by flying orders well known to the pilots.
One option would be to alter course, even to retrace their route, to maintain that visual contact with the surface and separation from poor weather. The other would be to put the Chinook into a maximum rate climb, to attain a safe height. But the evidence is that the flying pilot and the other, whose responsibility it was to monitor the actions of his colleague, did neither. The Chinook hit the side of the Mull below 1,000 feet.
If they had been inexperienced air crew, unfamiliar with the route that they were flying, perhaps misled by a more favourable weather forecast than the actual conditions, their action might be classed as an error of judgment. But the pilots were both highly experienced on Chinooks. They had more than a normal responsibility of care because they were carrying passengers. They were qualified and trusted to adhere to the highest professional standards of flight safety and airmanship at all times. The safety of their Chinook and passengers was their top priority.
For the purpose of a board of inquiry finding, negligence is defined as:
"The doing of something which in the circumstances a reasonable person would not do or do differently".
It is not reasonable to put at risk your aircraft and the lives of all on board. It must be dreadfully distressing to some of the many concerned with this tragedy that the view the senior officers recorded was that the two pilots displayed, perhaps even for a short moment of time, such negligence of their responsibilities.
Noble Lords will appreciate that these views are reached only after considerable work and study of all the evidence by experts at headquarters. The views recorded will have been guided by that painstaking study. In other words, we see the result of many minds and experts in the operation of aircraft being brought to hear in reaching these findings.
I fear that it is a feature of aviation, both Service and civil, and throughout the world, that pilots, being human, can make mistakes. One of the most insidious is to be tempted to continue in deteriorating conditions, believing that they may be transitory, or that there is no danger, even though one is in cloud. Too many aviators have found to their cost that not all clouds have soft centres. The temptation to behave unreasonably in poor weather is not confined to aviators. Winter after winter there are motorists driving too fast in fog who meet untimely deaths.
I learnt a terrifying lesson about that hazard early in my own flying career. I was on my third or fourth solo flight; I was drug-high on excitement; on a sense of achievement; on the freedom of flying by myself. What could be more exhilarating for a young man, 10 to 15 minutes after takeoff, than to be skimming just along the tops of the clouds, weaving in and out of the hills and valleys that they made with the sun streaming down
548
on this brilliantly white, cotton wool world? As I clipped the top of one of the higher cloud hills I was confronted by the crown of a large tree sticking out from the top of my cloud. I pulled up hard to safety from a height which I afterwards realised could have been less than 50 feet from the ground. My rolling cloud-land was the top of a fog bank over the Lincolnshire fens.
Flying is a seductive mistress. Constant training, strict professionalism and obedience to flight safety rules must never be relaxed if aircraft and their occupants are not to feature in yet another accident. We learn not only from our own mistakes, but also from the behaviour of others. Boards of inquiry are expected to identify actions to minimise the risk of recurrence. If the lessons sink in, maybe another death, another accident will be avoided.
Adverse board of inquiry findings, so sad, even tough when key individuals are not there to explain or account for their actions, play a part in flight safety. Others will learn about the ever-present danger in the air if, even for a moment, awareness and anticipation lapse. I hope that the lessons from the tragic event on the Mull of Kintyre will serve to save the lives of others.
2.27 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I warmly support the action of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in raising this very serious Question in this House. At a time when the services are threatened by yet another defence review and the cuts that reviews have so far inevitably brought, service morale must be at a low ebb. I am sure therefore that the new Minister—I warmly welcome him to the House, though he has a hard act to follow; we have been admirably served, as have the services, by his predecessor—will recognise the importance of reviewing the matter.
I have two concerns. The first is that there was no cockpit voice recorder or accident data recorder on the aircraft. I believe that plans are in hand to install those in the future and that the reason they were not there was because of expense. I hope it will be recognised by the MoD that such an expense is more than justified when it comes to establishing the true cause of this and possibly other accidents.
My other concern is: what did cause the accident? I speak with some diffidence after the noble and gallant Lord's cogent speech, but I shall persevere. We do not know that there was inadequate equipment or maintenance; we do not know that there was not. I believe that in pursuit of market testing and the overriding objective of saving money, too much contractorisation, coupled perhaps with understaffed and possibly inadequately trained and experienced quality control and maintenance staff, are putting the lives of pilots as well as their valuable aircraft at risk. I believe that that could be an underlying cause of what happened.
In 1993 16 Tornado aircraft had to be withdrawn from service because of serious damage they had sustained when they were being modified by a private firm, Airwork, which won the contract against British Aerospace (which had the proper skills) because the Airwork bid was the lowest. Those aircraft cost, I believe, roughly £25 million each. The loss of the

549
highly trained pilot in any accident sustained by such aircraft must carry a heavy financial loss also, if we are to speak, as we are constantly required to do, in terms of money alone. Yet Airwork was allowed to certify its own work as properly done, and was paid for it. Only a routine inspection of undercarriages at RAF Leeming before a Tornado squadron flew to Bosnia revealed the very serious damage done, damage that undoubtedly constituted a threat of several fatal accidents. I cannot forget that, to quote from co1.183 of Hansard of another place of 20th July 1993:
"Huge quantities of aircraft polyfilla, known as thyokol, had been used to cover up the damage".
The defence committee subsequently established that accidents would have occurred and lives would have been lost if those aircraft had flown. Indeed, one of them, even after the damage had presumably been corrected, crashed into the sea on a test flight. It seems unbelievable that, after its performance with the Tornados, Airwork was given the contract to modify the almost equally valuable Hercules aircraft and managed to damage 11 of these before quality inspectors discovered what was happening. According to page 21 of the report on market testing,
"Airwork had underestimated the complexity of the task, failed to provide adequate staffing in terms of numbers and skills, and finally failed to highlight technical problems when they arose".
Even after that, a full rectification programme was initiated by Airwork. It had another go at those 11 aircraft and then was sent some more. In both the Tornado and Hercules contracts the MoD expected, we are told, to get financially recompensed eventually, and,
"no long term airworthiness implications for the Hercules fleet as a result of the damage were expected".
I share the amazement of the defence committee that the MoD accepted back the eight Tornado aircraft which Airwork returned, and paid for the work without any inspection, so that the very serious damage was discovered only because an RAF technician was alert.
The reason I have spoken at some length about these two cases—my noble friend Lord Howe will know that I have raised the subject of Airwork before but I make no apology for that—is that I believe that the MoD's commitment, in pursuit of previous government policy laid down for it, to saving money and contractorising has very dangerous long-term implications both for the safety of the aircraft and the crews. Are too many corners being cut in the sacred name of value for money?
One would have thought, incidentally, that the Tornado and the Hercules experiences should have demonstrated that money is not being saved, since 18 Tornados costing £25 million each, and 11 Hercules which can scarcely be cheap, were out of action for years. Could the cause of this accident, therefore, have indeed been in some way the result of poor maintenance, inadequate training, pressure on inadequate staff, the financial pressures of the budget and the competing-for-quality programme, and too severe cuts in service manpower at the support end? All these things are not only dangerous but deeply destructive of morale. Is the remorseless reduction of skilled in-house
550
manpower leading to a failure to communicate at an inter-service level, moreover, between under-staffed, overworked maintenance teams?
One of the private contractors working in the military field said in written evidence to the defence committee:
"We believe that a range and depth of what are broadly classified as the Services support functions must remain in uniformed hands, under the direct control of the military. Too extensive a transfer of such tasks to the private sector would inevitably impact adversely on the ability of the Armed Forces to react in a timely and effective manner to the challenges of the post-Cold War world. It must he recognised that if, through the excessive pursuit of contractor-isation in the interests of cost-saving, the size and capability of the uniformed support services are less than is required for the effective support of front line forces, not only will it adversely affect their capability hut it could and probably would also be prejudicial to the very concept of contractor-isation of military support services".
It would be difficult to improve on that very prescient statement.
I am sure the RAF will have made the most exhaustive inquiry into the previous history of the Chinook—whether, when and by whom it was modified and serviced, and whether the pilots would have been fully aware of any modification. Yet only one failure to check a piece of equipment with the proper rigour, somewhere along the line, could surely have been enough to explain this accident.
I cannot but feel that somewhere along the line a weak link developed, for I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and that of the RAF Board of Inquiry, and the civil inquiry, that not one but two experienced pilots surely could not have been guilty of the "gross" negligence which has been attributed to them. I believe that we should be concerned not only, and rightly, for the good name of two young men now dead, but that we should pursue this matter in the interests of those pilots who are still flying in what may be unacceptably dangerous conditions. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to pursue this matter effectively.
2.35 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am somewhat daunted at the prospect of following the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park. In contrast to them I shall seem somewhat lightweight. However, having listened to them, does not alter that which I wish to say, nor does it alter my belief that what might have been a questionable decision should be looked at again. I promise to be brief.
Before proceeding further I should mention that I used to work with Flight Lieutenant Tapper's father some 25 or so years ago and, I suppose, this could possibly be construed as a form of declarable interest.
On the basis of the information which I have been given and elicited following the crash, it seems to me that the finding of gross negligence against the pilots is, to say the least, suspect. However, without having access to all of the papers, it is difficult to be specific about the finding of the RAF's board of inquiry being unjust. I do, however, have a two-page summary published by the Ministry of Defence. It is not very helpful, but it does indicate that most possible causes of

551
the accident were eliminated. Notwithstanding that, its sole observation on the weather is that conditions were bad with poor visibility and low cloud. Did the inquiry exclude the possibility of katabatic winds being present? Whilst this is not very likely, if they were present, could not the handling characteristics of a Chinook aircraft have been affected? I have no way of knowing as I have no access to papers other than the summary. The Minister, whom I welcome to your Lordships' House and congratulate on his appointment, will no doubt make appropriate observations.
Not all aircraft of the RAF contain voice and data recorders. In the case of Chinooks, however, much data can be extracted from alternative sources in accidents. But we will never know what words passed between the pilots, which would, in all probability, have been helpful to the inquiry. Both accident and voice data recorders are being fitted to Chinooks before the end of 1998. It would be interesting to know whether this was planned before or after ZD576 crashed.
I make no apology for repeating part of that previously mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. There is doubt written in large letters, underlined and highlighted in those extracts of reports which I have received. And that includes an extract from the review of the RAF board of inquiry by Air Vice-Marshal Day where he used the words, "a degree of speculation". Part of the dictionary definition of the word "speculation" is "theory or conjecture about". I wonder if Air Vice-Marshal Day in using those words, really had doubts as to the actual cause of this crash. His use of these words leads me to speculate that this is possible, but I only speculate because I do not really know. If he did have doubts and thereby joins the throng of those who also have doubts, then the finding of gross negligence against these two experienced aviators must be reviewed. Such a finding can only be given when there is no doubt whatsoever.
2.39 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am sadly lacking in the expert knowledge of previous speakers such as in particular the noble and gallant Lord who has such a noble and gallant record of service in the RAF. But I am distressed precisely by how very much is unknown and unknowable about this disaster.
So for the past three years the family and friends of two RAF officers have endured a double burden: the grief of their personal loss and their grievous inability to understand the posthumous conviction of their loved ones. In calling for a review, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, deserves the gratitude of everyone concerned with air accident investigation where—so often—crucial and convincing evidence is inevitably lacking.
I served with RAF Bomber Command for five years and witnessed some terrible disasters at close quarters. It was not unusual for a court of inquiry to conclude that the cause was pilot error. But I do not recall a single instance in which that error was damned as so culpable as to call for the verdict of "gross negligence".
552
Of one such crash, I have especially vivid, cruelly indelible memories, nightmare-inducing even after more than half a century. A bomber returned to base from a mission over Germany, badly disabled by enemy fire. After circling for some time in obvious difficulty, the aircraft landed with undercarriage incompletely lowered. It burst into flames, with the screaming aircrew unable to escape the inferno, except for one who was thrown out as the fuselage split open. He died within minutes of quite horrendous injuries, but not before being heard to say, "The skipper panicked". I am glad to say that the court of inquiry disallowed the recording of that claim, because the witness was unhappily beyond giving evidence and because, even if the court had been satisfied with the authenticity of those dying words, his judgment on the pilot's state of mind might well have been affected by his own hideous injuries.
By contrast, in the case of the crash on the Mull of Kintyre, senior officers have been able to convince themselves that there was culpable negligence on the part of two officers. On the evidence that I for one have read—and even the additional evidence that I have heard today—the source of their certainty remains entirely unclear. I quote the passage already quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont:
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, should deceased air crew he found negligent".
So reads the relevant RAF regulation. On what grounds was doubt removed so absolutely in this instance?
2.42 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, your Lordships may have observed from the unamended list of speakers that I was down to speak in the debate on the report of the Science and Technology Committee. That was an error—no doubt due to gross negligence on my part. As far as your Lordships' House is concerned, it operates as a blessing in very small disguise because whereas noble Lords who are down to speak are limited to 12 minutes each, as I now fall within the gap I am limited to four minutes. I am obliged. Having to be brief will no doubt be a very good self-discipline.
I put down my name to speak to discover what was the material available for the finding which was ultimately made. I was devoid of any real specialised knowledge on this, save that I appeared for the Crown when I was at the Bar in the inquiry into the Vanguard air crash at Heathrow some 30-odd years ago. I am concerned about the onus of proof: "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" is apparently the test.
Via the Library, I managed to achieve a summary of what was in the full report. I was told that I could not see the full report because it was not available to the public. I noted that in the full report the very heavy onus is not referred to at all. The summary states:
"The Inquiry therefore concluded that the cause of the accident was that the two pilots had wrongly continued to fly towards the high ground",
in a situation which it concluded was negligent.
That could probably have been the cause, and that might have been the basis of that decision. Perhaps it was "very probably" the cause, and that might have been

553
the basis of the decision, but in either of those two cases the onus has not been satisfied, and the conclusion reached would not be sustainable.
The criminal obligation of proving beyond reasonable doubt is involved in the phrase "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". In fact, it could be argued by the purist that that was an even higher level, because "no doubt whatsoever" must include an unreasonable doubt. But I do not put the matter as high as that, because I can see that there can be arguments to the contrary if you once let in a reasonable doubt. But the high degree of certainty should be reflected in the judgment which was given. If it was not reflected in the judgment that was given—I have only the summary to go on—then one is entitled to say that the board of inquiry did not apply the appropriate test.
I hope that when replying the Minister will devote some time to demonstrate to us to what extent the very high test in regard to the onus of proof is reflected in the decisions and is reflected, in particular, in the views of the two very senior officers who, on review, appear to have departed quite clearly from what was the initial finding.
2.47 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap. I had considered speaking on this Unstarred Question but decided not to. However an issue has been raised which I felt that I could not ignore. We are discussing a depressing matter. I have a high regard for my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. We worked together on the all-party defence study group, but I must take issue with her views on the use of defence contractors.
When carrying out its own maintenance of equipment, whether aircraft, tanks or wheeled vehicles, the MoD has its own technical problems, but when the work is carried out in-house those technical problems are hushed up; they are kept quiet. When you use a commercial contractor, those problems become all too evident. My noble friend referred to the difficulties of obtaining recompense from a contractor. At least you can get recompense from a contractor, whereas when you do it yourself and make a mistake you cannot obtain any recompense from yourself.
Commercial airlines, especially the smaller ones, use third party maintenance facilities for necessary servicing and even major repairs on their aircraft. There may be maintenance problems in that situation, and there is commercial recompense when things go wrong. So I would caution against damning the use of contractors for maintaining MoD equipment. I hope that the Minister will say that the MoD will continue to use contractors where it is appropriate and where it gives best value for money and maximum safety for the users of the equipment.
2.50 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I rise for only a few moments to associate myself with the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for a review of the Royal Air Force inquiry.
554
I come from Northern Ireland and I know many of the people involved. I knew the policemen. Since the event, I have been in almost daily or weekly contact with the widows of those who lost their lives. Whatever the clinical assessment which was made by the Royal Air Force inquiry, people in Northern Ireland, and particularly the widows and descendants, feel particularly bitter and aggrieved that the two young Air Force pilots are now being charged with responsibility for the deaths.
The tragedy had a devastating effect on the community in Northern Ireland. The whole security situation was called into question. But knowing the policemen who were killed in the crash, and knowing the widows and children of those who lost their lives, I am absolutely certain that it was not as a result of any act or overt mistake made by those pilots or the people on the plane.
I wish to put on record that whatever the clinical assessment from the point of view of the Royal Air Force, people in Northern Ireland will not believe that the two young pilots were guilty of negligence and of causing the deaths of their comrades.
2.52 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, first, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and welcome him most warmly to his place on the Government Front Bench. He brings with him a wealth of experience from another place, including an in-depth knowledge of defence matters. It would therefore he difficult to imagine a more appropriate appointment. We wish him well in it during the months and years ahead.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, the background to the Question that he has brought before the House. I am well aware that this tragic matter has occupied the noble Lord, others of your Lordships and, indeed, the wider public for a good many months. As someone who went into the facts of the case in a good deal of depth during my time at the Ministry of Defence, I feel qualified to offer a number of observations on it. However, naturally, it is the response of the Minister which must merit our chief attention.
I must say at the outset that I find myself in some difficulty with the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to bring this Question to the Floor of your Lordships' House. With all respect to him, I do not agree with that decision because I believe that there are ways of satisfying his concerns which do not risk further public hurt to the feelings of the families of the dead pilots and of the RAF. Furthermore, I am far from convinced that this kind of formal debate enables the Minister to place on the record all the necessary facts and arguments. However, I shall be happy to reconsider that view once I have heard what the Minister has to say.
I turn briefly to the substance of the Question. All along, the noble Lord's concern has been with the board's finding of gross negligence. With the evidence available to it, how could the board have been in absolutely no doubt that the accident was not attributable to other factors? If it is true that extraneous causes can be ruled out, how can the board have said with total confidence that this was not a case of pilot error?

555
In my experience, many people who ask those questions are under the impression that the board of inquiry was obliged to base its conclusions on an extremely thin body of evidence. The reality is very different. The evidence available to the board was not only clear but, in my view, it also pointed unambiguously to the conclusion which was reached. What the board had to do in the first instance was to examine thoroughly all possible causes of the accident. Through the Air Accidents Investigations Branch, it was able to confirm that both engines were functioning normally up to the point of impact and, I emphasise to my noble friend Lady Park, it was able to rule out categorically any structural or technical malfunction. Sabotage and hostile action were also eliminated as possible causes. In addition, the inquiry had the benefit of data downloaded from the aircraft's tactical air navigation system. From that information, it could derive an accurate picture of the Chinook's flight path. It was able to establish the fact that the aircraft was climbing; that it was travelling at a certain speed; and that the navigation equipment was functioning properly up to the point of impact. Having ruled out any mechanical or extraneous cause, the inquiry was left with only two possible conclusions: pilot error or pilot negligence.
Why did the inquiry reach the latter conclusion and not the former? To answer that, it is necessary to understand one thing and one thing above all; namely, the nature of the rules which governed that particular flight. Because of forecast weather conditions, the flight was carried out under visual flight rules, or VFR. Those rules state that a flight should be undertaken only within closely defined conditions of visibility and cloud clearance and at a safe height and speed.
Under VFR, it is the air crew who have prime responsibility for terrain avoidance so that, at low level, they must rely on actually seeing the ground and other external reference points to fly the aircraft. Nevertheless, the rules provide for a huge margin of error. They stipulate that an aircraft operating in limited visibility, which the Chinook was, must be at least 1,000 feet above the height of the highest obstacle. The highest point of the Mull is 1,463 feet. Therefore, the aircraft should have been flying at around 2,500 feet as it completed its transit of the Irish Sea. In fact, we know that 40 seconds before impact its height was between 200 and 400 feet. At 15 to 18 seconds before impact its height was approximately 460 feet. It crashed at a height of 812 feet. It is clear that, until the crew's emergency manoeuvre in the last few seconds of flight, the Chinook was at least 2,000 feet below the height at which it should have been flying. Incidentally, there were no atmospheric conditions or icing restrictions preventing it from flying at the correct altitude.
The VFR rules insist also that, as well as the minimum height requirement, the crew should also have not less than five kilometres of visibility. As the Chinook approached the Mull those conditions no longer obtained. The Mull was covered in cloud.
556
The crew should also have been flying at a safe speed. We know that the aircraft proceeded directly towards the Mull at a very high speed, slowing down only in the final few seconds, as it attempted its avoiding manoeuvre. On impact, the speed was 151 knots.
The board of inquiry, including the senior officers who reached the finding of gross negligence, asked themselves how it could have been that two experienced pilots could have broken the fundamental rules of VFR—safe height, safe speed in safe weather conditions. The members of the board were at a total loss to understand that. What the pilots did ran contrary to all the training they had received. It belied completely the professional standards of airmanship which they had attained.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, BOI regulations define negligence as:
"The doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently".
The actions taken by the pilots led directly to the crash. The senior officers were in absolutely no doubt that this was not a case of excusable error; it was gross negligence.
There is a great deal which could be added to that inevitably brief summary. A lot of misleading, tendentious and erroneous things have been said about the matter in the press and on television. I should like to add only one thing. The integrity and the diligence of both senior officers whose duty it was to reach the board's finding—Air Vice-Marshal Day and Air Chief Marshal Wratten—are beyond question. They had expert evidence before them and they reached their verdict with scrupulous care and total honesty.
The sympathies of this House must go out to the families of the pilots and all those killed on that terrible day, nearly three years ago. However, in my opinion, there are absolutely no grounds on which a reopening of the investigation or of the inquiry would be justified.
3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, I understand that it is a very sensible tradition of your Lordships' House that maiden speeches should be non-controversial. It is my lugubrious fate today to have to break that tradition, although I am very glad to say, following on from the extremely helpful and lucid remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the controversy does not exist between the two Front Benches with respect to this very sorry matter.
Before going into the speech that I had prepared for me today, I think it might be helpful if I were to address one or two points that other noble Lords have mentioned during the debate so that I can make quite sure that I have covered them. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon—and perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I do not get everyone's name right to start with—raised the question of katabatic winds. The fact is that, at the time of the accident, the aircraft was flying with a 30-knot tailwind behind it and, when approaching

557
higher ground, that tailwind would actually have had the effect of lifting the aircraft rather than causing it to go into a precipitate descent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked whether or not there were cockpit voice recorders; there were not. However, I am happy to confirm that they are being installed in all Chinooks. I am not sure whether the programme is yet finished—indeed, I do not believe that it is—because the process is an on-going one. The noble Baroness, quite understandably, took the debate far wider than the Unstarred Question tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and took us into the sphere of maintenance questions.
I am fully seized of the importance of the questions that the noble Baroness raised. It may be helpful for her to know that one of the very first instructions that I gave to officials when re-entering the Ministry of Defence was that I was unhappy that we had the balance between the acquisition of weapons systems and platforms on the one hand, and spares and maintenance, on the other, correct and that I wanted to give that the single highest priority during my time of office however long or short that may be. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness asked about the possibility of there being an equipment failure. All the evidence is that there was not an equipment failure. But even if we were to assume that the people who in good faith undertook the investigations—and I shall deal with them in some detail in a moment—made an error and there was such a failure, the fact remains that that aircraft should not have been where it was. That is why I turn for support to the admirably eloquent speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who, to my mind and distinction, if the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will forgive, did ask the crucial question. That question is not: was there no doubt whatsoever as to why the pilots were there? The question is: why was the aircraft being flown in that way at that time? Because there seems to be no doubt whatsoever as to where it was and the weather conditions at the time, the verdict of negligence is one which, very sadly, it is impossible to resist.
The tragic accident that we have been discussing today saw the loss of 29 lives of very loyal servants of the Crown who died suddenly and without warning in the course of their duties. As we have heard, not only did the events of that evening cast a very long shadow, they also brutally disrupted the lives of the many families that lost a loved one and seriously affected all those who had to try to deal with the consequences.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that I personally have the greatest sympathy with the families of the two pilots. I fully understand their desire to overturn in some way or other the apparently harsh verdict of the Board of Inquiry of the Royal Air Force. I also fully understand the incomprehension expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, which is felt by many that these two brave young men, trained and competent as they were to fly the most hazardous of helicopter missions for the RAF, could have been responsible for the deaths of so many people on what was, after all, a routine transport flight. I understand therefore the incredulity of all those who,
558
knowing these two men, believed that there must be some other explanation of the events of that day. However, I must say to noble Lords that the facts must be allowed to speak for themselves. These are the facts that were available to Air Vice-Marshal Day and Air Chief Marshal Wratten who, in the proper exercise of their discretion, reached their considered conclusions.
I wish to emphasise that the Royal Air Force's investigation into this accident was carried out not only by RAF experts but also by civilian specialists from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. They had unstinting assistance from the manufacturers both of the aircraft and of its systems. The investigation was scrupulously thorough and exhaustive. It found no evidence whatever of structural or technical malfunction, nor of any hostile action and concluded that the accident had been caused by the action of the two pilots who had continued to fly their aircraft towards the Mull of Kintyre at high speed at an unsafe altitude in extremely bad weather. I pray in aid here the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, as to how seductive it can often be to fly an aircraft into conditions of danger. That unfortunately is something that one sees all too frequently in the civilian as well as the military field.
It was the view of the senior officers responsible for this inquiry, and consequently it was the overall finding of the inquiry, that the pilots in handling their aircraft in this way had not exercised the skill, care or judgment that they were known to possess, and that their actions regrettably but unmistakably constituted a breach in their duty of care to a degree that amounted to gross negligence. Negligence is not a word which the Royal Air Force uses lightly. But it is important that whenever possible the causes of accidents are clearly established so that the necessary lessons are learnt and the risks of such accidents happening again are minimised.
Much has been made in the media—and mention has been made today—of the so-called difference of opinion between the president of the board of inquiry and his senior officers and that aspect of this sad affair, as I say, has been touched on this afternoon. I think therefore it is necessary that I make it clear to the House that the assessments by the convening officer and his commander in chief are an integral part of the inquiry and are a way of bringing to bear not only the wide range of skills and expertise of their specialist staffs, but also their own considerable personal experience of the service and of flying standards. In the case of this crash the president of the board concluded that the accident was caused by the pilots selecting an inappropriate rate of climb.
Some may feel—and I would agree—that this was not an illuminating conclusion. The station commander at RAF Odiham went further, concluding with regret that the pilots had failed in their duty. It was left to Air Marshals Day and Wratten as the most senior officers involved in the inquiry to assess what that failure amounted to. They concluded sadly and with great reluctance that it amounted to gross negligence. Both these senior officers are men of the highest integrity. They would clearly have very much preferred to have found some other explanation as to what caused this accident. However, all the evidence, and not just some

559
of it, pointed in the same direction. It was the Air Marshals' duty to reach an honest conclusion upon the evidence and that is what they did.
I shall now turn to the evidence. It is well known that the weather in the vicinity of the Mull is often foggy and affected by low cloud. On the day in question the crew received an accurate weather forecast indicating suitable conditions for the flight which was intended to run from RAF Aldergrove to Inverness. However, the forecast included a warning that there would be a risk of poor conditions affecting the area of the Mull of Kintyre. This would have required a bad weather contingency plan. The pilots, in their proper discretion, elected to carry out the flight under visual flight rules which stipulate that a flight should only be undertaken within clearly defined weather conditions, as set out by the noble Earl. I shall not repeat them in detail. They are defined in terms of visibility and cloud clearance, at a safe height and speed. At low level, air crew rely upon seeing the ground and other external references to fly the aircraft. Electronic navigation aids can be and are used but these are secondary. At all times the pilot flying under visual flight rules must remain in visual contact with the ground. The highest point of the Mull of Kintyre is 1,463 feet above sea level. Instrument flight rules stipulate that an aircraft must be at least 1,000 feet above the height of the highest obstacle along the intended track if the crew is not in visual contact with the ground.
On this particular day the transit across the Irish Sea was uneventful and conducted in clear conditions. But, as forecast, there was a very low cloud base and poor visibility over the Mull. We know from an eye witness that at a distance of about two nautical miles from the Mull or approximately 40 seconds from impact, the aircraft was flying at a height estimated at between 200 feet and 400 feet.
From this your Lordships will understand that the aircraft was approaching the Mull of Kintyre at least 2,000 feet below the height at which it should have been in order to clear the Mull under instrument flight rules. It was travelling at a high speed, climbing only gently until the final few seconds. The question is, why? There were two alternative courses that the crew could have taken. About 20 seconds before impact, the crew selected a way point change, releasing the on-board computer from its fix on the Mull of Kintyre and locking on to Corran, 87 miles to the north. At this way point change, or preferably earlier, the crew could have turned to the left, away from the Mull, and gradually started to climb. Alternatively, the crew could have slowed down and devoted full engine power to a rapid climb. The latter manoeuvre, known as a "low level abort" is a procedure which the handling pilot had recently practised. The crew could then have diverted or climbed and requested an air traffic service under instrument meterological conditions. Either of those courses of action would have been the proper response.
At 15 to 18 seconds before impact the helicopter's height was 468 feet; at 4½ seconds before impact the crew exercised an emergency manoeuvre and the
560
aircraft climbed about 150 feet in those final 4½ seconds. The aircraft crashed at a height of 812 feet at a ground speed of 151 knots.
Unfortunately, there was no cockpit voice recorder or accident data recorder to let us know precisely what happened in the cockpit in those final seconds of flight. So we turn to the aircraft's tactical air navigation system. This is a computer which continually updates the aircraft's position using two independent sources. Those are satellite transmissions from the global positioning system and a Doppler velocity sensor linked with the aircraft compass. I should explain that the tactical air navigation system, for navigational and system operating reasons, stores masses of data which are retained in its memory each time the computer powers down. The board of inquiry invited the manufacturer to extract all the data from the system and analyse it. The resultant report formed one of the many pieces of evidence considered by the inquiry.
While the manufacturer stated in this report that.
"The equipment is not designed to store historical data".
the report also stated that,
"The analysis reveals that the tactical air navigation system and the navigation sensors to which it interfaces appear to have been performing perfectly at the time of loss of power".
The inquiry used that, together with other statements in the report, to assist with its determination of the likely final flight path of the aircraft. The inquiry also used the Air Accident Investigation Board's technical reports and the Boeing flight path simulation, supported by the findings of a second flight path simulation carried out by the Defence Research Agency. From that mass of data the board of inquiry was able to derive an accurate picture of the Chinook's flight path.
Some have suggested that because there were restrictions on the MK2 Chinook relating to icing conditions the pilots had little freedom of manoeuvre. That was not so. Although the icing restriction would have been relevant for that part of the flight which took them over the Scottish Highlands, there was nothing that would have prevented the aircraft from climbing to a comfortable safety height over the Mull itself. The weather report known as the aftercast showed that at the time of the accident the MK2 Chinook icing limit occurred at a height of 5,000 feet above sea level.
Another theory in circulation has had it that the Chinook MK2 was rushed into service and that some technical fault might have caused the crash, or at least distracted the pilots from their safe operation of the aircraft. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. The aircraft conversion programme began in 1992 and the first aircraft was delivered to Boscombe Down in April 1993; the resulting Chinook MK2 release to service was signed on 22nd November 1993. At the time of the accident in the following June 1994 the aircraft was properly cleared for routine squadron flying and the transport task on the evening in question was well within its capabilities.
There have been reports that the aircraft had been grounded by test pilots at the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation at Boscombe Down. Those reports should be seen in the context of the role of the

561
Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation. Test pilots fly an aircraft in order to extend its cleared envelope, beyond that which has already been cleared for use by Royal Air Force aircrew for routine squadron flying. Such testing to extend the cleared envelope stopped in April 1994 for a short period to allow a review of trials safety precautions. No change to procedures was needed. That is regarded as normal practice in trials planning. Test flying was stopped again in early June 1994 when specific information was requested from the aircraft and engine manufacturers on the engine control system. The trial then being planned was the icing trial for which partial blockage of the engine air inlet would be used to simulate the formation of ice. In such a situation a full understanding of any possible control malfunctions was vital. Once the information was received, trials continued with no changes to the aircraft and no additional operating limitations.
These suspensions of trials to extend the cleared flight envelope had no bearing whatsoever on the use of the aircraft by the Royal Air Force, which continued to operate it within the already cleared flight envelope. The transport task undertaken by Chinook ZD576 on the evening in question was well within its capabilities.
It has also been said that the pilots did not have a complete handbook for the aircraft. Again, that is not the case. In order that aircrew shall have the most up-to-date information it is normal practice to issue loose-leaf amendments, as they arise. All the limitations, including any amendments, were part of the release to service document, which was available to all aircrew. Both pilots were fully briefed and had signed as having read and understood the latest amendments to the release to service document. All the evidence is that ZD576 was fully serviceable when it crashed.
I turn now to the subject of the fatal accident inquiry. I must stress that this and the Royal Air Force board of inquiry were carried out for entirely different purposes. The Royal Air Force board of inquiry was carried out to ascertain the cause of the accident and identify what action was necessary to minimise the possibility of recurrence. The fatal accident inquiry, on the other hand, which took place some nine months after the findings of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry had been published, was convened to determine the cause of death, a much more restrictive term of reference. It is an essential part of the board of inquiry process that, where any human failings have been identified, they are clearly stated so that any necessary lessons can be passed on to personnel throughout the RAF. In the case of the fatal accident inquiry, the sheriff was not under such a remit and that he did not feel able to reach a verdict should not detract from the fact that a very thorough RAF investigation, carried out by experts with first-hand experience of flying Chinooks, concluded that the pilots were responsible.
The RAF inquiry has looked with scrupulous thoroughness at all the possible causes of this sad accident. The conclusion, from all the evidence, is that
562
the aircraft was flown at high speed, well below safety altitude in cloud, in instrument meteorological conditions, in direct contravention of the rules for flight under either visual flight rules or instrument flight rules. Various factors and scenarios have been postulated, including whether the pilots were distracted or disorientated, in attempts to explain why the crew might have failed to make a safe transition to instrument flight rules. The inquiry concluded that none of those hypotheses was so compelling that it would have been likely to prevent an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight. As the commander in chief himself commented, why the crew elected to ignore the safe options open to them and pursue the one imposing the ultimate danger, we shall never know.
In conclusion, I can only add once again my sympathy to all those who lost family or friends in the tragic crash of ZD576. I recognise very clearly the particular anguish felt by the families of the dead pilots but I am confident that the House will accept that the Royal Air Force has approached this case with honesty, frankness and great experience. It has provided and tested the facts as we know them, however unpalatable they sadly may be.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may claim the indulgence of the House to do one thing which might otherwise go by default. It is to congratulate the Minister on his maiden speech. It is rare that a maiden speech is made from the Front Bench in reply to an Unstarred Question and it would be sad if we allowed such a distinguished performance to go by without comment.
I cannot pretend that everything the Minister said has satisfied me nor that it will satisfy others concerned. I might also in passing remark with a sense of wonder on the total identity of view between the two Front Benches. I wonder whether it will continue for long.
I conclude by saying that I thought it was a remarkable performance which demonstrates the noble Lord's ability not only to master a complicated brief at enormous speed, but also the depth of his background knowledge of defence matters. I welcome his speech, I congratulate him on it and hope that we shall hear many similar performances from him.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, by leave of the House—if that is the correct formula—I am grateful to the noble Lord, an old friend of mine, for saying that. I am happy at the coincidence of view between the two Front Benches on this sad matter, not because it relieves the Government of some potential embarrassment but because it has always been my view that defence questions in this country should be treated on a far less partisan basis than they often are in other places.
House adjourned for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess at twenty-four minutes past three o'clock.