Lords Sitting of 11 November 1997

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

Lord Jacobs
Sir David Anthony Jacobs, Knight, having been created Baron Jacobs, of Belgravia in the City of Westminster, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Wigoder and the Lord Steel of Aikwood.
Lord Naseby
The Right Honourable Michael Wolfgang Laurence Morris, having been created Baron Naseby, of Sandy in the County of Bedfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Pym and the Lord Weatherill.

Lord Newton of Braintree
The Right Honourable Antony Harold Newton, OBE, having been created Baron Newton of Braintree, of Coggeshall in the County of Essex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Platt of Writtle and the Lord Dixon-Smith.
The Duke of Northumberland—Took the Oath.

Foreign Language Tuition
2.50 p.m.
Lord Quirkasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take to increase the learning of foreign languages.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, all secondary school pupils in England and Wales are required to learn a modern foreign language. In 1996, 437,000 15 year-olds attempted a GCSE in a modern foreign language. We continue to support language learning through grant-in-aid to the Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. Under the specialist schools initiative 47 secondary schools have been designated language colleges, and more are planned.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order! Order!
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging reply. However, does she share my concern that we still in this country teach only one foreign language to any serious degree or to any great numbers, and that since 1992, despite a general and very much welcomed increase in the stay-on rate for 16 year-olds, the numbers taking foreign languages after 16 has actually declined absolutely during that period? Perhaps I may therefore refer the Minister to three relevant initiatives in the July White Paper (Excellence in Schools, paragraphs 4.14, 7.35, and 6.32). I ask in consequence that the Government ensure that those 47 specialist language schools to which the Minister referred, which are happily well distributed regionally, will share their enthusiasm and expertise with neighbouring schools; that independent schools do likewise for state schools in their area; and that business partners like Rover-BMW do something to urge upon youngsters the importance for their careers of language proficiency, if only for job mobility in the single market?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord made a number of points. Let me begin by saying that while the vast majority of pupils study French in our secondary schools (last year 324,000 children entered for GCSE in French) there were also 130,000 examination entries in German and 40,000 in Spanish. There are 19 languages recognised in the national curriculum, of which eight are EU languages, and there are 11 others, including Arabic, Bengali, Gujurati, Hindi, and so on. There is a broad range. I very much endorse what the noble Lord said about the role of the 47 specialist schools. It is important that they work and collaborate with other schools in their communities, and perhaps support children who may not go to those schools but who discover that they have a particular propensity for modern language learning and want to study languages, and are therefore able to do some of their courses in those specialist schools. On the business sector, it is very much up to employers to decide what skills they want from their employees. I am sure that there will be more employers wanting to take on employees in the single market who are proficient in a European language.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. I should like to ask my noble friend who has talked about the secondary stage what the Government are doing to expand the teaching of modern languages at the primary stage? Is she aware that in France at the ages of seven and eight schoolchildren learn one modern language and that at nine and 10 they can take a second modern language? Are the Government going to try to attain that sort of standard in future?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there has been an increase in the number of primary schools able to teach a foreign language. I think about 20 per cent. of primary school pupils are getting some exposure to modern language teaching at the primary level. It would be desirable were we able to increase that proportion, but we have to take into account the resources needed to do that.

83
There would be considerable resource and organisational implications. We do not currently have enough language teachers, so we would have to start a major language teacher training programme. There is a shortage of language teachers at the secondary stage, which the Government inherited and are trying to address. It is important that we get that right before we embark upon a big expansion in primary schools. I note what my noble friend said about its desirability.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, given that after English Spanish is the second most spoken language in the world and Portuguese is the third, as a first language, will the Minister assure us that sufficient emphasis will be given to those languages in the national curriculum?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, both Spanish and Portuguese are listed as national curriculum languages. It is up to the schools, their governing bodies, and teachers in discussion with parents, to decide which languages they shall teach. There has been a growth in the teaching of Spanish. I do not believe that many pupils at the secondary stage learn Portuguese. However, as I said, it is a matter for the schools to decide which languages they want to promote. There is a long historical tradition of pupils learning French. The French are still our nearest neighbours.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as one who learnt English, as did many others in Wales, as a second language at primary school, perhaps I may reinforce the suggestion that it would probably be a good investment for this country, even at this stage, to ensure that the teachers are available to teach a foreign language at primary school, because it is so much easier for the pupils.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I strongly endorse the fact that learning a foreign language early is a good idea, because young children pick up languages quickly. We have to have continuity between primary and secondary schools, which means that we have to be sure that the language a child has learnt in the primary school is the same as the languages taught in the secondary school to which it goes. Otherwise, we shall find ourselves in the situation where children are being asked to start all over again at the secondary level. That is the kind of considerable organisational problem which would have to be addressed.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the good and balmy days of education in the 1970s, under an enlightened chairman and progressive education authority—namely, Blackburn—we started a primary project of having peripatetic language teachers going around to all our schools? All the schools in that enlightened authority managed to get a reasonable amount of foreign languages taught within the primary sector. Does she contemplate that it will ever be possible to achieve that again?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, let me congratulate my noble friend on the enlightened policies of the local
84
authority with which he was associated. There is a wish to try to develop language schools in primary schools, but it is important to ensure that what we are doing at the secondary stage is adequate. There has been a slight drop in the number of students taking A-level languages over the past couple of years. We need to get that back up. It is a matter of where our priorities lie.

Devolution
2.59 p.m.
Lord Ellenboroughasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any proposals for a referendum to be held on the establishment of a parliament for England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have no plans to establish a separate English parliament or to hold a referendum on the matter.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather predictable reply. Does he recognise that the unity of the UK is imperilled by growing English awareness of and resentment at the discrimination shown by the Government? Why is England alone not offered any form of comparable home government? Why was England not consulted about any other aspects of devolution in other parts of the UK? Why are the Government treating England not so much as a nation but as a group of regions?
Can the Minister say whether, once a Scottish parliament has been established and the Welsh assembly set up, assuming that it ever is, it is the Government's intention that there should be 110 Scots and Welsh MPs voting on English domestic affairs, not just for this Parliament but for the whole of the next Parliament also?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am glad that my Answer was predictable. It may derive from the proposition that I do not believe that at the last election the political platform of any party put before the electorate was that there should be a parliament for England. It bears repetition that this Government are fully committed to the continued integrity of the United Kingdom. We believe firmly and strongly that the devolved—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Assemblies!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who always helps me on these occasions. We believe that the devolved assemblies willcontribute to that continued integrity. England is in no way being disregarded or overlooked.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I share his commitment to the integrity of the United Kingdom? As a Scotsman, I ask a Welshman why the English want a referendum on a parliament for England when they already have one.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as a Welshman replying to a Scotsman, I cannot pretend to understand the unfathomable depths of the English mind.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will the noble Lord—
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps we should take a question from the Cross Benches.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not the English regions rather than England as a whole which stand in need of democratic institutions to control their numerous quangos and so forth?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is a vast amount to be done to control the quangos set up and abused by our predecessors—if I may respectfully suggest it. That is why the Government have indicated their intention in due time to hold referendums on establishing directly elected regional assemblies in England, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, so rightly observes.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, do the Government intend to go ahead with the Welsh Assembly in view of the fact that they received only a 0.6 per cent. yes vote and only half the people voted?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it was not a 0.6 per cent. yes vote; it was 50.3 per cent. I hate to be careful about these things. It was perfectly plain, as was anticipated by many of us, that the Welsh electorate, being calm, unflustered and unhurried, took a mature decision to indicate what was appropriate; namely, a vote yes. I am pleased to think that the Conservative Opposition will be fighting the election so that they may have Conservative members in the new successful Welsh assembly.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister—
Noble Lords: Lord Dean!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, before we contemplate the setting up of another parliament, it would be wise to make sure that our own Parliament in Westminster ceases the process of losing its powers, which it has been doing for many years? Would it not be wise to restore some power to Westminster?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is right that both Houses of Parliament are susceptible to useful reform, and we have that very much in mind.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may help the Minister by reminding him that his own Government have decided that the Scottish body ought to be a parliament and not an assembly. Secondly, if we are to have referendums for various bodies to be set up in the regions of England, can we see the detailed legislation before the referendums and not have weeks passing with no sign of a Bill as is the case in respect of the Scottish and Welsh referendums?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, these referenda, or referendums, as people will keep calling them—wrongly, I believe—must be looked at with great care. I am not sure whether it is the policy of the Conservative Opposition to have a referendum on the Treaty of Amsterdam. They have been a little silent on the matter lately. I take the noble Lord's point and, as always, will be eager to co-operate with him and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, whom I should have welcomed earlier as he will be dealing with constitutional and devolution matters in your Lordships' House. It is a great pleasure to all of us, myself in particular, to be able to welcome him.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords
Lord Carter: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dean has been trying to ask a question for some time. Perhaps we can then move on to the next Question.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I feel it a great privilege to be one of the few Englishmen allowed to ask a question today on an English matter? Is the Minister also aware that I am one of those who look askance at the suggestion of holding a referendum in England on devolution, bearing in mind the shambles in Wales when only 50 per cent. voted, producing an extremely narrow majority after hyperactivity from the minority in Wales who were in favour? If the Government have any intention of holding a referendum in England, will the Minister do his best to dissuade them and persuade them to do away with this very expensive toy?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord looks askance at various things on various occasions. I do not agree with his description of the result in Wales. It was a majority of 50.3 per cent. after a very deeply considered argument and debate which has extended for about 50 years.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords—
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are in the 17th minute and we should move on to the next Question.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, would not
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, would not mind giving way. We are now in the 17th minute of Question Time and it is time to move on to the third Question.

Legislation: Statements of Purpose
3.8 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will instruct government departments and parliamentary counsel, when preparing legislation, to make clear the intention of Parliament by including statements of purpose as recommended by the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation (the Renton Report, Cmnd 6053, 1974-75).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I welcome this Question. I regret only that we cannot do justice to it in the limited time available for Starred Questions. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider seeking an opportunity for fuller debate when the Government have had an opportunity to respond to the proposals of the modernisation committee.
Legislation should be as clear as possible, including a statement of purpose, which may sometimes assist clarity but not always. There are dangers. If the statement has legal effect and covers the same ground as later detailed provisions, there is a risk of real or apparent inconsistency. If the statement is not intended to have legal effect, the courts may give it some effect with unintended results. The Renton Report therefore concluded that purpose clauses should be used only "selectively and with caution" and the Hansard Society's 1992 report concluded that they should,
"not be adopted as a general practice".
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that open-minded and constructive Answer. In using the word "constructive" I do not intend some not-very-funny legal pun. Does the Minister agree—I believe that it follows from what he said—that it is important to ensure that the law is made as accessible as possible to the citizens and the courts, and that one useful way of doing that is by using a purpose clause, as was done, for example, in Section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which is a rare and outstanding example? Will the Minister also agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, in his Wilberforce Lecture last year, when he said:
"Even today, it is very difficult for us to persuade our draftsmen to adopt a more open-textured form of draftsmanship designed to identify the underlying principle"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say, and the Government do not think, that there is never any advantage in purpose clauses. But there have been very few of them and I believe the noble Lord will agree that for every one that does work there are probably several that do not. The risk of confusion from having a separate statement on the same point is great. That is why both the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the Hansard Society argued against it being a general practice.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister recall that a considerable amount of work has been done on proposals to simplify legislation and to
88
make it more readily readable for the ordinary person and not just lawyers? That is an important way forward. Will the Minister agree with me further that the judgment in Pepper v. Hart means that the gloss, so to speak, put on legislation by Ministers at Dispatch Boxes in both Houses can be prayed in aid in order to understand what the Government intended in framing legislation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, of course, the pressure for clearer legislation must and will continue. There is no party political point in that regard. In relation to Pepper v. Hart, I remind the noble Lord that when the House of Lords decided that in November 1992, their Lordships said that courts should look at parliamentary materials when (1) legislation is ambiguous, obscure or leads to an absurdity; (2) the material to be relied on is a statement by a Minister; and (3) the statement is clear. Ministerial statements are not always clear.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that too often the intention of Parliament must be inferred from the mass of detail in statutes, much of it being merely hypothetical? That recommendation referred to in the noble Lord's Question was perhaps the most useful and important recommendation made by our committee. I express the hope that the noble Lord will bear that in mind in order to achieve clarity for the benefit of the users of legislation.
Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I am delighted to have the noble Lord in his place and I pay tribute to his work and determination over the years. I am aware that his committee put forward the view that on occasion legislation should be declaratory rather than detailed, as is the case in many other countries. The noble Lord has put forward that view on a number of occasions since then. However, I do not believe that it has gained general acceptance. Most people think that it is more important for legislation to be precise and for Parliament rather than the courts to have the last word, so to speak. That is the risk of legislation which is purposive rather than detailed.

Ex-Prisoners of War: Payment Claims
3.13 p.m.
Lord Sempill Lord Sempill asked Her Majesty's Government
Why they will not pay to British officers who were prisoners of war between 1939 and 1945 the money which was deducted from their salaries during their captivity.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, as I told my noble friend Lord Mason on 24th July, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, after detailed consideration of this very difficult question, found that the contemporary evidence relating to pay deductions for officer prisoners of war and protected personnel during the Second World War and to the repayments

89
made to them after the war did not support the claims being made for further refunds and he consequently found no basis to re-open the issue. At that time I placed a copy of the full report of the review in the Library of the House.
Lord Sempill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that that most recent review makes no reference to either of two submissions made by Group Captain Ingle on 1 1 th December 1995 and 31st March 1996, submissions whose evidence were key to that review being reopened? Further, does not the Minister consider it improper that following the previous government's decision to review that new evidence, not one meeting between representatives of Justice for Prisoners of War and the newly appointed Ministry has taken place?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am quite sure that my honourable friend took account of all the representations that were made and to which the noble Lord refers. It is only fair to point out that there is not unanimity on these matters, even among former prisoners of war. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has very kindly allowed me to use his name to pray in aid precisely that thought. He wrote to The Times on 9th August, saying:
"Brigadier Davies-Scourfield's letter … suggesting that many ex-PoWs are embarrassed by attempts to squeeze money out of the Government, reflects the broad and informal consensus of those of us at Colditz, as expressed at a recent annual meeting of our association".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that according to Goering's evidence at Nuremberg, if Germany had won the war the Geneva Convention would have been denounced and our lot would have been slave labour or extermination? In those circumstances, is not our salvation sufficient recompense for a basketful of Lagermarks?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, while I would not always choose to follow the noble Lord in the precise language he uses, I am grateful to him for the sentiments he has expressed.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, does not the noble Lord feel rather saddened and, indeed, ashamed that he has to come in front of us on this day of all days—Armistice Day—and tell us that he cannot give justice to 8,000 surviving British officer prisoners of war? Is he further aware that the case will probably arrive on the desk of the European Court of Human Rights? Is he further aware that those honourable gentlemen, with their backs to the wall and believing in the justice of their cause, will fight to the end? Can the Minister not cut the Gordian knot?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, all I can say to your Lordships is that this very sad question has been considered at great length by governments of both colours in the past. It is not the case that all prisoners of war did not receive refunds. In fact, quite a lot of them did. As your Lordships will be aware, under practices in place at the time all individual records were
90
destroyed some six years after the war and it is now quite impossible to job back and treat individual cases. If you do not treat individual cases, you are bound to get jealousies and people saying that others have been treated over-generously.
Lord Burnham: My Lords—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before my noble friend intervenes, perhaps I may doso because I am rather close0r to this issue than he is. As one of those who enjoyed or endured a rather long spell of German hospitality, perhaps I may take the opportunity to tell the Minister that I believe it is far too late to job backwards. We are really arguing about trifles. This matter should enjoy a very low place in the Government's list of priorities, if any at all.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's statement, which I believe to be generally accepted, that it is virtually impossible to distinguish to whom individual payments should be made, although the Germans themselves may be able to do so, is it not possible and desirable for an appreciated sum of money to be handed to charities such as SSAFA or the British Legion for use for deserving ex-prisoners of war or other people?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am happy to bring the noble Lord's suggestion to the attention of my honourable friend.

Plant Varieties Bill
3.20 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Carter.)
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords,I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his courtesy during the passing of the Bill and, in particular, for the work which he did between Second Reading and the Committee stage in hearing representations from my noble friends and also from organisations outwith this House. As a result of that process, I believe that amendments have been made to the Bill which mean that it has been greatly improved. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his work on Second Reading; and, indeed, my noble friends sitting behind me for their assistance. I have in mind my noble friends Lady Trumpington, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Howe.
I should like to thank those organisations which have submitted evidence throughout the proceedings on the Bill—for example, the NFU and BARB—all of which

91
have been most helpful during the course of our discussions. We have consistently supported the objective of the Bill; namely, to implement the 1991 revisions to the UPOV convention. We welcome its passage through the House.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I made no secret of the fact on Second Reading that I thought that the Bill was actually a part of a whole series of moves towards privatisation of intellectual property and the increasing patenting of things of a nature which should not be patented, but that it was really rather too late to do anything very much about it. However, as we have this rather unfortunate Bill and such an unfortunate situation, I should like to pay tribute to the way the Government have dealt with it; the way they have amended it; and the way they have speedily passed it through this House. It means that we shall not have to spend too much more time on the matter.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for their kind words. I believe that the noble Baroness has already thanked all those that I intended to thank, so she has saved me that task. We are pleased with the Bill's progress. It is a highly technical Bill and I should like especially to thank the noble Baroness for her most helpful and constructive assistance. I speak from my own experience when I say that this is not the easiest piece of legislation to read and understand. The noble Baroness came into the proceedings, which were new to her, in Committee. I am extremely grateful to her for the valuable contribution she has made.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.22 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons be now considered.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (12) as first printed by the Lords]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
DISABLED PERSONS: EXEMPTION
(".—(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5(l)(aba) of the 1968 Act for a person to whom subsection (2) applies to have in his possession or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a pistol chambered for 22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges if he is authorised under the Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon subject to a condition which complies with subsection (3) below.
92
(2) A person to whom this section applies shall be a registered disabled person who has a physical disability and is approved by the Secretary of State.
(3) A certificate granted under subsection (2) above shall be subject to the condition that—

(a) the weapon is stored and used only at premises designated by the Secretary of State; and

(b) possession of the weapon outside such designated premises shall be permitted only for transfer to and use at premises at which a shooting competition is taking place on such conditions as the Secretary of State shall specify.")

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
1A Because they do not consider it appropriate for the Bill to provide for any special exemptions to apply to the prohibition of small-calibre pistols.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
Lord Stoddart of Swindon 1B Lord Stoddart of Swindon rose to move, That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled the Motion to enable your Lordships to have a further debate on the issue of disabled pistol shooters following the rejection by the other place of our amendment passed on Report, and to enable this House, if it so wishes, to insist upon its amendment.
I should like to emphasise, once again, that the amendment does not undermine the central principle of the Bill. It will in no way lessen public safety. The amendment will enable disabled pistol shooters to continue with a sport which is therapeutic and will enable them to continue to compete in the sport, including major international competitions.
The debate in the other place on your Lordships' amendment was spirited, sensible and cross-party, although I am bound to say that the weight of vocal opinion was heavily in favour of our amendment. Both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokesmen on home affairs supported the amendment. I also have to point out that the balance of argument was, in my view, heavily in favour of our amendment. Moreover, believe that, if all those who voted had listened to the debate, the outcome of the Division might have been different.
The arguments in favour of the amendment have been well rehearsed in both Houses, so I shall not repeat them in detail. However, in summary, they are as follows. Disabled people derive not only pleasure but also therapeutic value from target pistol shooting. They cannot possibly be considered a risk to public safety. That point was conceded by the Minister in reply to a Question tabled by Mr. Robin Corbett, when he said: "I did not suggest that disabled shooters were a threat to public safety." Therefore, we have it on the Minister's authority that disabled people constitute no threat. However, disabled people will be denied the opportunity to compete in paraplegic games and ordinary competitions where they can compete on equal terms. Pistol shooting is most appropriate for disabled people because they cannot handle shotguns and rifles. Finally, pistols would not be held at home but at safe, secure locations. Those were all the arguments that we

93
considered on Report and which were found to be acceptable; indeed, your Lordships supported the amendment.
It is doubly galling for disabled people that provision is to be made at Manchester for pistol shooters from abroad to train and compete, whereas British competitors will be debarred. The Government have suggested that it is difficult to justify isolating one group such as disabled shooters. However, as the right honourable gentleman Mr. Alan Beith pointed out in another place, there are particular reasons for special treatment of disabled shooters because they cannot easily transfer to another sport.
Another relevant point made in the other place by my honourable friend Frank Cook was that public opinion has swung considerably since we started debating the issue of firearms. The latest public opinion poll shows 56 per cent. support for disabled pistol shooters being exempted from the ban on handguns. Indeed, my own experience confirms that result. I took part in a BBC 2 television "Close Up West" programme and later in a radio phone-in which revealed heavy support for this amendment.
Before I put the Motion to the House and, indeed, the next one on the Marshalled List, I should point out that I pondered long and hard on the matter but finally came to the conclusion that I owed it to the disabled shooters and to British international sportsmen to leave no stone unturned in my efforts to assist them. Some people say that we should not challenge a decision of the House of Commons, but I believe that we should. We should not run away from our responsibilities. I hope that we shall not do so this afternoon. Perhaps I may explain why.
First, there is a free vote on the issue. It is a free vote as was pointed out by the Opposition Front Bench on Report. Indeed, this free vote was included in the Labour Party manifesto. Therefore, if you like, it has the authority of the people. I repeat: it is a free vote, and we should keep that fact very much in mind. Secondly, under the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts, this House is entitled to insist upon its amendments. That is the law, that is the constitution. In any meaningful, bicameral system, both Chambers have rights and duties which they should exercise and discharge without fear or favour.
Neither Chamber should be subjected to threats of retaliation, nor should such threats be given in to if they are made. However flawed the present composition of the House of Lords may be thought to be, the House of Lords is the only second Chamber we have. There is no other. It is this Chamber which can make the bicameral system work. If it does not make it work, this is not a proper bicameral system. This House is therefore duty bound to ensure that the bicameral system works, especially when the interests of ordinary people, and especially those of disadvantaged people, are not properly considered and rights long enjoyed are trampled underfoot. I hope that that is what this House is about.
If noble Lords are not prepared to insist on legal and constitutionally proper amendments on appropriate occasions, the House of Lords ceases to be a second
94
Chamber of Parliament and relegates itself to a mere consultative council. For the reasons I have stated, I believe that this amendment should be insisted upon and I hope I shall have the support of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Stoddart of Swindon.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I will, if I may, in no spirit of discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, speak only once on the two amendments that he has put before us. I do not propose to discuss the merits of either of these issues because that was done during the Report stage of this Bill in this House only a few days ago. The issue before us today is a simple one; namely, whether we are prepared, as a non-elected House, to reject the views of the elected House on an issue which clearly appeared in the Labour Party's general election manifesto. The view of the House of Commons on this question is absolutely clear; the Lords' amendments were rejected on a free vote by majorities of 132 and 136. In my view it would be entirely wrong for this House to give any support to the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The House should be absolutely clear that the effect of either of these amendments being carried will be to kill this Bill. Are we seriously contemplating killing a Bill of this sort—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I hope I may continue the argument. Are we seriously contemplating killing a Bill of this sort which appeared in the election manifesto of the present Government? In my view that would be wholly wrong in principle. My noble friends and I, and indeed my colleagues in the House of Commons, on free votes, voted in different Lobbies. I think that in all the circumstances that was entirely right. However, it is the clear view of my colleagues today that it would be wrong for this House under any circumstances whatever to support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in the Lobby. Accordingly, we shall vote against these amendments if they are pressed.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, it is hard to think of any ground less well suited to potential confrontation between the two Houses than a Bill which prohibits the private possession and use of handguns and does so in the interests of public safety. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I wish to address my remarks to both the amendments and to speak only once as a result because they raise the same fundamental issue which the House must decide this afternoon.
The starting point is that all handguns, irrespective of their calibre and irrespective of their ownership, are highly dangerous instruments. They are portable; they are lethal; they are easily concealed. Moreover, they can be stolen, and they are stolen. On the statistics available to the Home Office for the most recent 12 month period, nearly 400 recorded incidents of theft of legally held

95
handguns were reported to the police. That is almost certainly an underestimate because we know that by no means all criminal acts come to the notice of the police. On those figures alone, in more than one incident per day, sometimes involving more than one weapon, handguns were transferred from legal to illegal possession.
A further point that I suggest we should keep in our minds is a fundamental one; namely, that it is a fallacy to believe that certification procedures—certificates issued after inquiries often made by the police—render it possible to exclude those people who are not fit to have access to firearms or to ammunition. One of the most telling of all Lord Cullen's findings in his report on the Dunblane shooting was that,
"no certain means of ruling out the onset of a mental illness that gives rise to danger, nor of identifying those whose personalities harbour dangerous propensities"
has been found. He continued,
"On this ground alone it is insufficient protection for the public" —
mark those words—
"merely to tackle the individual rather than the gun".
I greatly regret that on an issue of this sort, with unwhipped votes, Divisions in both Houses have been conducted largely on party lines. As one of the few on this side of the House who voted against the exemption for competition pistols at Report stage on 16th October, I urge the House now to accept the Commons' reasons for disagreeing both with that decision and the amendment which is now before us concerning the disabled
I hope I may add a further comment on a personal note. The only reason I abstained in the vote at Report stage on the exemption for the disabled was the moving speech by Lord Crawshaw. We had had a long, almost a lifetime's friendship dating from the time of the accident—when we were both undergraduates—which led to his lifelong disability. It is tragic that Lord Crawshaw died over this past weekend and therefore we shall not hear his modest, persuasive and entirely honest voice in this debate today.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I wish to take up that final point and pay my tribute to Lord Crawshaw and to the contribution he so movingly made during our considerations of the Bill. Like the two previous speakers, I intend to speak once. As I have other Committee duties I must attend to later, I trust that I shall be excused if the discussion on these amendments lasts longer than I anticipate.
The first amendment we are discussing was one that I was privileged to move when it was accepted by this House. I make no complaint at all about my noble fiend Lord Stoddart taking it over, as it were, because once an amendment is accepted it becomes the property of the House. In considering the decision of the House to overturn the Lords' amendments, we must acknowledge the full debate which took place on our amendments in another place, which lasted for more than three hours. There can be no complaint about the attention which the Commons gave to the Lords amendments.
96
Regretfully, I have found the Government's arguments totally misplaced and unconvincing. They have not moved one iota since taking a decision on coming into office to impose a blanket ban on all gun shops. However, that is not a consideration before us today. The merits of the amendment passed by your Lordships' House remain unassailable. I shall shortly comment on two aspects, although I think that it would be totally wrong to go over all the ground again.
We have provided the Commons with the opportunity to consider our thoughts and our amendments and to think again. It has done so. I do not believe that it would now be right constitutionally or in terms of practicality to challenge the Commons further. I would not seek to divide the House today. Apart from the constitutional position—it was well stated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—there is another practical consideration which I commend as a politician, if I may say so, to my noble friend Lord Stoddart. My noble friend asks us to vote again today and to take the serious risk of defeating two amendments which we have previously carried. I cannot believe that that would advance the cause which he and I have in mind. I prefer that our previous victories stand alone so that they can be referred to in due course. As I believe we must, we can ask the Government to come back to these matters, for example, as we approach the Commonwealth Games in Manchester, when undoubtedly there will be matters for further consideration.
I agree, too, that although the Government have not moved, public opinion has moved. I endorse totally the figures given by my noble friend Lord Stoddart that in a Mori poll held in the past three or four weeks 56 per cent. are shown to believe that shooters for the disabled should be exempt from this ban. Sixty-one per cent. thought that supervised training sessions with 22 calibre pistols should be allowed to qualify Britons to take part in the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games. That proves that at the end of the day common sense and logic eventually surmount blanket emotionalism, however much that emotionalism can be understood. We have seen recently other examples of that. It is my regret that such common sense and logic have not yet overtaken the Government, to the detriment of disabled shooting clubs and considering the severe damage that will be done to our Commonwealth Games and Olympic Games prospects.
I have a few comments on issues arising from what the Minister said in another place in resisting the amendments. There have been exemptions. It is wrong to say that there will be no exemptions granted; that this is blanket legislation. Exemptions were granted for the 14th European Pistol Championships. As we know, they are proposed for the Commonwealth Games in Manchester.
It is not the case that exemptions have not been granted. We would all agree that our police force has to have pistols, as do the Armed Forces and similar security organisations. Exemptions are properly guaranteed for them. We are told by Ministers that the weapons would have to be stored in one place and would become a difficult security risk. That is true whether they are stored in police stations or at security

97
headquarters. The same arguments could apply as regards the disabled and the Commonwealth Games and Olympic centres of excellence. The same secure arrangements could be made as are made in the other places mentioned.
Finally, since the Government give exemptions for gun events to take place at the Commonwealth Games and Olympic Games, those events will not be prejudiced. We have argued that before. I shall not go over the ground again except to say that I am sorry the Government do not accept the wisdom of the British Olympic Association and people such as myself. We know perfectly well that if we put our gun shooters in this position it will be to the detriment of any future attempt to hold the Olympic Games in this country. Those arguments still stand. Nevertheless, despite my firm belief that the arguments remain unassailable, there are new considerations today. I think that the wisdom of this House would be best met by accepting the decisions of the Commons on these two amendments.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the Bill is put forward in the interests of public safety. Having listened to most moving addresses at an earlier stage—and again today—by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, your Lordships made an exception. It is not claimed that that exception derogates from the purpose of the Bill; namely, public safety. That was expressly disclaimed by the Minister in another place.
It is said that these weapons might be stolen. Presumably the Minister took that into account. In any case, the amendment makes provision for safe custody of the weapons of these unfortunates in whose interests your Lordships passed the amendments.
I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that there is no constitutional reason why your Lordships should not insist on the amendment which commended itself to your Lordships understandably at the earlier stage. It is said that the Commons is the elected Chamber. So it is, but election is not the sole source of political legitimacy. In any case, the Commons was not elected in order to deprive a disabled person of the only sport in which he can compete with his hale fellows.
It is said that if your Lordships insist, the Bill will be lost. That is not so. There is an alternative: that since it is a government Bill the other place in the interests of saving the Bill does not go on insisting against your Lordships' view. That happened once before. Your Lordships may remember the Further and Higher Education Act. It was notable because the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, then the Leader of the House, took charge of it in your Lordships' House and gave a most notable parliamentary performance. It was only at the very last stage, by an amendment at Third Reading, that your Lordships managed finally to carry the amendment which vindicated academic freedom. The Government were then faced with a choice. They resisted up to the last moment and went on resisting in the Division Lobby. But rather than lose the Bill, rightly, they
98
accepted your Lordships' view. That could well happen and, in my respectful submission, should happen on this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords. with respect to the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, I do not believe that it is conceivable in these circumstances that the Government will think again or accept our amendments in order to save the Bill. It is simply not conceivable. The doing away with all handguns was a Labour manifesto commitment. It was subject to a free vote, which was taken.
To what purpose do we insist? Having supported the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on amendments throughout the Bill's passage, I am in a very different position to that of my noble friend Lord Windlesham. However, come to the same conclusion, for the reasons given by other noble Lords. There is no point in confrontation on this matter.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in relation to the bicameral system: it is our duty to make it work. To support this amendment, and to insist, as the noble Lord suggests, is to throw a proverbial spanner into the works.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and myself have been on the same side on many issues during my time in this House. There are issues that torture politicians. Two that have tortured me during 27 years in both Houses of Parliament have been war—that in the Falklands, followed by the Gulf War—and the firearms Bill with its origin in the massacre at Dunblane. I have kept my counsel on the firearms Bill. I came to the firm conclusion early on that nothing I could say would bring comfort to the parents of the children who were butchered in that massacre. I have always acted on the principle that if you cannot say anything to help, for God's sake do not say anything to hinder.
I have deliberately abstained on every vote taken on the firearms legislation. For 12 years I was Thomas Hamilton's Member of Parliament. Stirling was part of my parliamentary constituency before the boundary commission changed the boundaries in 1983. Every Saturday morning when I held a surgery in Stirling, the first person to turn up was Thomas Hamilton. So no one knows, understands or tries to understand Thomas Hamilton more than I do. It is against that background that I address the House today and crave your Lordships' indulgence for the few thoughts that I want to share.
I remember Thomas Hamilton in 1971 as a youth and community worker in Dunblane, which was not part of Central Region at that time but part of Perthshire. It had its own town council. A horrendous argument broke out in the town, one half of the community wanting to be rid of Thomas Hamilton and the other half wanting to retain his services. The half that wanted to retain Hamilton's services won the argument. That was the origin of the whole problem that we are discussing

99
today. Sir Alec Douglas-Home, a late revered Member of this House, was then the Member of Parliament representing Dunblane. Hamilton came to see me, complaining about his perceived problems there. I sent him to see Sir Alec, who explained to him that he did not become involved in disputes between two factions in a community for the simple reason that one could not win. I learnt a great lesson from that experience.
As time went on, Dunblane was brought into Central Region. Central Region took the decision not to allow Hamilton to use its schools. He appealed to the ombudsman, who ruled in his favour. Central Region had no alternative but to give Hamilton the use of schools in Dunblane for his youth clubs.
My reason for explaining all this is that in my humble opinion, honestly and sincerely expressed—I am in a minority of one—the Dunblane situation has been completely misread. Hamilton's perceived problems were all based in Dunblane. They were not firearms problems at all. They were perceived as related to the town; everything that happened to Hamilton had the Dunblane background to it.
On that tragic morning in March, 20 months ago, Hamilton could have got out of bed, left his house in Stirling, walked two minutes round the corner and seen one of the largest primary schools in Central Region. He could have butchered 600 or 700 children. He did not. He got into his car and drove seven miles to Dunblane. If those children had been standing at a bus stop that morning, he would have mown them down in his car. What should we have done then? Banned all cars? Of course we should not.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Just sit down!
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, wish that the former Lord Chancellor would control his emotions.I am just as entitled to express my views in this House as he is. I have kept my counsel on this issue for 20 months now. I deeply resent the interventions from a seated position of a legal luminary who should know much better than to interrupt in that way. I knew this man well; I knew many of the parents of those children well. It ill becomes the noble and learned Lord to interrupt in such an ill-mannered way. I am emotionally involved in this issue.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: So I see.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, what position does that bring me to in the debate? I am naturally tempted to support my noble friend Lord Stoddart. However. I have seen all the publicity; I have listened to the parents; I have watched the agony through which those parents, grandparents and all the relatives have gone. I have come to the firm conclusion that, despite my own deeply held personal views, it would be a major mistake if this House were to divide on the proposition put by my noble friend. Despite what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, I do not believe that we should run the risk of losing the Bill.
100
The people of Dunblane and the gun clubs in Callander and around Dunblane believe that the Bill is the answer to the Dunblane massacre. I am not sure about that. I recall the comment of Benjamin Jowett that Parliament by legislation cannot make men moral. I am not sure that legislation makes men moral. I am sure that it would be an unmitigated mistake if the House were to divide today, the Government were to be defeated and the Bill lost. My initial reaction was to abstain. As is my wont, I have changed my mind. I appeal to my noble friend not to divide the House; but, if there is a Division, I shall support the Government.
4 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords,I intend to be brief and, like other noble Lords, I shall speak to both amendments together.
I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was commendable and I find myself in considerable agreement with much, if not all, of it. It is one that will bear close study and I recommend that noble Lords should read it in Hansard tomorrow.
I believe the noble Lord was right to refer to the balance of argument in another place, where even one of those who spoke against the amendments described himself as being in a very small minority. Most of the argument in another place, from both sides of the House, was in favour of the amendments.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that it would kill the Bill if this House were to agree to the amendments. That would obviously not be the case: it would give the other place a chance to think again. There is any amount of time between now and the end of the Session.
Nevertheless, I do not think that this is an occasion on which this House should press its views on another place. There was a debate in another place. Despite what I feel about the balance of argument, there was a free vote and it was decided by fairly large majorities—quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—not to agree with this House. I do not believe it would serve any purpose for us to ask the other place to consider these matters yet again, even though we are still not satisfied with the arguments that have been put before us. I shall recommend to those on these Benches that we should not support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, should he press the amendments to a Division.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I believe it is time that a contrary view was heard. Perhaps I may try to answer some of the critics of this Motion, which I fully support.
To the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, may I point out that the second amendment covers only 300 to 400 highly talented sportsmen and sportswomen who would have to go through the most rigorous selection procedure before they were allowed to handle pistols. I therefore do not believe that Lord Cullen's cautionary words apply to them.
May I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that, excluding Ministers, 83 per cent. of honourable Members knowledgeable and interested

101
enough to speak in the debate in another place supported your Lordships' amendments. They included Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat honourable Members. It can safely be assumed that many of those who voted against the amendments had heard scarcely a word of the arguments.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, it is not the case that the Government propose to ban all 22 pistols. There are already many exemptions, so the amendments do not introduce a new principle into the argument.
I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that people should not be deprived of freedoms which they have enjoyed for 150 years or more unless there are solid, practical reasons—as opposed to emotional reasons—for doing so. Bearing in mind the cast-iron safeguards incorporated into the amendments, I submit that there is no solid, practical case for a ban where these two limited and deserving categories are concerned. I therefore fully support the Motion.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I am grateful for having had the opportunity to listen to some balanced speeches in your Lordships' House. On 16th October this year the late Lord Crawshaw, who has already been mentioned, spoke of his ability to use a shotgun or a rifle. He said that there was a problem in doing so when wheelchair bound; it was all a question of balance. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was somewhat dismissive and almost derisory when he said that even Lord Crawshaw admitted that he could use a rifle and a shotgun. He failed to tell the House that Lord Crawshaw had said that there was an imbalance to the extent that the rifle or shotgun nosedived. That is very uncomfortable and awkward for someone in a wheelchair. It is a dangerous situation which is not experienced with a pistol. With a pistol, the wheelchair-bound and the able-bodied can compete on equal terms, which is not the case with a rifle or a shotgun.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on being an honest man. At Third Reading he said that, if the other place refused to accept our amendments, he would present them once again to this House. I fear that there are certain people in a senior position in the other place who are not as honest as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who sits on the Labour Benches.
Noble Lords may recall that another sport has been in the newspapers recently: Formula One racing. That sport is associated with smoking cigarettes. As far as the Government are concerned, cigarette advertising is legally acceptable, in the best interests of the public. I wonder how many Formula One racing drivers there are-10, 50? No, there are four in this country. I wonder how many people die from smoking cigarettes each year? According to the Department of Health 121,000 people died in 1995-1996. I admire the Government for sticking up for the minority. but what about the 5,000 disabled pistol-shooters who, as we have heard before, have won many medals? We should bear in mind that cigarettes kill: disabled people do not.
102
The Labour Party Manifesto promised a free vote on the Bill. In common decency, and in the light of our belief that we represent a civilised society which cares for minorities and their feelings, let us not give the disabled the opportunity to name Westminster not the Houses of Parliament but the Houses of hypocrisy. I support the Motion.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I wonder whether this Chamber has seen a more abject group of hypocrites than the two Front Benches of your Lordships' House for many a year? It is well known, as was said by the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Howell, that the pistol shooters of this country are responsible people. That is why those noble Lords tabled the amendments they did at an earlier stage of the passage of this Bill in your Lordships' House. Those shooters are responsible people, taking part in a responsible sport, to which they address themselves responsibly and, I might add, represent this country. How is it therefore that suddenly they are billed as the villains of the piece?
In the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House and another place how much have we heard about the illegal firearms that are in the possession of people in this country? The most conservative figure that I have come up with, presented to me by the Superintendents' Association, is that there are 2.5 million illegally owned firearms in this country, of which 600,000 are automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Why therefore do the present Government and the past government spend their time chasing responsible, sensible people who use pistols—no doubt in due time they will chase responsible people who use rifles and shotguns—while accepting that they can do nothing to stem the tide of illegal firearms and automatic weapons? Can the Minister say how many people were killed in London in the past six months by the use of legally owned firearms and how many by the use of illegally owned firearms? Your Lordships will find his answer a very convincing reply.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I shall be brief. I want to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The Government are trying to work a colossal con-trick with this Bill. They are trying to make out that they are improving public safety, but they are doing nothing of the kind, as the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, pointed out.
The Bill is an insult to the integrity of legitimate shooters; it is an insult to the intelligence of Parliament and of the British press; it is an insult to the intelligence of the British people. The Government are deluding themselves, Parliament and the British people that they are improving public safety. They are not. Legitimate shooters pose no threat. They indulge themselves in a harmless recreation of punching holes in paper targets. But there is a vast, unknown number of weapons held illegally by the criminal classes. If the Government really want to improve public safety, they should go after them and not penalise legitimate shooters.
We heard only yesterday about a murder committed in north London, no doubt by an illegally held pistol. That will continue, so the sooner this abominable Bill is repealed, along with its equally abominable predecessor, the better.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, of course I support the amendments moved so lucidly by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I should like to press the Government on one point that they made at the last stage of our debate on this unfortunate Bill. They said that their legislation for the disabled is designed only to allow the disabled to draw level with those of us who are fortunate enough not to be disabled. That is one of the reasons they gave for not allowing this amendment when we last debated it.
I feel that that philosophy is at the least a little shaky. However much we wish it were otherwise, and however much we legislate to make it otherwise, the disabled can never enjoy all the activities which we take for granted. The new, caring Labour Government therefore are guilty of a degree of hypocrisy in not allowing your Lordships' amendments to stand when instead they remove from the disabled one of the few activities which allows them to compete equally with the rest of us and in fact "draw level with us" in the broadest sense of that expression.
Nor can the amendment be called a wrecking amendment. Both this Bill and its predecessor from the previous government were supposed to be about improving public safety. But as other noble Lords have said, we have it on the word of the Minister himself in the other place—I quote again because it is important—
"I did not suggest that disabled shooters were a threat to public safety".
All the Government have to do to meet the spirit of their Bill and their commitment to disabled people generally is to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the approach of my noble friend Lord Stoddart to this matter is that of the purist. He did not like the previous Bill introduced by the previous government and he does not like this one. I have acknowledged that I recognise his stance.
The fact is that we are dealing now with two amendments and not, as some speeches seemed to indicate this afternoon, with the principle of either Bill. When this Bill came to this House in June from another place, we were all well aware of the enormous strength of feeling for a complete ban on handguns. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, pointed out only this afternoon, as did other noble Lords, on a free vote held on 11th June in another place there was a majority of 203 votes in favour of such a ban. Both the amendments today are utterly at odds with the strength of views of the other place. I shall be obliged to speak twice, but some of the remarks I make on this first amendment may be relevant to both.
I venture to suggest that this is a matter of serious constitutional importance. The Government have never intended deliberately to disadvantage disabled shooters by this Bill. Our intention is that of consistency. I am told that there are around 374,000 registered disabled people, all of whom under this amendment would be eligible to apply for a firearms certificate. It is impossible to say how many would wish so to apply, but our position is plain—as plain as the position adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
104
Our position is that we do not wish to see exemptions for any groups of target shooters. Those who have previously legally used target pistols must change to other firearms if they wish to continue to practise the sport. I appreciate that there are differences between the different disciplines. I pay tribute to the contribution made by Lord Crawshaw on another occasion, and I indignantly repudiate that I treated him with any disrespect; quite the opposite. I am happy to say, as I did then, that his contribution was moving and informed. Nevertheless, it did not persuade my mind.
As I have said on earlier occasions, I appreciate that some disabled shooters may have difficulty in switching to long barrel firearms; not everyone will enjoy shooting with air pistols or muzzle loading pistols. I do not accept that any therapeutic value that handguns may bring to some disabled shooters, or the sense of well-being, which I recognise, that success in international target pistol shooting competitions may bring to both disabled and able bodied competitors, can outweigh the enormous benefits of removing handguns from our society. We believe that the benefits of this ban to public safety cannot be overestimated. The lessons from Dunblane and Hungerford must never be forgotten.
There are some exemptions in the 1997 Act to allow handguns to continue to be held. They are all for professional, humane or other narrowly defined purposes. Not one is for target pistol shooting.
Of course the Government will keep under review this Bill, should it become law, as well as the earlier Act which our predecessor government introduced, and indeed firearms legislation in general. It is the Government's duty to ensure that all new and existing controls are necessary. If they are not, we shall need to bring back to this House in due course further legislative proposals for change.
As far as concerns this amendment, I believe that the right step for this House is not to insist upon it. When the House divided on the amendment at the Report stage, there was a majority of only 19 votes in favour of its addition to the Bill. This amendment was rejected by another place last week by 136 votes, on, I respectfully remind your Lordships, a free vote. It is a very clear message from the elected Members of the other place on this issue. Given that strength of view, and expressing as I do the regard I have for this place, though I have been here for fewer years than many of your Lordships, I respectfully suggest that this unelected House might now agree with the elected Members of that other place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I fear that I must take a few minutes to reply to the debate. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in it, on whichever side of the argument they may have been. It has been a good debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked whether we are prepared to set aside the view of the Commons in a matter which has been put before the electorate at a general election. As I explained—and I repeat--the manifesto states clearly that there will be a free vote;

105
that is, a free vote of Parliament, not just the House of Commons. Therefore, this House is just as entitled to have a free vote as the House of Commons.
With regard to the constitutional side of the argument, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, put the matter absolutely right. He said that there was no constitutional reason why we should not insist on amendments. Indeed, he cited the precedent of your Lordships insisting on academic freedom. Your Lordships were right to insist on academic freedom. Why. then, are we taking away the freedom of disabled pistol shooters to continue with the sport they have enjoyed for a long period of time? If it is right to insist on an amendment for one freedom, it must be right for another freedom.
I very much appreciated the tribute of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to Lord Crawshaw. We are extremely sorry that he has passed away. The noble Lord mentioned 386 handguns that had been stolen. That is very small beer. I have to tell him that those handguns were stolen from individuals, not from secure accommodation, where the pistols of disabled people would be held. Furthermore, he must take into account that Lord Cullen, who heard all the evidence, did not recommend a total ban on handguns. If we are citing Cullen, let us take account of what he said. He did not want a total ban on handguns.
My noble friend Lord Howell criticised the Government's stance on this matter. I agree with him. I am only sorry that he cannot support the Motion. I hope that he will reconsider his attitude.
My noble friend Lord Ewing made an interesting speech. He gave a moving review of what happened in Dunblane and of Hamilton's background. In fact, he confirmed more than anyone else has done, because of his close knowledge of the situation, that the massacre at Dunblane was the result of the warped mind of a single individual and not because of handguns generally held. He confirmed in one short speech everything that those of us who have been opposed to the legislation have been saying—that is, Dunblane was the act of a madman and handgun owners should not therefore be collectively punished because of him. I thank my noble friend Lord Ewing for confirming that, although I regret that I shall not be having his support.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is ducking out of it. That sums up what is wrong with the Opposition. They have no guts. That is what is wrong. I hope they will soon recover their guts. The British constitution depends on strong government and on a decent and strong Opposition. I am sorry that the noble Lord has not seen fit to recommend to his noble friends that they support the Motion.
The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, asked my noble friend the Minister, who is a decent and gentle man, how many illegally held handguns there are. It was noticeable that my noble friend did not reply. He could not reply because he does not know. There are tens if not
106
hundreds of thousands of illegally held handguns. Yet here we are, dealing with a few disabled people and taking away their sport, while leaving tens if not hundreds of thousands of illegally held handguns in the hands of criminals. That is one reason why noble Lords, in spite of the advice they have received from their Front Benches, should support the Motion.
My noble friend says that I am a purist. What is wrong with being a purist? Does anyone find anything wrong in that? He says that he is a purist, too. That makes two of us. I did not expect that he would support my Motion, although people are sometimes converted on the road to Damascus or elsewhere. However, I fear that he was not.
When, under the previous Tory Government, we were dealing with the Firearms (Amendment) Bill and I was on the other side of the House I said that noble Lords should insist on their amendments. It would be seen as hypocritical if I did not do the same now with a Labour Government—my own Government—in office. There is too much hypocrisy around at the present time and I am not prepared to add to it. I ask the House to insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, That the House do insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1 A?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 161.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Milverton, L.

Blake, L.

Monson, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Munster, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Congleton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Rennell, L.

Cross, V.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Donegall, M.

Sharples, B.

Exmouth, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Grantley, L.

Stallard, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stewartby, L.

Ilchester, E.

Stockton, E.

Incheape, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Liverpool, E.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Swinfen, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Addington, L.

Blyth, L.

Aldington, L.

Borrie, L.

Ampthill, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bridges, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Burlison, L.

Avebury, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Barnett, L.

Calverley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carlisle, E.

Berkeley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

107

Carter, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chandos, V.

[Teller.]

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McNally, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dholakia, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Diamond, L.

Nelson, E.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Northbourne, L.

Donoughue, L.

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dubs, L.

Orme, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Paul, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Ezra, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falconer of Thornton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Puttnam, L.

Fitt, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gallacher, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Geraint, L.

Razzall, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gregson, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Grenfell, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hamwee, B.

Rochester, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hardie, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Serota, B.

Haskel, L.

Sewel, L.

Hayman, B.

Shepherd, L

Hayter, L.

Simon, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hollick, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Strafford, E.

Hollis of Heigharn, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hooson, L.

Taverne, L.

Hoyle, L.

Taylor of Blackburrn, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Tenby, V.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord]

Tope, L.

[Chancellor.]

Tordoff, L.

Jacobs, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Varley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Jeger, B.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Judd, L.

Walpole, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Westbury, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Whitty, L.

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Wigoder, L.

Levy, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Longford, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Ludford, B.

Windlesham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
COMPETITION PISTOLS

(" .—(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5(1)(aba) of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a pistol chambered for 22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges if he is authorised under the Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon subject to a condition which complies with subsection (2) below.

(2) A certificate granted under subsection (1) above shall be subject to the condition that—

(a) the pistol is used for training in shooting disciplines approved by the International Olympic Committee for inclusion in the Olympic Games; and

(b) the pistol is used by a person approved by the Secretary of State and on the recommendation of a recognised governing body of the sport; and

(c) the weapon is stored and used only at premises designated by the Secretary of State; and

(d) possession of the weapon outside such designated premises shall be permitted only for transfer to and use at premises at which a shooting competition is taking place on such conditions as the Secretary of State shall specify.")

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
3A Because they do not consider it appropriate for the Bill to provide for any special exemptions to apply to the prohibition of small-calibre pistols.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Thank you very much. My Lords, I am sorry to have delayed your Lordships, but I was a Teller in the last Division and it took me a little time to return to my place.
I beg to move that the House do insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3A. This Motion, like my previous Motion on disabled pistol shooters, is tabled to enable further debate on the provision of centres of excellence to enable British competitors to continue to take part in, and to train for, international pistol shooting competitions and to give your Lordships the opportunity to insist on your amendment. I do not think that that will happen, but your Lordships must have the opportunity.
Although the Commons disagreed with your Lordships' amendment, the debate, like that on the amendment relating to disabled pistol shooters, was

109
spirited, sensible and cross-party. However, in my opinion, the balance of argument was on the side of your Lordships' amendment while the Government's attitude remained rigid and unrelenting.
Again, I shall simply summarise the arguments in favour of your Lordships' amendment. First, it seeks to establish a few national shooting centres of excellence to allow competition shooters, identified by national bodies, to train and compete in national and international 22 calibre pistol competitions. Only a relatively few highly motivated and responsible pistol shooters would be involved. Pistols would be kept at centres under safe and secure conditions. The whole system would be under the control of the Secretary of State. Failure to allow British competitors to train and compete not only precludes Britain from pistol shooting events and international competitions but also puts at risk the possibility of hosting international events in this country, including the Olympic Games. We shall have the ridiculous situation where foreign competitors can train and compete in Britain while Britons are debarred.
Opposing your Lordships' amendment, the Minister argued that keeping 22 pistols at safe and secure sites would not give sufficient protection to the public. That is not a convincing argument. The centres would be much more secure than such centres have ever been, and we would all be far more secure than if more lethal weapons continued to be held in private hands. Is it really suggested that MoD arsenals or police weapons stocks are a danger to the public? In any event, would criminals raid secure weapons stores when they can easily buy a gun on the black market? The whole thing is absurd. The argument simply will not wash and, in my view, should be rejected.
During the Commons debate Mr. Frank Cook produced the results of the recent public opinion surveys I mentioned on the previous amendment showing that 54 per cent. of those polled are now in favour of retaining pistol competition shooting. Therefore, your Lordships' amendment is in tune with majority public opinion—not with minority opinion but, I repeat, with majority public opinion. The public take the sensible view that competitions can and should continue, especially since our Prime Minister wishes to improve Britain's presence and influence in the world in every sphere. They see it as a strange paradox that he supports the unnecessary withdrawal of Britain from worldwide competition pistol shooting. The public also see that this may he the thin end of the wedge which will ban all firearms and lead to the complete withdrawal of Britain from international shooting competitions.
In such circumstances I believe it to be incumbent upon your Lordships to insist upon your amendment. To do so would gain support and applause from the public. As I pointed out with regard to the previous Motion, insistence on your Lordships' amendment is perfectly proper in parliamentary terms, retaining the correct balance between both Houses of Parliament yet establishing that the House of Lords is a real and vibrant second Chamber performing its function responsibly and effectively. I did, of course, write that before the last Division. I commend the Motion to the House.
110
Moved, That this House do insist on their amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3A.—(Lord Stoddart of Swindon.)
Lord Monson: My Lords, in replying to the first Motion, the Minister revealed that there were 374,000 individuals registered as disabled. Although I do not think that he was arguing that all, or even most, of them were going to take up, or continue, pistol shooting, it is nevertheless true that a few thousand might well wish to do so. However, in this amendment we are speaking only of between 300 and 400 extremely talented top-ranking sportsmen and sportswomen who can be, and will be, assuming the amendment is agreed to, rigorously vetted. Such rigorous vetting is possible when one is dealing with hundreds rather than thousands of people.
Japan is frequently held up to us by the anti-gun lobby as a shining beacon, despite the widespread corruption and gangsterism in that country. It is true that Japan has very strict anti-gun laws, but even Japan allows the sort of scheme which the amendment proposes for its Olympic and potential Olympic pistol shooters.
Two-and-a-half weeks ago, MORI carried out a poll which revealed that 61 per cent. of the population would like provisions such as these to be accepted. That is no wonder, because we will be the laughing stock of the world if we, alone among civilised countries, do not allow our sportsmen to practise Olympic pistol shooting in this country. I warmly support the Motion.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment briefly. The Minister in another place opined that it would not be safe to keep the weapons involved in secure premises, such as Ministry of Defence establishments and so on. In case the noble Lord on the Front Bench advances the same theory this evening, perhaps I may remind him in his predicament of the disassembly amendment passed by your Lordships in February of last year to the previous Government's unfortunate and misguided Bill. Your Lordships will recall that that amendment would have insisted that the vital parts of a pistol, the slide mechanism or chambers, would be kept in secure premises while the weapon itself would be kept at home. If there were any doubt about the safety of what is proposed by this amendment I believe that that system, wisely approved by your Lordships by a substantial majority, should precisely answer the point.
In support of what I have said, I quote the Cullen Report. On the whole issue of whether or not pistols should be banned, that report concluded that on the whole they should not be. Lord Cullen said he believed that pistol shooting should be made safer "preferably by disassembly". I commend that to your Lordships and support the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the arguments on this amendment are substantially those that I addressed to your Lordships earlier. I shall therefore accept the advice not to be repetitive or lengthy. We do not want to see any exemptions to the ban on handguns other than those already agreed. This amendment was

111
rejected by another place last week by a majority of 132 on a free vote. When it was debated by your Lordships it succeeded by a majority of only 13. We believe that this amendment will prove unworkable and create a significant loophole.
This amendment is not necessary for the purpose of hosting any future Olympic or Paralympic Games in this country. That proposition is simply not correct. The Home Secretary has ample powers under Section 5 of the 1968 Act to give special dispensations to competitors who intend to take part in competitions. As recently as the end of August of this year the Secretary of State for Home Affairs successfully used those powers to allow visiting overseas competitors to participate in the 14th European Police Pistol Championship at Bisley. Very few events will be directly affected by the Bill: six out of 28 Commonwealth Games competitions; only three out of 15 Olympic competitions; and only two out of 15 Paralympic competitions.
A number of your Lordships have dealt briefly with the issue of illegal guns. Of course that is a menace and a vice. This is not the appropriate time for me to address the dangers of those guns, except to remind noble Lords that the penalties for the illegal possession of firearms in this country are very severe: up to 10 years' imprisonment for possession of prohibited firearms. The police and customs rightly continue to attach the very highest priority to tracing and recovering these weapons.
We have considered this matter with care. Without any intended disrespect, we have come to the adamant conclusion that this amendment is not acceptable in the light of the recent history which has brought us to this pass. We believe that a complete ban is the only safe option. I invite your Lordships to concur with that view.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, points out, by creating a complete ban on handguns this country is likely to be the laughing stock of the world. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has pointed out that the opportunity to make matters very much safer in accordance with the Cullen Report was available under the disassembly amendment which he moved and to which the House agreed but did not have the bottle to insist upon.
My noble friend Lord Williams has repeated his arguments. I believe that my noble friend Lord Howell, who is not at the moment in his place, takes the view, which certainly I share, that there is a risk that the Government's attitude will mean that this is a factor in the hosting of future Olympic and perhaps Commonwealth Games.
I have taken into account the result of the previous vote. Nevertheless, I owe it to the competition pistol shooters, particularly those who have written to me, to test the will of this House. I ask that the House do insist on their amendment to which the Commons has disagreed.
112
On Question, That the House do insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A?
4.55 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 151.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Berners, B.

Munster, E

Blake, L.

Newall, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Congleton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cross, V.

Prior, L.

Grantley, L.

Rennell, L.

Inchcape, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stockton, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Addington, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Avebury, L.

Gregson, L.

Barnett, L.

Grenfell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hanworth, V.

Blyth, L.

Hardie, L.

Borrie, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Bridges, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Haskel, L.

Burlison, L.

Hayman, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Calverley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carlisle, E.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Chandos, V.

Hooson, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hoyle, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hughes, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Jacobs, L.

David, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Jeger, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Desai, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Dholakia, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Diamond, L.

Leathers, V.

Dixon, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Donoughue, L.

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Levy, L.

Dubs, L.

Lockwood, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Longford, E.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ludford, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

McCarthy, L.

Ezra, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

[Teller]

Falkland, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

McNair, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mcnally, L.

Geraint, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

113

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Rochester, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Rogers of Riversid, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Mishcon, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Molloy, L.

Selborne, E.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Serota, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Sewel, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Shepherd, L.

Nelson, E.

Simon, V.

Newby, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Nicol, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Northfield, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ogmore, L.

Strafford, E.

Orme, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Paul, L.

Taverne, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tope, L.

Puttnam, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Razzall, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rea, L.

Walpole, L.

Redesdale, L.

Whitty, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Environmental Law: ECC Report
5 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardonrose to move, That this House take note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Community Environmental Law: Making it Work (2nd Report, Session 1997–98, HL Paper 12).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to present reports of two of the inquiries conducted by the Environment Committee of the European Select Committee during the past year dealing with Community environmental law and freedom of access to information.
The report relating to a review of the Community directive on freedom of information on the environment was published nearly a year ago. but discussion has been delayed, first, because of the press of business in the run-up to the election; and, secondly, in the hope that the new Administration would produce their White Paper on freedom of information sooner than now appears likely.
114
We are now promised that the White Paper will he produced before Christmas, but it was my feeling that that was too long a time to wait for the debate.
The report concentrates upon the working of the directive in this country, but we also paid a visit to Ireland, where we were impressed by their arrangements. We make also a number of recommendations to the European Commission which is currently reviewing the directive.
In examining the working of the directive in this country, we were critical of the Department of the Environment, first, for failing to provide an adequate definition of information relating to the environment; and for failing to list, or define, the relevant persons to whom the directive would apply. In particular, we were concerned that the water services companies seemed uncertain that the directive applied to them. It seemed clear to the committee that bodies with "public responsibilities for the environment", and "under the control of public authorities", as the water companies plainly are, should clearly include the regimes of the private utilities.
The Department of the Environment's laissez-faire attitude to its responsibilities for the environment was disappointing. As we say in our report. it has led to a perception that compliance with the regulations may be optional.
More generally, we recognised that there may he justifiable reasons for denying access to information to members of the public. Information may be commercially sensitive, incomplete, or a preliminary draft only may have been prepared, which it would not be appropriate to have in the public domain. However, it was our finding that all too often financial barriers and other excuses were used to deny access to genuine researchers and to those with a concern for the environment.
We applaud therefore the growing tendency of the new Environment Agency, for example, and some of the research institutions to set up a web site to provide information on the Internet. That obviates all the claimed costs, search, analysis, duplication, and so forth, that have provided excuses in the past. We comment also upon the failure of the European Commission to practise the freedom of information that it preaches. That has proved a problem in a number of our inquiries, notably in relation to the Byzantine decision-making process that went into the leg-hold traps saga. The lack of access to Council and Commission documents is a theme pursued in our second inquiry.
Our report on making community environmental law work revisits an area first looked at five years ago under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and was intended to be a review of progress since then. Some major developments have taken place. The European Environment Agency was set up in Copenhagen in 1993. It has made considerable progress in collecting information and disseminating it to members of the European Community. Another major development was the Maastricht Treaty. Qualified majority voting is now standard procedure for environmental legislation. The Amsterdam Treaty

115
continued progress in that direction and the co-decision procedure effectively gives the European Parliament a veto. That is a welcome introduction of democratic processes into environmental law making. Furthermore, a network of national pollution inspectors—INPEL—has been set up and various other regulatory changes have been made. Most of those have led to greater transparency and greater encouragement of members of the European Community to take environmental matters seriously.
The Commission's communication in 1996, its fifth environmental action plan, looks on implementation as having five links in a regulatory chain. We took that model of implementation as the basis for our report. We looked at each link in turn: first, the preparation of policy; secondly, the drafting of legislation; thirdly, practical implementation; fourthly, the stage of monitoring, reporting and evaluation; and, fifthly, the stage of enforcement and systems of ensuring compliance with Community law.
Since our last report five years ago, we recognise that there have been a number of improvements. First, there is the more frequent use of Green Papers so that greater discussion can take place before policy is finally prepared in a draft directive. That has led to more consultation. Furthermore, some of the previous gross errors have not appeared in draft directives in recent years. Secondly, there has been an adoption of internal guidelines within the Commission which has led to more consultation and better co-ordination between the various directorates.
However, we believe that during the pre-legislative stage more thorough and open consultation is needed between NGOs, governments and industry. We again reiterate our disquiet about the secrecy that surrounds the scientific and technical advice on which the Commission develops policy. It is so contrary to normal scientific practice, which depends upon examination by peers and an understanding of the basic data which leads to scientific recommendations. We have commented on that previously in relation to our several inquiries into water directives, where the standards of water quality are essential and where it has been extremely difficult to discover the basis on which draft directives have been produced.
We are also increasingly concerned about the use of a new expression in European vocabulary, "comitology". Many things which the Commission is unable to do. partly because of lack of time or expertise, have led to the setting up of, it is alleged, dozens and possibly hundreds of specialist committees which meet and make formal recommendations, some by qualified majority voting. Their proceedings seem to be wholly opaque and undemocratic. We believe that their membership proceedings and papers should be in the public domain.
The second link in the regulatory chain is the drafting of legislation. We welcome the increasing use of framework directives which have advantages for subsidiarity and existing national arrangements. It is, however, important that they are not drafted so loosely that varying practices develop throughout the Community.
116
The third link in the regulatory chain is that of practical implementation. We strongly support the Commission's proposal that all member states should provide confirmation, article by article, of how their national legislation meets the obligations of directives. This information, too, should be publicly available.
The fourth link in the chain is that of monitoring, reporting and evaluation. In 1992, we had high hopes for the role of the European Environment Agency. It has made rapid progress since its inauguration in 1993 and has produced some interesting Europe-wide data which enables comparisons to be made between countries. However, we would wish to see more formal and effective links with the regulatory committees which advise the Commission. We would wish that the Commission itself took more notice of the proceedings of the agency. We recommend in particular that the reports of the agency should automatically go to the European Parliament as well as to the Commission and Council of Ministers. There is scope for the European Parliament to encourage greater conformity between member states.
The Council of Ministers remains preoccupied with the negotiation of new policies and laws, but in our view it should also regularly review implementation. Perhaps that is a hotter potato for the ministers of the various countries to take on board because they may appear to be criticising other member states. Nevertheless, we believe that it should be a responsibility of the Council of Ministers. We are pleased to note the June 1997 resolution which contains a clear commitment to such a process.
The fifth and final link in the regulatory chain is that of enforcement. In 1992, we were very concerned about non-compliance with directives and Article 169 complaints. Our concern remains. There is a continuing lack of transparency. Complainants are not informed about the outcome of their complaints. We therefore welcome the ombudsman's current investigation into their handling and believe that, in this respect, there should be a greater role for the European Parliament.
The Government have responded to both our reports. In February, the Department of the Environment replied to our report on freedom of information. It was a disappointing and complacent response. It sheltered behind the Commission's current view of the directive and considered that no action was necessary in respect of any of our recommendations except one; namely, the setting up of an independent mechanism to hear appeals relating to the refusal of access to information from public bodies. We hope that the current Government's forthcoming White Paper will encourage a greater spirit of openness in all government bodies.
The response to our latest report was, for understandable reasons, received only last week. It was a more positive response and supports most of our observations. There are encouraging trends. The Amsterdam Treaty emphasises the importance of greater transparency in decision making and the Government agree that the papers of the scientific advisers and committees, about which we have been so concerned,

117
should be more widely available and that there should be greater openness about their membership and results. Time alone will show whether that is the case.
In conclusion, I thank all the members of my committee who have contributed to the reports. They have made my two years as chairman extremely enjoyable. In particular, I should like to express my gratitude to our clerk, Tom Radice, who of course does all the hard work and makes us all appear to be more intelligent and knowledgeable than perhaps we are. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Community Environmental Law: Making it Work (2nd Report, Session 1997–98, HL Paper 12).—(Baroness Hilton of Eggardon.)
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I feel an agreeable nostalgia as I rise to contribute to the debate because until a few months ago I was a member of the committee which produced the two reports. I had the pleasure of serving its admirable chairman and working with the excellent secretary.
As far back as 1995–96 when the committee was reporting on leg-hold traps. it was expressing concern over the secretive and unrepresentative nature of the working group responsible. In general, the committee questioned the effectiveness of the Commission's internal structure in resolving conflicting policy aims and deprecated the tendency of the directorates general to behave as separate fiefdoms, never consulting each other nor providing information to the NGOs and others who sought it. When we reported on drinking water we could obtain no satisfactory assurances on effective control and audit, still less transparency. The department told us philosophically that it was not obtaining the transparency it would like, but that it was,
"not right to suggest that there is an absolute darkness".
Now, in the two latest reports the same problems recur.
The committee received evidence on the problems of vertical chains within the DGs, inadequate cross links with other DGs on policy and even of a lack of co-ordination within Directorate XI on the environment itself. Those were all familiar problems, encountered over and over again. An excellent example of the dangers of a lack of co-ordination and consultation between the directorates arose over leg-hold traps when DG XI failed utterly to talk to DG I, which proved to have an overriding interest in the context of the World Trade Organisation and the GATT negotiations.
Another aspect of that problem emerged in the evidence given by one NGO before the committee on its last report when we were told that the absence of inter-directorate consultation at the early stages of the development of the proposal of coastal protection had led to its effective blocking at a later stage by DG XVI because it conflicted with that directorate's own regional policy. Greater transparency and a requirement for inter-directorate consultation early on to determine the possible impact of a proposal could have prevented that. There are, of course, only too many examples of
118
ecological damage resulting from a failure to assess beforehand the impact on the environment of a proposal for a dam or a road.
The committee felt also particular concern about secrecy over the membership and agenda of scientific and technical committees, as the chairman has said. Without the scientific data being published, there can be no hope of ensuring quality through peer review, and that is all the more important since it is clear that political rather than scientific considerations, thanks to the lack of transparency, are not unlikely to decide the issue on occasions.
The publication by the Commission of papers provided by their expert advisers might, it was suggested by the department, be helpful. As the European Parliament told the committee in written evidence,
"there is (in the context of Article 169 and the Grievance Procedure) an astonishing degree of interference and non-co-operation by Member States who often appear to display a cavalier disregard for the rule of law which they themselves are hound to uphold".
That was the parliament's view.
However, the unbeatable secret weapon in the Commission's armoury in the battle to achieve transparency which is being fought by the committee, the NGOs and, we hope, governments who wish to know why decisions are taken and on what basis, is a mysterious virus known as "comitology". That is allied to a proliferation of committees. No fewer than 225 committees have been created by the Council of Ministers and 67 advisory committees have also been created. The one thing that rarely seems to emerge from them is a clear and public decision, still less answers to legitimate questions. Files on complaints are closed without the complainants even knowing and the only recourse they have is, only too often, to take the Community institutions to the European Court of Justice through the Article 173 procedure for grievances.
But what is comitology? The word does not appear in either the English or French dictionaries I consulted in the Library. It appears to be a Brussels-created word deriving from the words "comity" in the phrase "the comity of nations", which is defined there in the dictionary as,
"the courteous and friendly understanding by which each nation respects the laws and usages of every other, so far as it may be without prejudice to its own rights and interests".
At paragraph 33, the committee reiterates its concerns about the unwarranted secrecy that surrounds the scientific and technical advice on which the Commission bases its policies and that, in its evidence to the committee, the Commission appeared to rely on the principles of comitology, the procedures of which are not entirely straightforward. That is an extremely restrained comment on a system which embraces advisory committees, management committees and regulatory committees.
In 1995, the European Union budget provided for a total of 333 committees established under the comitology procedure and about 20,000 people are estimated to be serving on them. That is not all. Beside the comitology committees, the Commission itself

119
appoints a wide range of outside experts, technical and scientific, to advise it on the development of policy and on legislative proposals. And there are, of course, both horizontal and vertical legal entities. Those are the committees whose agenda and membership are secret and whose lack of transparency so concerns the committee.
What does comitology mean for the Commission? When the committee asked DG XI, the environment directorate, why that secrecy was necessary, it referred to the Council decision on comitology which defines the use of delegated powers by the Commission and says that as regards the issue of transparency for the various scientific and technical committees, each committee would have its own rules of procedure and those would need to be consulted to determine the committee's scope for openness. That ruling clearly leaves it for the committees to make their own decisions on transparency and comitology seems to boil down not to courteous and friendly understanding but to a cast-iron method of ensuring against transparency. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how that can be defended. The committee made a strong and just point that the credibility of advances in scientific knowledge must rely heavily on the open process of peer review, a process which can only be frustrated if those outside the circle of committees are denied access to the data and analysis on which legislative proposals are based and may not even know the names of the scientists concerned.
However, it is reassuring that the Government, in their response to the committee's report, have quoted and supported the provision in the Amsterdam Treaty, after the IGC, for introducing greater transparency, although not, I fear, full transparency; a new commitment to more open decision making; a public right of access to the European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; and the compulsory publication of Council votes when Council acts in a legislative capacity. However, I am not reassured by the fact that each institution is to lay down the rules of procedure regarding access to its documents itself.
Equally, it is excellent news that the Government hope to take further steps during their presidency to enhance the transparency of EU decision making and procedures. Let us hope that that remains high on their agenda and that comitology does not win in the end. A change cannot come too soon. We may even see the word "comitology" drop out of Brussels-speak.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to address your Lordships for the first time. However, I feel encouraged not only by the sense of honour that I have in joining your Lordships in this beautiful House but also by the generosity of the welcome extended to me by many individuals from all parts of the House. Even though I am a proponent of reform, that does not obscure my appreciation of the distinction of so many Members of your Lordships' House. Guided by the excellent and efficient attendants and other staff, whom I also sincerely thank, I am even learning to find my way
120
round the building. My 11 year-old niece started her new school this term and I have a strong sense of being in the same boat.
I have not matched the speed record of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who delivered his impressive maiden speech within 24 hours of his introduction on a social security matter; nor that of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, who made an excellent contribution to the Second Reading of the Human Rights Bill. But today's debate gives me an opportunity to contribute on topics close to my heart and of which I have some knowledge and experience. An opportunity to bring together Europe, freedom of information and the environment is, for a Liberal Democrat, like being a child let loose in a sweet shop.
I realise that not every Member of this House will share my enthusiastic and pro-European sentiments and I have no wish to be unduly controversial today. But I hope that I shall unite views in my admiration for the work of the European Communities Committee and its sub-committees. I know from my seven years working in Brussels for the European Commission that the committees' reports are extremely well-regarded both for the thoroughness of their evidence and analysis and the intellectual weight of their conclusions.
The two reports today on European environmental law, which are the subject of debate, do not disappoint. However, before I turn to them directly, perhaps your Lordships will indulge my wish to reflect on Europe more generally in the light of today's date, which is, of course, Armistice Day. As a local councillor in Islington, I took part, as I have done every year, in our local Remembrance Day service. I stood this morning on the steps of the town hall for the two minutes silence. As I reflected on both occasions on the debt owed to those who died and particularly as I looked at all the young people present on Sunday, I knew why my European convictions are unshakeable. It is because Europe offers peace and security, and security in its widest sense is the theme running through today's debate.
The attainment of security in Europe needs not only the absence of war and institutional ties to bind nations together but also an open and effective democracy and a safe environment. There will be no future for our planet in generations to come if our stewardship falls short of sustainability. Freedom of information is also a crucial component of security because well-informed and demanding citizens are vital to a flourishing democracy, not a threat to it.
Dictators and authoritarians have over the centuries mistakenly believed that ignorance and oppression were necessary for the maintenance of order; on the contrary, they allow resentment and irresponsibility to fester and undermine the long-term stability that comes from democracy's vigorous debate and acceptance of disagreement and dissent.
The two reports being debated today play a valuable role in bringing home to us just how essential openness and the rule of law are in the European scheme of things. I hope that Ministers and civil servants preparing the anticipated freedom of informational Bill will read

121
the report on the directive on freedom of access to information on the environment. It is a very interesting case study for a full freedom of information regime.
The committee concluded that not only the directive and the UK regulations needed strengthening, but also that clear laws need to be backed by a clear commitment by public authorities to removing a culture of official secrecy. The committee says with care that,
"the UK is one of the countries which has had to devote a relatively high level of effort to reforming deep seated practices and attitudes".
Then, in a sentence which is music to my ears, the committee recommends that,
"there should be a more forceful assertion in the Directive itself of citizens' rights and a strong presumption in favour of openness".
But, as happens all too often, Whitehall civil servants who drafted the UK implementing regulations fell prey to the temptations of "gold-plating" EU directives. Poor old Brussels sometimes gets the blame unfairly! In this case the regulations made the UK the only EU member state which lets information-holding bodies like the privatised utilities decide whether they are within the scope of the law, with predictable results given that, as we all know, turkeys do not vote for Christmas.
The committee points out that the European Commission and the European Council are not always good practitioners of open government. Secrecy—and perhaps I would say this as a former official at the Commission—is worst in the Council where, in the committee's words,
"a low level of transparency".
prevails. That phrase surely ranks in the lexicon of euphemisms, along with "economical with the truth".
The Council is co-legislator with the European Parliament. Yet it meets in secret. There is no equivalent of Hansard. We are all familiar with Ministers coming out of negotiations and telling their national media what a great victory they have achieved: they all have, of course. Directives emerge from the scrum too often ambiguously worded and far below the standard of skill of our parliamentary draftsman, such as displayed in the Human Rights Bill.
As has been noted, the Treaty of Amsterdam marks progress on the matters debated today, incorporating sustainable development as a EU objective for the first time and inserting a new article on transparency—not very strong, but a start—giving a right of access to European documents.
It is not healthy for European democracy or for the future of the European Union that European institutions should be remote from Europe's citizens or that the rule of law should be flouted. Our people need to know how they are governed, by whom and from where. They also need to have confidence that everyone is playing by the same rules. We are still too far from those goals. For most people Europe is opaque, confusing and elitist; and words like "comitology" do not help. Indifference, alienation and even rejection will be the inevitable product of ignorance, exclusion and suspicion. Some want that; I do not. As a passionate but candid friend of the European Union, I urge the decision-makers to open up, brush away the cobwebs and let the people in.
122
In these two reports and in its work generally, the Select Committee has made a very large contribution towards doing just that. It probes the inner workings of the EU and makes it accessible. Though, in themselves, the reports may not be obvious bedside reading in place of, shall we say, Hello magazine or Motorsport, they facilitate a better-informed press and public and help create that desirable citizens' Europe. The topic of the environment is an excellent vehicle for involving people in the European project, as the Foreign Secretary acknowledged in his speech last week on the forthcoming UK presidency.
I look forward to following the further work of the committee under its skilled chairmanship. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon in chairing Sub-Committee C which produced these excellent and informative reports. It is timely that they should be debated on the anniversary of the Armistice, on a day when the security of our continent in its broadest sense is on our minds. I thank noble Lords for their patience in listening to me today. I look forward to playing a full part in the proceedings of the House in the future.
5.35 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, it has been a tremendous pleasure for me to listen to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. She speaks from a base of long experience. Indeed, she has been working with Europe since 1979 and her speech contained little flashes of humour which I thoroughly enjoyed. I am sure that all noble Lords will echo my sentiments when I say that we very much look forward to hearing more of the noble Baroness's expertise and humour in the House in future.
I am grateful to our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, for introducing today's debate. For me, membership of Sub-Committee C is both a fascinating and an enlightening experience and her guidance as chairman invaluable. I should like also to say that the noble Baroness's guidance has its own humour. Indeed, noble Lords who listened to the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, will understand why we need to have a sense of humour.
Each day, decisions are being taken in our name by committees both in Brussels and in Whitehall which affect the environment which we inhabit and which our successors must inherit. As a working farmer, I am very conscious of the environment in which I live and of the effects of decisions that my husband and I make in the management of our little piece of this earth. Noble Lords will appreciate that we have learned from bitter experience the effects of toxic chemicals on my health. That has taught us to exercise caution, particularly where we do not know the ingredients of animal feed or of agricultural chemicals and, therefore, cannot establish their safety. Membership of Sub-Committee C has further opened my eyes to how much we know and, perhaps more importantly, how much we do not know about the ultimate effects of those decisions, most of which are taken behind closed doors by faceless scientists, technicians and bureaucrats.

123
In our report, Community Environmental Law: Making It Work, we agree that:
"Although there have been some welcome improvements, we recommend that the Commission when formulating policy should pursue a more thorough and open process of consultation, which should include non-government organisations".
We express concerns about,
"the unwarranted secrecy that surrounds scientific and technical advice to the Commission",
and we recommend,
"that all appointments to advisory and regulatory committees should be through a fully open process".
Unlike our North American cousins and six other Community members, we have a culture of secrecy in the United Kingdom which seems to pervade the corridors of the Commission. We have been conditioned not to question the decisions taken by the Commission or our national governments, upon the advice of scientists and technicians, simply because we are repeatedly told that they are in a position to give what is called, "best advice". We do not know who those advisors are or what are their interests and affiliations. Any individual or organisation who questions the decisions is frequently categorised as a "crank" or a "trouble-maker"; indeed, I have been given that label.
As we stated in the report:
"Advances in science depend for their credibility upon an open process of peer review".
I would also add that we need to know whether the most recent advances in science have been taken into account during the decision-making process. My personal experience has been that, all too often, scientific advisors appear to be caught in a time-warp of their own experience and do not seem to be prepared to acknowledge that others may have disproved the science which has placed the advisors in their positions.
As is said so often, science is not necessarily about proving that a hypothesis works; it is more about proving that it does not. I believe that we should take new evidence for hypotheses seriously rather than rely on the need for absolute proof of genuineness before current opinion is changed. We should listen to alarm bells. Our recent history is littered with instances where a few brave individuals have sounded the alarm and it has taken years before it is heard. The dangers of asbestos, DDT and other organochlorine pesticides are examples.
As I have suggested, science is not always a discipline which can explain what is happening, or has happened, in absolute terms. During the past 50 years, something like 70,000 man-made chemicals have been introduced into our environment, and despite assurances that they all undergo rigorous assessment by experts before they are licensed for use, there is an increasingly large body of evidence indicating that many, either alone or in combination, are exhibiting signs of subtle, harmful effects upon our environment.
124
The Government, in their response to the report, seem not to be totally committed to a spirit of openness. They state,
"On the question of scientific and technical advice, the Government agrees with the Select Committee that it would be helpful if such papers (that is, papers produced for the Commission by its expert advisors) were to be made … widely available. Publication would allow errors of fact and interpretation to be corrected and would allow errors of fact and interpretation to be aired openly. The Government recognises that where committees are established to give the Commission scientific advice, it may also be appropriate for there to be greater openness about the membership and the results of such committees".
For a government committed to openness, I find that response particularly lukewarm. Where we say that the papers "should be published", the Government agree only that, "it would be helpful". Where we express concerns about the,
"unwarranted secrecy that surrounds scientific and technical advice to the Commission",
the Government response is that,
"it may also be appropriate for there to be greater openness".
I am frankly amazed by the Government response to our recommendation that appointments should be made through a fully open process. Does it really matter that the committee meetings are usually attended by civil servants representing the interests of their member state and that personnel may change from meeting to meeting? Surely the rules of procedure are not written in stone. They can be changed. The Government appear to suggest that they will consider the scope for greater openness in these committees as part of their study of possible new initiatives for the forthcoming United Kingdom presidency. May I ask the Minister whether a decision has yet been made and, if so, what it is?
The sub-committee looked into Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment. As the cobbler sticks to his last, I shall reiterate our recommendation that,
"the recitals to the Directive and Article I should contain a more forceful assertion of citizens' rights and a strong presumption in favour of openness",
and,
"The Directive should be clearly revised to establish that human health is within the definition of environmental information".
It is so often the case that emissions, discharges and releases to the environment of potentially damaging substances are followed by reports of adverse effects upon the health of humans who happen, through no fault of their own, to encounter those substances.
Some scientists now agree that chemicals which, under laboratory conditions, do not exhibit any serious effects upon animals or even upon human volunteers may behave differently when released into the environment, or when they combine with other chemicals. We simply do not know enough about the synergistic or potentiating effects of chemical combinations, or their effects upon the human nervous, immune and endocrine systems, as well as the major organs. The fact that a chemical is apparently not carcinogenic and will therefore not kill us in a short

125
period of time does not mean that it is safe. Indeed there seems to be an ever increasing section of the population condemned to living in a terrible twilight world of undefined ill health. The sad thing about that is that many of those people are regarded as psychiatric or psychosomatic cases.
While there is a growing body of concerned individuals and organisations who are trying to persuade the Commission and national governments that they should exercise greater caution in the licensing and use of potentially toxic substances, the lack of access to information and the secrecy in the decision-making processes do not serve us well. If only those who indulge in the practice of withholding information on the basis of confidentiality would realise that this immediately raises suspicions, among those who request the information, that they have "something to hide". My own suspicion is that, often, that "something" may be ignorance. Rather than say, "We do not know", or, "We had not thought of that possibility", the "relevant" persons prefer to hide behind a cloak of bureaucratic decisions which they say prevent them from providing the information.
In the context of information relating to the environment I believe that we should never lose sight of the fact that we are only temporary stewards and that our overriding duty is to ensure that we leave this earth either in a better state than we found it in or, at the very least, no worse. On the one hand we have the examples of the middle European countries, where their exploitation of the soil, ostensibly to maximise agricultural production, and their total disregard for the polluting effects of their industries have left a barren, highly toxic legacy and no one knows how long it will take to clear. On the other hand, we have the example of Denmark, which, since 1994, has banned the use of approximately 30 pesticides, many of which are still in common use in the UK. They plan to phase out approximately 100 agrochemicals believed to exert oestrogenic effects by the year 2000, and are now considering the possibility of a total pesticide ban by the year 2010. I am curious that one European Union member state appears to have scientific knowledge that others, including the UK, do not have.
There is a large body of environmentalists who share a concern that the European Union and some national legislative bodies give priority to the survival and growth of industry, particularly the agrochemical industry, at the expense of protection of the environment and its human, animal and plant life. If information relating to these matters was freely given, I am sure that the Government's suggestion that,
"Publication would allow errors of fact and interpretation to be corrected, and would allow for conflicts within scientific evidence to be aired openly",
would dispel much of the doubt and suspicion which presently accompanies much of the current and proposed legislation. We need to know that decisions are based on the full, presently known facts and that, should there be any subsequent evidence which might cast doubt on the basis upon which the original decisions were made, remedial action will be promptly
126
taken. A culture of denial is not healthy, the assumption that the majority of the population would not understand, an insult.
I urge the Minister to respond positively to the recommendations in both these reports and to ensure that she and her colleagues in government do not become mired in the desire of particular interest groups to preserve the status quo during the discussions which accompany the production of their forthcoming, and eagerly awaited, freedom of information White Paper. The United States legislation, held up as a model for us, has its limitations. I ask the Minister to try to ensure that this Government do better.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, before I entered your Lordships' House I was already familiar with its select committees. Among my colleagues at the National Consumer Council it was recognised that this was not a House of generalists where we were likely to know our subject rather better than the committee, but a House of specialists who could, quietly and with great courtesy, cut to pieces those of us who did not have well researched evidence to back the opinions we were putting before your Lordships. "Well prepare and treat with care" were the watchwords we used.
On entering your Lordships' House I was delighted and not a little nervous when the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, invited me to join Sub-committee C under the guidance of our most able chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and comprising colleagues whose interests and expertise enliven our deliberations. I am now happily on the receiving end of evidence given by the NCC and other bodies. Although I have served on it for barely a year, I hope I may take this opportunity to express my admiration for the work of the European Communities Committee and particularly for the work of Sub-committee C.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, on the confidence she displayed in her subject. Knowing Europe as well as she does, she will have to duck in the coming weeks or she will find herself on one of the committees with us. And very welcome the noble Baroness would be.
I have spent many years promoting the consumer agenda in the European Union across a range of activities wherever we are users of goods or services, whether publicly or privately provided. The environment is such an area. The policies are of great concern to consumers, from water, its safety, availability and regulation—I refer to the most recent inquiry of Sub-committee C—to landfill waste and the implications for householders of the proposed programme curtailment of the simplest disposal option. That is the current inquiry of Sub-committee C.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that our being part of the European Union should mean that British consumers, indeed, all the Union's consumers, of goods and services, especially essential services, have the right to choice, access, information, safety and equity to redress, and that their representatives should be accommodated, included and properly informed.

127
Soon our Government will hold the presidency of the Union, and given their commitment to a freedom of information Act in Great Britain this would be a good opportunity to take the lead in ending unnecessary secrecy in the community. Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment would be a good start. Some issues in the report are particularly important. I shall highlight two. First, I refer to the position of public utilities—it was mentioned by the noble Countess, Lady Mar—and the need for them to be more open with their customers. These are often monopoly services. There is nowhere else to go or to inquire. All power is with the provider, for good or bad.
Secondly, there is the continued lack of a proper mechanism for appealing against refusal to provide access to information. It is hopeless to have it in the word but not in the deed—promised but not delivered or, worse, delayed beyond use. An enforceable mechanism across each directorate is needed, and quickly, before all confidence is lost and single issue groups take things into their own hands.
It will help our cause immensely if the Government use the presidency to ensure that consumer bodies are able to make their views known and that the institutions of the Union have to make clear how they have taken the consumer interest into account. The principle of consumer integration needs to be pursued vigorously. In that connection, I suggest that consumer impact statements would benefit us all, written in plain language so that we can know the impact that a course of action will have on each and every one of us across 12 nations—soon to be more.
I turn to the other report, Community Environmental Law: Making it Work. Perfect policy and legislation is of no use if enforcement is weak or inadequate. The time has come for a concerted effort to make enforcement more even across member states. One of the principal aims of the Commission's communication is,
"to ensure a level playing field in the implementation and enforcement of community environmental law".
That is good news. We live in hope.
I believe that a robust mechanism with serious penalties for member states will go a long way to making the Union more relevant to the lives of its citizens. At present the good enforcers—I include the UK—are undermined by some members who seem to see environmental law as aspirational law, rather like the 10 commandments—ideal but mostly beyond the grasp of mere humans.
We are fortunate in Britain that our Government have been taking, and are seen to take, the environment and the laws that will govern our actions as a Union seriously. In the past few days the Government have come forward with a positive response to our report and clearly welcome it as providing support for some of the initiatives planned for our presidency; and for that we are most pleased.
128
There are of course questions that we hope the Minister will be able to answer. As regards transparency of scientific advisory committees, should not the Government press for full openness rather than for greater openness? With reference to costs in public interest cases, how soon are the Government likely to arrive at a decision on the funding of public interest cases?
I am hopeful of progress. I believe that the reports have tackled the fundamental consumer issues of access to information and enforcement of law as applied to the environment; I commend them to the House.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, as an instance of the humour that attaches to the work of our committee, my noble friend Lord Walpole, dared me to say that I now bring gender balance to our debate!
It is a particular pleasure for me to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, on her maiden speech, knowing of her work in local government. She brings to this House experience of the European Commission. Perhaps I may endorse what she said about our study on the freedom of information being a case study for the wider issue. The environment as a policy issue covers all aspects of social and community life. It provides much evidence which is relevant in other fields.
Perhaps I, too, may add my thanks to our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, for the way in which she conducts our proceedings in committee. Drawing perhaps on her experience of social control in other fields, she is able to lead us on in that gentle but firm way which we appreciate. I thank, too, our clerk, Tom Radice for bringing his expertise in the environmental field to bear on our work; and to our specialist adviser on the Community environmental law report, Professor Richard Macrory. I remember that he provided us with an audience at one of our committee meetings by bringing his Imperial College students along.
All that indicates the way in which our committee sought to tackle the issue in an expert and detailed way. My text is taken from evidence given in the first report, Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment. It was given by Professor David Rhind, the director general and chief executive of the Ordnance Survey, an organisation which I am pleased to cite since it has saved my life many times in Snowdonia, and I hope will do so again. He instanced one of the major issues in this field: that of environmental variables occurring at national boundaries. In other words, it is the difference between the data and the way in which the data is collected that causes so many of the problems of comparability.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on that aspect of the regulatory chain. I recognise, as did our chairman, that the process of the regulatory chain—that is, the conception, drafting, adoption, implementation, enforcement and assessment of legislation—are all part of that activity. If one link in the chain no longer holds, the whole chain falls apart.

129
In the evidence gathered from witnesses, the Environment Agency for England and Wales expressed its strong support for the regulatory chain concept. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency believed that it was important for more emphasis to be placed on evaluating environmental improvement. It was one thing to emphasise procedure but it was important also to consider evaluation.
English Nature supported the need to change the culture to integrate environmental considerations into other aspects of policies so that enforcement was seen as a last resort.
The European Commission highlighted the role of the European Environment Agency in the regulatory chain and I shall speak briefly about the importance of the work of the agency. I was pleased to be able to visit the agency with my noble friend Lady Mar last year. The visit emphasised to us the way in which the agency has developed since a committee of this House first studied it when it was set up. Its role in monitoring and ensuring the comparability of data and the harmonisation of methods of measurement is one that we highlight very strongly in the report, taking that theme from the evidence that we gleaned.
There is a potential, also emphasised by our chair, for the EEA to take responsibility, either as the Commission's agent, or with extended powers for producing implementation reports as required by directives. That is a point that we emphasise.
The European Parliament, through the working document on the implementation of Community environmental policy, which is quoted as one of the appendices to our report, also emphasises the role of the EEA in ensuring comparable data on the overall state of the environment. The importance of ensuring reliability and comparability of data was emphasised by the executive director of the EEA, Sr. Beltran, who said that he worried much more about reliability of information than he did about comparability of information.
So we are dealing with a field in which the European Union is developing and sensitising its own information base and its own approach. Naturally, NGOs in evidence to us, particularly Friends of the Earth and the RSPB, emphasised the importance of taking the monitoring role even further. FoE stressed that it was not enough to examine data in relation to the outputs of the economies—that is, waste and pollution data—but that we should also examine the wider issue of sustainability in relation to measures of inputs of environmental resources to our economy. The European Environment Agency has already shown an interest in that report, in the seminar that it held in March last year. That shows the way in which the whole issue of environmental monitoring is being refined by the agency.
Turning to the idea of strengthening the role of the EEA, there is contention, not least along the lines of subsidiarity. Being a devolutionist, it is a principle that I endorse. However, it is important to ensure, where there are processes of subsidiarity, that there is always comparability of data, so that when subsidiary regional bodies deal with issues relating to environmental assessment and monitoring, the basis of that assessment
130
is the same throughout regions. That point was stressed in evidence given to us during our debate emphasising the role of IMPEL—the institute responsible for the monitoring of the implementation of environmental legislation. I try not to use too many acronyms, but IMPEL featured largely in our discussion on implementation. It emphasised that, in its role, it was important that it was seen as networking—a point made by the European Environment Agency in its evidence to us and by others—not only with the topic centres that existed within the agency or with the inspectorates of member state governments, but that is should also integrate its activity with the regional bodies responsible for environmental monitoring.
Commenting on the Government's response, we welcome the Government's commitment to taking forward the agenda of strengthening the role of IMPEL. Will the Minister, in her response, say whether the Government feel that the role of IMPEL requires a greater autonomy or independence from the Commission, which acts as its present support secretariat? Is it not the case that IMPEL, as a professional organisation bringing together the inspectorates of pollution in different member states, would be more effective were its activity to be strengthened by ensuring greater autonomy and, as it were, setting it at greater arm's length from the Commission.
We welcome the Government's positive response to the report, as contrasted with the rather negative response of the previous government to our previous report. Nothing highlights more fully the commitment of the new Government to environmental policy. We look forward to the crowning of the UK presidency at the Cardiff summit, when I hope that some issues of environmental import will be agreed.
6.5 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I speak as another recycled member of the sub-committee after four very enjoyable years. I know that our chairman discouraged in advance any compliments; but I should like to pay tribute to the skill, and the pleasure, with which she ran the committee.
I endorse the noble Baroness's remarks about our visit to Dublin, where we found the level of transparency in environmental information very impressive. I suggest that our own Department of the Environment might well take note of that. We also found very effective the ombudsman system based on the Australian and New Zealand models—in which this Mother of Parliaments might take a modest maternal pride.
I was also privileged to be a member of the party from Sub-Committee C which, two years ago, visited some of the countries of central and eastern Europe which seek accession to the European Union: Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary in the first wave, and Romania, which is some way down the line. I am glad to note that the committee's support for the enlargement of the Community is shared by the Government.

131
What struck all of us in that party was the depth at which democracy has taken hold in those countries in a space of less then 10 years since the overthrow of communism, and the intimate knowledge on the part of so many, particularly in the younger generation, of Western institutions and in particular the workings of the EU Commission.
In those countries there is a very genuine desire to enhance environmental standards as soon as practicable. They do of course have a large carrot, since accession to the EU is conditional on some measure of progress in environmental improvement—a matter of which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, will be well aware. We very much enjoyed her impressive maiden speech.
But that approach has to be seen against the background of quite dreadful environmental problems inherited from the communist period—for instance, the Black Triangle, on the borders of Saxony, northern Bohemia and Poland, where as a result of lignite burning, trees are dying and children are growing up malformed; or the appalling water pollution in Poland caused by mine workings; or the refinery town of Ploiesti in Romania, where you strike oil at two metres as a result of the fracture of pipes by allied bombing in 1944, with serious implications for water supply and sewerage.
So in their differing degrees there is a real determination on the part of the authorities to recognise and address the environmental problems. They are receiving assistance from a number of quarters. We found the aid provided by the European Commission under the PHARE programme to be on the whole useful and well audited. The European Environment Agency, IMPEL and the European Environment Bureau are playing their part too.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, will speak of the work of NGOs. I merely state that NGOs operating in central and eastern Europe have had in many cases to overcome, among other things, a culture gap. since NGOs had no place whatever in the communist administrations. But the NGOs are vital to the progress to be made in raising environmental standards, as are individual government agencies, of which the UK Know-how Fund is a shining example. We found nothing but praise for its hands-on effectiveness—the only criticism being the all too familiar one that it was too small.
All those bodies play their part in assisting the applicant countries with the serious problems—almost all coming down to lack of resources—which they face and in fostering the very real environmental progress that those countries have made.
Let us not forget that it is a two-way process. When Austria and Sweden joined, they brought with them high standards of openness about environmental information; and we found similar isolated impressive instances in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
132
Perhaps I may relate that to the central theme of the debate: the need for greater transparency in the sharing of environmental information and the sanctions which we should like to see in some cases for non-performance. I am, for instance, disappointed that the Government feel unable to accede to the committee's request for the publication of correspondence relating to Article 169 on disciplinary procedures. I suggest that transparency of information goes hand in hand with transparency of discipline.
I, in common with many noble Lords in all parts of the House, share the Government's desire for an early enlargement of the European Union. However, it is incumbent on the existing members of the Union, with their far greater resources, to get their house in order in setting standards—not merely of transparency in exchange of information but in implementation too—which will be acceptable and attainable standards for the countries of central and eastern Europe as and when they join.
It is a cliché of which we are all guilty to say that environment knows no frontiers. However, this is a vital time for the EU as it now exists to make preparations for what we hope will be a common environmental practice and standard by the whole of the enlarged Community.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, suggested, I intend to restrict myself to a sketch of the role of the environmental NGOs and their input into national and European thinking and eventually into law and monitoring.
I have no financial interest to declare, but I am a long-standing member of CPRE—whose chairman has just left the Chamber, which is a pity—and of the RSPB, though I am in no way involved in their committees or councils.
In this country the environmental NGOs are involved in a wide range of activities, from running nature reserves through monitoring, lobbying and even direct action. But they all have one thing in common: a deep concern for the environment and a breadth of knowledge and expertise not found elsewhere.
For our first report on freedom of environmental information it was the NGOs who told us about the difficulty in identifying "relevant bodies" and finding out what was confidential. They pointed out that, if something was confidential, it took a long time to find out why it was confidential; there was no appeal; and the process was time consuming. They also pointed out the amazing inconsistency in what people charged for the information when it was available. In other words, they were very good at explaining to us the general problems of "people seeking information". It was difficult for us to assess whether the problems were greater in this country or in other EU countries. I suspect that it is easier to find things out in the north of the Union than in the south.

133
In the report on environmental law the NGOs really came into their own. It was interesting to note how many statutory and governmental bodies, both here and in the rest of Europe, had a high and positive regard for the work done by the NGOs and their input to environmental thinking. They were certainly consulted at an early stage of policy-making and indeed before directives were issued. Their role in monitoring and data-collecting was much welcomed, but their role in enforcement, other than in giving evidence, was perhaps felt not to be so appropriate—which may not be surprising. Other speakers in the debate have covered enforcement, but we must commend what I still call the Department of the Environment's Wildlife Law Enforcement Group, referred to in paragraph 111.
So far as British NGOs working in Europe are concerned, there is a body of all European NGOs called the European Environmental Bureau, which meets in Brussels. Referring to what the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, it is supposed to be consulted by DG XI, and we think it probably is. I see that the noble Baroness is not sure, either.
We also considered whether NGOs should receive direct payment for their work and help from Europe, national governments and local government. Perhaps this is too topical a matter to go into in much detail. The committee felt that limited support, with strict safeguards, was appropriate: for instance, help with office space and meeting rooms and a small amount of funding, but not so much as to compromise either side. Perhaps I may give a very parochial example. My own district council in north Norfolk makes plenty of rooms available for meetings for various organisations such as CPRE and tourist and hoteliers' groups and gives very small grants. That is the kind of funding that I believe the NGOs should be given.
Finally, like the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, I believe that NGOs have a very important part to play in central European countries. They are not well known there. It is noticeable that, according to all the supporting Commission papers on Agenda 2000, every potential member in eastern Europe has major environmental problems. There is no doubt about that. It is all very well to say, as some have said, that the problems are not of their making. The problems exist. One of the ways that these countries can begin to assess those problems and remedy them is by using NGOs. We believe that such organisations could and should be supported by the PHARE programme of assistance.
The House should appreciate the amount of work that is done by NGOs and their potential for improving our environment in the UK, the European Union and prospective member countries.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in making this speech I am discharging a triple role. First, for most of the time I was a member of the sub-committee which produced the reports. Secondly, as my party's spokesman on conservation and the countryside, it is my job to comment from the outside. Thirdly, I am bidding a farewell to the sub-committee as pressure of work takes me on to other things.
134
I should therefore like to commence by saying what a pleasure it has been to serve on the sub-committee, with a number of highly rewarding colleagues whose merit can be judged by their contributions to the debate and their wit and good humour, under a firm but always kind chairman, aided by a supremely competent clerk and with a succession of fascinatingly erudite and helpful special advisers. I shall not pretend that I do not welcome my new freedom on Wednesday mornings, but I shall miss the intellectual stimulus that my thraldom provided.
Not only was I a wholehearted subscriber to the reports, but, as my party's spokesman on this subject, I wholeheartedly approve of what they say. I very much welcome the speeches made today, particularly the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I had the pleasure of serving with her on my party's Federal Policy Committee for a number of years. When I heard that she was coming to this House I very much looked forward to it, because I knew that she would have much to contribute. Her maiden speech has given us a foretaste of that.
I single out also, if I may, the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, whose to the point, pithy and helpful comments hammer home some of the messages which the committee was perhaps slightly mealie-mouthed about putting into the report itself.
It is in the field of the environment more than any other that I welcome the considerable powers of the European Union. The appalling tendency of international bodies at all levels to play into the greedy hands of transnational corporations is to a degree offset by the fact that the EU, as ought to have been expected from the tradition of its member nations but was not inevitable, takes the preservation of the environment and the establishment of a regime of sustainability with proper seriousness—a seriousness, I am glad to say, beginning to be on a par with that with which its members used to fight one another.
Nonetheless, there is a series of possible dangers in the handing over of powers to any bureaucracy. Two in particular are the need to depend on the accuracy of the information which is being fed into that bureaucracy and the need for democracy in the shape of both the European Parliament and the parliaments of the member states to control what is going on.
In a debate last week, and subsequently in Tokyo, we caught some horrifying glimpses of what ill-informed and "I-want-it-now" democracy can do to our plans to save the planet. Too many of the world's powerful nations are behaving like Gadarene swine. The cure for that is, as noble Lords were saying in that debate, "education, education and education".
It must be said that two kinds of education are concerned. One is the kind which spells out the facts of life on this planet and encourages citizens, particularly the young, to continue to absorb those facts. The second is the moral education which encourages them to care for the welfare of their neighbours and indeed of the world. Without being smug, I believe that we can be proud that both forms of education are thriving in this country.

135
However, in order for that to continue we must go on doing our bit, and rather more than our bit. And that means, among other things, that where we would like to see uniform action taken by EU nations we must not just sit by if it does not happen. We must go on exerting our influence to see that it does happen and we must if necessary be prepared to take possibly costly unilateral action in order to give a lead.
In the comments of the Government on these reports, such as those in paragraphs 9, 14 and 15 of E/97/C/83, I seem to detect a disinclination to be out there in front. This Government are clearly taking their obligation to be a wholehearted member of the EU seriously. There is less certainty, as I pointed out last Thursday, about their commitment to costly environmental action as opposed to cheap lip service. On these Benches it is the action for which we shall be looking, and we will continue to be grateful for the stimulus to such action that reports like those of this committee and others provide.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the committee for its work. I thank especially the chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, for her full explanation of these voluminous reports and the findings. I take the opportunity also of congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, on her maiden speech. I can assure her that we needed no patience to listen and that we look forward to hearing her again when she brings her practical experience of Europe to our debates. I am sure that she will take the opportunity to dispel some of the myths about methods and motives when the occasion arises.
There is no doubt, as has been said, that without the means to implement and enforce, the environmental policy of the Union will be totally ineffective. It is vital also that implementation takes place across the Union in such a way as to complement and not distort the single market. That is particularly important where commercial interests are involved.
It follows that enforcement and monitoring must also be pursued equitably across the Union to maintain a level playing field. Implementation and enforcement in some member states but not others can only lead to dissatisfaction and accusations of unfairness from those affected and a consequent feeling of dissatisfaction with the Union itself and its legislation. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman and the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, referred to possible expansion and new members. If new members are to come into the Union with the enormous problems to which reference has been made, they must do so in the knowledge that the rest of the established members are enforcing environmental policy fairly, uniformly and on the same basis.
The Union clearly has a responsibility to ensure that its legislation is well founded following adequate consultation with interested parties both public and
136
private. My noble friend Lady Wilcox referred to consumers. There is a role for the consultating local and regional government through the Committee of the Regions. Clearly, legislation not only needs to be well founded, but also, in so far as this is possible, it must be capable of one interpretation only. Ways of improving the legislation and the drafting need to be examined.
Having said that, while consultation is important, organisations and individuals also need to understand the workings of the Union so that they can make their input at the appropriate stage. It follows that member states have a similar responsibility when converting directives into domestic legislation. They have a responsibility accurately to reflect the directives; and to keep the legislation specific and not complicate it or expand it and then perhaps blame the European Union for any shortcomings which result. At all levels it must be clear who has the responsibility for implementing the legislation and the means for monitoring and enforcing must be put in place, whether it is through the European Environment Agency or other means yet to be devised.
The other report before your Lordships' House tonight follows rather neatly on that point. The Council directive says that,
"access to information on the environment held by public authorities will improve environmental protection".
Not, of itself, I would say, and certainly not without adequate policies of implementation and enforcement such as those we have been discussing.
An examination of the article and the regulations represents an interesting test of the effectiveness of both. The recommendations in the Select Committee report for a review of the article will lead to greater clarity and accountability and the changes to regulations would bring about similar gains. I shall be interested to learn from the Minister her views on comitology. The strictures of Members of your Lordships' House on the lack of information about committees are no doubt justified in some ways. However, before we relish with enthusiasm the implicit criticism of the European Union. we might ask ourselves, even if the membership of our committees is published, in practice how many people know that they exist and how and where they can be contacted.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and the members of the committee for the reports and look forward to hearing the response of the Minister to the many points that have been raised.
6.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon, as many speakers have done tonight. both for her chairmanship of the committee which produced these reports and for the characteristically lucid and

137
crisp way in which she introduced tonight's debates. I, too, join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, on what was a well-judged maiden speech. It had wit and some passion as well as experience and expertise. I am sure that those are qualities that made all of us in the House feel that we want to hear a great deal more from her in the future.
The noble Baroness said that the reports with which we are dealing are not immediately recognisable as bedside reading. Perhaps debates in this House on Select Committee reports are also not immediately recognisable as "peak viewing", even for aficionados of the parliamentary channel. However, they deal with extremely important issues. The issues we have been considering today—those of the environment, of the role of Europe and European institutions and of access to information—are central to this Government and their policies.
Perhaps I may deal, first, with the report Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment. The report was published in November last year and the previous government responded in February in terms which, as was clear from contributions to the debate today, were not wholly satisfactory to the committee. This is, however, the first opportunity that noble Lords have had for a debate on this important issue.
The Government are fully committed to a policy of greater openness, including improving the arrangements for access to environmental information. A freedom of information Act was a key pledge in our manifesto. We agree with the well-phrased comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about a well-informed citizenship being essential to a healthy democracy.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has signalled that a White Paper containing the Government's proposals for a freedom of information Act will be published before the Christmas Recess. This will set out options for handling access to environmental information in the context of freedom of information legislation as a whole.
Among the issues that the White Paper will deal with, which were raised in today's debate, will be the mechanisms for appeals against refusals to provide information. At present these are only possible through the courts. An appeals mechanism for environmental information is now being considered in the context of wider freedom of information legislation, and the freedom of information White Paper will set out options for an independent appeals procedure on freedom of information issues. The option of an information commissioner could be one way forward.
The Government are determined not to allow abuse of any exemptions to the disclosure of information. The nature of exemptions is being considered very carefully in work on a freedom of information White Paper, and making exemptions subject to a harm or public interest test is an option that is being considered carefully. I hope noble Lords will understand that there is not a great deal more that I can say at this stage. We must all await the White Paper. But I shall ensure that the
138
comments made tonight, as well as the comments made in the report itself, are drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
We are of course in a different position with the report Community Environmental Law: Making it Work, which was published only in late July and to which the Government have responded last week with a memorandum. On behalf of the Government, I thank the Select Committee for its report, which looks at ways of improving the way European environmental law works across the Community. At the same time I apologise to noble Lords for the fact that they did not receive the Government's memorandum earlier. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, was generous about that. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that the timing of the report's publication, just before the Summer Recess, meant slower than normal progress in the early stages of preparing a response.
The committee's report is wide-ranging, covering all aspects of the process of drafting, implementation and enforcement of Community environmental law. It recognises the improvements that have taken place since the Select Committee last considered these issues, but shows that there is still room for improvement. The report contains a number of what we consider to be useful recommendations for further progress. It is a helpful and timely contribution to the continuing debate. The Government find much to agree with in the report.
The issue of transparency, which was raised by several speakers in the debate, perhaps most notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, was rightly highlighted early in the Select Committee's report. Transparency is vital in ensuring that regulation commands confidence and support, one of the keys to improving its effective implementation and enforcement. The Government have made clear their strong commitment to greater openness in the European Union. Speakers will, I hope, welcome the fact that the Treaty of Amsterdam, which resulted from the inter-governmental conference, will help to introduce greater transparency, and for the first time help to give it a firm legal base in the treaty.
These new provisions include a new commitment to more open decision-making; a public right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; and the compulsory publication of Council votes when the Council acts in a legislative capacity. I was grateful for the welcome given by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, to our decision to take further steps under the UK presidency to enhance the transparency of EU decision-making and procedures. My honourable friend the Minister for Europe gave evidence on these matters this afternoon to a committee of your Lordships' House and, in what I hope is a proper spirit of openness, we shall be providing more details as the negotiations develop during our presidency.

139
The importance of consultation while legislation is being prepared was also raised in the report. The Government agree with the Select Committee that there should be full consultation of interested parties on early drafts of legislative proposals. I am glad that the EC Environmental Council's resolution in June, on the drafting, implementation and enforcement of Community environmental law, reinforced this. Legislation on which there has been full consultation from the earliest stages is not only more likely to reach political agreement quickly; it will also be easier to enforce.
In response to the points raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, we have looked carefully at the question of greater openness in EU committees. The Government agree with the Select Committee that it would be helpful if papers prepared for the Commission giving scientific and technical advice on which the Commission draws in preparing and formulating legislation were to be made more widely available. Publication would allow errors of fact and interpretation to be corrected and would give an opportunity for the conflicts which occur within scientific advice to be aired openly. We agree that it may also be appropriate for there to be greater openness about the membership and results of advisory committees.
There is also the question of publicising the membership and results of committees established to assist the Commission in exercising implementing powers—the so-called comitology committees. We learn something new every day. "Comitology", I have to say to the noble Lord. Lord Bowness, is a concept with which I have not had to deal before. The Government believe, for reasons explained in detail in our memorandum, that in most cases different considerations apply. In particular, many of these committees do not provide scientific advice to the Commission. Instead, they are more akin to negotiations between member states. What is important is not which officials attend but what positions the 15 member states adopt. For this reason the Government are currently considering the scope for greater openness of such committees as part of their study of possible new initiatives for our presidency, to which I referred a moment ago. We are currently discussing a number of possible measures with other member states. We will keep the House informed of the measures as these ideas develop.
Turning to the question of transposition of Community law into national law, the Government have given careful consideration to the Select Committee's view that there would be value in having discussions with the Commission in the period between the adoption of a directive and the deadline for implementation by member states. We agree that such a process would help to identify ambiguities at an early stage. On the other hand, there is a potential problem where the member
140
states and the Commission have different views about what is required in the national measures. In these circumstances the Government believe that the member state must reserve the right to implement in accordance with its own legal advice. If necessary its interpretation can be tested in the European Court of Justice. It will perhaps reassure members of the committee that, as far as our own practice is concerned, the Government consider that informal consultation with the Commission can sometimes be helpful, and we always keep this possibility in mind. The Government are by no means clear, however, that the balance of advantage lies in the establishing of formal mechanisms across the Community.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hilton of Eggardon and Lady Ludford, referred to the role of the Council. The Government endorse the Select Committee's view that the Council of Ministers should give more consideration to the implementation of environmental law. The Environment Council discussed implementation issues in June when it adopted its resolution on drafting, implementation and enforcement of Community environmental law. It is likely that these issues will return to the Council's agenda in the context of the further action that was called for in that resolution. We would certainly welcome that.
As regards the role of the European Environment Agency, raised both by my noble friend Lady Hilton and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, the United Kingdom is a strong supporter of that agency and agrees that the primary role should remain the provision of information about the state of the environment and related pressures on it in order to inform the development of policy within the Commission and member states.
The EEA has an important role, as many EU policies in the past have not been based on sound science. The EEA is attempting to address that. There has also been the lack of a level playing field as regards the reporting of data by member states under EEA/EU legislation; for example, the bathing waters directive, the standardised reporting directive and so forth. That means that it has been difficult to compare the environmental performance of countries. If the EEA's attempt at harmonisation is successful, that situation should also improve.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred to the importance of inspection. The Government believe that consistently high inspection standards across member states are essential in ensuring the full and effective implementation of Community environmental law throughout the Community. The Council resolution asked the Commission to propose minimum criteria or guidelines for national inspectorates, and a paper is currently being prepared by the EU Network for the Implementation of Environmental Law (IMPEL). Our own Environment Agency has been in the forefront of preparing this paper.

141
IMPEL was set up as a network of inspectors of industrial installations in order that they should be able to exchange information and expertise, and the Government would not like to see the network move too far away from its core objectives. The Government agree with the Select Committee that it is important for IMPEL to continue to be an independent network of professionals and they share your Lordships' concern that it should not develop into a semi-regulatory body. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that IMPEL has recently put a new structure in place and its relationship with the Commission is still evolving. We agree that it is important for it to speak with an independent voice.
Perhaps I may now turn to the issue of the confidentiality of correspondence relating to Article 169 issues, raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. The issue is the publication of Article 169 letters, reasoned opinions and responses to them—that is, correspondence which relates to alleged infractions of Community legislation by member states. It is a well established convention agreed between the Commission and member states that such correspondence between the parties should be confidential. Very often it contains unsubstantiated allegations and provisional legal opinions which may be modified subsequently in the light of further information received. Article 169 correspondence forms part of what can be a delicate process which might be prejudiced if both the Commission and member states were having to take a public position at an early stage.
We recognise that the committee's recommendation is a modest one; namely, that the correspondence should be made public only at the stage of a case coming before the European Court of Justice, and therefore retrospectively. Nevertheless, the knowledge that this could happen might influence the Commission or national governments in their drafting of such letters. It could thus inhibit frank exchanges and the possibility of compromise. Indeed, the European Court of First Instance decided in the WWF case earlier this year that the Commission would be justified in refusing to disclose Article 169 correspondence on precisely these grounds, even in cases where a period of time has elapsed since the Commission closed its investigation. Moveover, the point does not concern only environmental law but has to be considered across the whole range of legislation and, as a matter of principle, it goes far beyond the scope of this debate alone. The Government do, however, endorse the Select Committee's welcome for the Commission's decision to make greater use of Article 171, which allows for fines to be levied on member states who fail to comply with judgments of the European Court of Justice. The threat of fines under Article 171 has already proved effective in a number of cases.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, had a previous engagement. She and, I believe, other speakers raised the issue of the importance of access to justice. To ensure effective compliance with European
142
environmental law, it is important that where there are alleged breaches of that law, access to the judicial system should be available to all on a fair and equal basis. The Government are fully committed to this principle. It is already possible for environmental organisations to bring judicial review actions. We are also considering how, in public interest cases, we can deal with any in-built financial disincentive to bringing well-founded cases before the court.
Perhaps I may now turn to the issue of non-governmental organisations, which was raised by several speakers, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole. It is the Government's practice to consult with non-governmental organisations, industry and local authorities on all proposed Community environmental legislation. There is a clear role for responsible NGOs in helping to ensure compliance with Community environmental legislation, as in promoting public debate and concern for the environment generally. Representatives of NGOs meet Ministers on a regular basis to discuss current issues. On European issues, UK representatives of the European Environment Bureau, an umbrella organisation which brings together NGOs from all over Europe, regularly meet environment Ministers before Environment Council meetings to discuss the main agenda items. Ministers find these exchanges of views very useful. The Government will continue to consult and work closely with NGOs.
The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, also referred to the importance and the potential role of NGOs in an enlarged community. The Government are a strong sporter of enlargement. They believe that the Community must make full use of the excellent opportunity it offers to raise environmental standards in Central and Eastern Europe—a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness—and to extend the single market, with its common standards for environmental protection.
We have had a wide-ranging debate tonight. but basically, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, pointed out, we have been reviewing a chain of activity which starts with the drafting of European environment law, moving on to transposition into national laws, turning to monitoring and enforcement by the Commission, and then to the institutions that make the law work within member states (the inspectors of pollution; the courts; the environmental pressure groups). We are agreed that each link of the chain has to be well forged, and that action can be taken to strengthen each link.
It may seem to some that the UK has a good record in implementing EU law, and that further monitoring or enforcing would be unwelcome. It is worth reminding ourselves, however, of the UK's true interests here. We have a very firm and fundamental interest in securing uniformly high levels of observance.
Effective standards of protection across the EU will not be achieved unless there are similar standards of implementation and enforcement. We know that these do not exist at present.

143
Variations are recognised, by the Commission and member states alike, as they are also in the Select Committee's report. The Community has already achieved much in environmental protection, and the drive to improve implementation and enforcement still further has a vital role to play. The report from the Select Committee echoes this and I am pleased that in so many ways the Select Committee and the Government have similar views on what remains to be done.
I say to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, that I hope that she has not taken the view that the support of the Government is lukewarm in these areas. There is a great deal of common ground and a great deal that can be achieved. I hope that there is a great deal that can be achieved within our own presidency in order to share the committee's goal of a more effective application of environmental law within the EU.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, it has been a short but important debate. I am very grateful to all those who have taken part. I join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for an entertaining as well as informative contribution. I hope that she will join in future debates on the environment in the same manner. I am grateful to the Minister for her informative
144
and sympathetic response. I feel some disappointment over the response on Article 169 complaints, but I shall read carefully tomorrow what the Minister said and perhaps my disappointment will be alleviated.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment: ECC Report
Baroness Hilton of Eggardonrose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment (1st Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 9).
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment (1st Report, Session, 1996–97, HL Paper 9).—(Baroness Hilton of Eggardon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lloyds TSB Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before seven o'clock.