Lords Sitting of 17 December 1998

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Housing
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the number of houses they expect to be completed in the next 12 months by (a) local authorities and (b) housing associations.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we expect local authorities and housing associations to provide around 50,000 new social lettings in 1999–2000. These will be provided through a combination of new build, the purchase and renovation of private sector properties and sale incentive schemes which release existing homes for reletting. Within that total the number of newly built homes and homes provided through the purchase and renovation of private sector properties will be around 45,000. Local authorities are expected to complete less than 1,000 new dwellings themselves, but they also provide financial support for housing association schemes where high demand for social housing makes this a priority.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for that detailed Answer. It indicates an improvement on the poor building programme—it was almost nil—of the former government. Does the noble Baroness agree that in order to deal with the established and identified shortage by the housing report commissioned by the former government—it demonstrated a need for another 4 million houses or flats into early next century in order to deal with present foreseeable shortages—it would take 40 years at 100,000 units a year? That was the production capacity of the last Labour Government under Lord Wilson and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. Is it not time that the nation again puts social housing on a level with education and health in the bid for financial resources?
Is the Minister aware that society is a three-legged stool? I mentioned the three components. Should we now give housing the priority, with education and the health service, that it deserves?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Housing is a top priority for the Government. We took early action to boost investment through our capital receipts initiative and over the lifetime of this Parliament we shall have made available an extra £5 billion for investments in housing. We expect that the 50,000 new social lettings to be created during 1999–2000 will include a mixture of 32,000 new
1452
build, acquisition of private sector properties with renovational conversion where necessary of about 13,000, and sale incentive schemes.
My noble friend's second question is important. We are determined to join with local government, the voluntary and the private sectors in local communities, in a concerted attack against the causes of social and economic decline. Included with unemployment, crime, poor health and a degraded environment, one of the priority areas is tackling bad housing.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that despite the good will and the intentions of the Government and the building industry there is a chronic shortage through lack of training opportunities over the past few years? There is a desperate need not only for employment but also training. Have the government schemes under the new deal been warmly welcomed by the building industry? If not, those schemes should be stressed. Unless we have trained plasterers, bricklayers and others, the dreams of the Government will be as naught.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right. That is why the Government have included the new deal in construction as part of the employment option. The numbers of long-term unemployed have fallen sharply as a result of the economy picking up. But we hope that the scheme will be able to offer over 3,000 jobs a year. The DfEE figures so far indicate that more than one in 10 job placements for subsidised employment under the new deal are in the construction sector. That amounts to about 1,000 recruits to the industry.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, despite the figures given by the Minister today, does the noble Baroness agree that homelessness remains a serious problem? Is she, like me, disappointed that the last quarterly figures on homelessness indicate a 7 per cent. increase in families and people being accepted by local authorities as statutory homeless? I hope that the noble Baroness will join with me and others in congratulating Shelter on setting up Shelterline in the past 10 days. It is a 24-hour, 365 days a year helpline for those with housing needs. I believe that it is unique in the world.
Will the Minister tell us what else the Government will do to tackle homelessness, in particular among our young people?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in congratulating Shelter on its new helpline. It is precisely because the problems to which she refers vary enormously across the country that the Government's strategy for housing is to consider local authority housing plans which are achieved in partnership at local level to meet local need. For that reason we believe that the planning process is best determined by those local authorities working out how to meet the needs to which the noble Baroness refers.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the latest English house condition survey indicates that some 50,000 local

1453
authority owned properties and 20,000 registered social landlord owned homes await repair and modernisation before they can be occupied. Does the Minister agree that that presents a higher priority and a better return on investment than new build? Those houses could be put in order more quickly than new construction can take place.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree totally with the noble Lord. I believe that I am welcoming him for the first time in his new role on the Front Bench and look forward to working constructively with him.
Perhaps I may chide him gently. The inheritance of lack of repair on local authority housing stock was one of the reasons for the capital receipts initiative and the more than doubling of the amount of resource going into the local authority sector. I share my noble friend's concern that we need to build new houses. But patently local authorities will be using the additional resources to improve housing stock. I hope that the noble Lord joins with me in congratulating the Government on that aim.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell me how many times the Government have given approval to build houses on green-belt land?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, no, I am afraid that I do not have that figure. However, I can refer the noble Lord to the fact that we are working with a number of bodies, including Ordnance Survey and local authorities, to produce a national land use database. For the first time that data will be available to local authorities. Phase one covers data on previously developed land; that is, brownfield sites. We are aiming to publish initial summary results of the work in the spring of next year. Our target is that 60 per cent. of new homes should be built on previously developed land. I am sure the noble Lord will work with us to ensure that that target is achieved.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what proportion of those new homes will be suitable for people with physical disabilities, bearing in mind that there is an estimated shortfall of 300,000 such dwellings?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, sensitivity to the level of provision at local level is one reason that we believe that local authorities need to work very carefully within their communities. The Government are aware that the pattern of provision varies from place to place. We shall seek to ensure that local authorities are fully aware of the need to provide that specialist form of housing, as well as meeting other specialised needs within their communities.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, within the Government's overall strategy is any provision being made for housing for refugees and asylum seekers? Does not the Minister consider that, in respect of those particular needs, it is unfair that the local authorities should be left to deal
1454
with the matter in view of the fact that authorities such as Kent and the London boroughs must bear the brunt of accommodating those people when it is a national requirement and need?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are working very closely with the Local Government Association to ensure that there is sensitivity to those particular needs and pressure points.

Train Delays and Cancellations: Cost
11.11 a.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have made any recent assessment of the cost of train delays and cancellations on the rail network.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, while we have not attempted to quantify the cost, it is clearly substantial in terms of missed and late appointments and frustrated passengers. More generally, a poor train service puts people off public transport and adds to the problem of road congestion which is a cost in itself.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that on a recent visit to Newport in South Wales, the Deputy Prime Minister described our railways as a national disgrace? Does she also appreciate that complaints are at an all-time record level and yet those same train operators will, this year, receive a subsidy of £1.6 billion? That will happen whether the trains are late or on time. Surely incentives are needed to encourage punctuality and reliability. Consideration should now be given to sacking some of those poor-performing train operators.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Poor performance by train operators will not be tolerated by this Government and we have warned train operators that those who fail to meet the required standard will have no future in the railway industry.
On 26th November, transport Ministers met with train operators and Railtrack and agreed an action plan to tackle performance problems. Those agreed measures include 800 new train drivers, 500 new vehicles and a joint hit squad to identify and tackle the worst 50 black spots; a national troubleshooter team to tackle punctuality problems; and a new national passenger survey to find out what passengers think about their services in particular parts of the country.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, does the Minister believe that it may be helpful to let it be known that some of our services on the railways are efficient? Congratulations and thanks to them might help the whole system. I declare an interest. When travelling to London by train to attend your Lordships' House, my journey starts with a local train which plies between

1455
Maidenhead and Marlow, known as the "Marlow Donkey" from the days of steam. That train has a remarkably fine standard of punctuality.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to be able to join with a user of the railway system in complimenting good quality service provision. All I can say is that if it is possible to achieve that there, it must be possible to ensure that we achieve across the country those very high standards which give the noble Lord such satisfaction. We must seek to achieve that in the Abergavenny region where my noble friend who asked the Question lives.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Baroness has acknowledged the damaging effect which delays and unreliability of rail services cause in discouraging the use of rail by passengers and freight. When will it be possible to ensure that evidence of delays and the cost evidence of those delays is used to encourage better performance and, indeed, an improved and increased infrastructure? That has been used for many years in encouraging the construction of new roads. What additional powers will the strategic rail authority have to deal with that issue?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. We believe it is extremely important to have agreed criteria against which to look at the problems concerned. The previous government took the view that there were sufficient commercial incentives for inter-city operators. But they have failed to achieve the high level needed in certain areas. The franchising director has recently imposed on Great Western a penalty scheme for lateness and cancellations. With regard to the strategic rail authority and the shadow authority which we shall set up in advance of the necessary legislation, we believe it will be able to co-ordinate and bring together the very points to which the noble Baroness referred.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us how many women are in charge of those railway companies?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, tempts me into speculation about whether the service may be better if there were more women in charge, but that would be an unfair comment. It is certainly the case that of those who use public transport, the majority are women. Therefore, any consideration of the needs of consumers is bound to have regard to the needs of women and particularly those travelling with children or the elderly.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the contribution and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in running British Railways a few years ago and his assistance to the Government in ensuring that the legislative timetable runs on time, do the Government have any plans to recruit him to the strategic rail authority?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am quite sure that the contributions that are made through
1456
the total membership of the strategic rail authority—whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is a member—will benefit from the noble Lord's wisdom and experience.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, to what extent do the Government consider that the number of complaints which are now being received reflects the increased sensitivity of the public towards the expectations which were aroused as a result of privatisation rather than the increase in unpunctuality itself?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, there is a worrying increase in complaint figures. It may be fair to say that there was a not a uniform opinion across the country that privatisation would lead to better services. Many people felt that it would not. I do not believe that it is fair for the noble Lord to imply that people have raised the standards of their expectations. My own experience of the West Coast Line is that I have maintained the same standards of expectation but the meeting of those expectations has not been as good as it was before.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, is the Minister as worried as I am about the ideological precedence for boasting that the trains run on time? Is she aware also that camel trains appeared to run on time in the days of Herod the King?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure the right reverend Prelate would expect me to say that even those who are capable of the most heinous crimes have some good qualities and therefore one can assume that those good qualities occur in other people without necessarily the bad qualities. Fortunately, even having regard to the record of the last government, the services of camel trains can neither be attributed to them as a success nor, were they ever to fail, be blamed on them.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, when a train is running late or arrives late at a destination an anonymous voice from a tannoy—not God—informs the weary passengers that, owing to circumstances beyond the control of the railway authorities, the train will be delayed. Will the noble Baroness impress upon the railway authorities that even if they cannot achieve efficiency, they might achieve good manners and be more informative as to the reasons and the timing when the train may arrive at a destination? In that way the passengers—the customers—can make alternative arrangements.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, makes a valid point. I was invited earlier to pay tribute to the North-West Line and in my experience of that line, that information is given. I am aware that circumstances arise where conditions are difficult; for example, a train may be delayed because of a tragedy on the line and reasons of that sort. However, I shall certainly pass on the noble Lord's comments to ensure that a uniformly good service is carried out in that regard.

1457
Those who run the trains in the north west inherited a good service in that respect. Indeed, on one occasion I was once informed that the reason a train was late was that the guard did not manage to catch the train and we had to wait for him to run up the track.

National Museums and Galleries: Free Admission
11.22 a.m.
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make available sufficient funds to ensure their pledge of universal free entry to the national museums and galleries in 2001.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government remain firmly committed to broadening access to museums and galleries. The Secretary of State announced on Monday that funds had been allocated to allow trustees of those national museums in England who now charge for entry to introduce free admission for children in 1999–2000 and for pensioners in 2000–2001. That reflects our expectation that the trustees will endorse these first two stages. Funds have also been set aside to take the access programme further in 2001 and discussions will take place in that regard between my department and the museums next year. Decisions in relation to admission charges remain with the trustees of individual museums.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. However, does he acknowledge that there is some confusion in relation to the amount of funding national museums believe they require for universal free entry and what the Government propose is required? If so, how do the Government propose to resolve that discrepancy? If the Government have their figures wrong, will they be prepared to top them up to ensure that national museums will be free for all in the year 2001, as the Government pledged?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl makes clear why my Answer was a cautious one. I cannot say that whatever the museums claim is the cost of free entry will be paid over. As I said, we are in negotiations with the museums. They presented their figures in different ways and on different bases and those must he sorted out. One of the reasons it is not possible to make an announcement now in regard to free entry in 2001 is the difficulty of producing costs and agreeing a comparable basis.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although school parties have increasingly visited museums in recent years, will the Government do their best to ensure that the
1458
increasing opportunities for them to do so are brought to the notice of the schools so that the fullest possible use is made of them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a valid point. It is only fair to say that many museums and galleries, even though they charge entry, give special favourable terms to school parties. That is why, as the noble Lord rightly says, they are so popular. However, I am sure that we can continue to give better publicity to the free entry for children which will be available from 1st April next year.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can my noble friend say when the new Code of Practice on Access to Museums and Galleries, which was issued for consultation last year, is likely to be published? That is relevant to the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is relevant but I am afraid that the preparation of finalisation of the code of practice has been given second place by the need to progress the free access proposals. A new code of practice which will cover all publicly funded museums and galleries will be published next year.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, have the VAT implications in this matter been worked out? Does the Minister agree that directors and trustees, rather than subsidise millions of overseas visitors, who are not British taxpayers, with free admission, would rather have the money to enhance and improve their collections?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord reinforces my point as to the independence of trustees. It must be their decision in the end. We are in constant communication with Customs and Excise in relation to the VAT issue. There are no VAT implications for providing free access to children or pensioners. The present situation is that, even if free access is provided for everybody, VAT will only be charged on one-third or half of the business of the different museums and galleries, though it will be different according to their business situation. However, we are still in negotiation on that point.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, does the Minister recall telling this House in a debate exactly one year ago today that government policy was not to force any specific model of charging or not charging and that the Government would not be doing so at the end of the review? How does that statement fit in with the statement one year later that the Government are pressing museums to adopt a non-charging policy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say that we were pressurising museums and galleries to adopt a non-charging policy. I said that we have provided the funds for the first two years to allow children and pensioners free entry into galleries. Our expectation is that the trustees, at their normal meetings,

1459
will wish to take up that offer—they will not get the money if they do not—and we shall continue to be in negotiation with them in relation to the plans for 2001. We want to provide as wide access as we can but we recognise that we do not have the authority to do so. We are not pressurising trustees to do it either.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that the incoming tourist trade is a major asset to the United Kingdom economy and that the policy of universal free admission to museums and galleries could be a major selling point, what plans do the Government have for publicising those benefits over the next two years, particularly in the European Union and around the world, to encourage the tourist trade?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is the responsibility of the British Tourist Authority. I am sure that it will take every opportunity to publicise the greater level of free access that will become available.
The Earl of Effingham: My Lords, as the Palace of Westminster is a national institution as I understand it, and not a museum, can the Minister say whether it will be open to the public? Will entry be free or will a charge be made?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Palace of Westminster is an unoccupied Royal Palace—in other words, not occupied by the Royal Family. Therefore, it does not come within any of the categories considered in this Question. However, discussions have taken place about how to achieve greater public access to a building which some people consider to be an architectural marvel.

Business
11.30 a.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House may wish me to outline the arrangements for discussing the situation in Iraq this afternoon. At a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
I suggest that in view of the severity of the situation and the fact that the Statement will probably come at the end of business—on which I shall say more in a moment—the normal rules that govern the time spent on a Statement should be relaxed. The 20-minute time-limit for Back-Benchers' questions will be suspended.
As regards the rest of the day's business, the House will proceed through the business on the Order Paper. It is expected that that business will be concluded before 3.30 p.m. If that is so, the House will adjourn during pleasure until 3.30 p.m. to await the repeating of the Statement. The Christmas tributes will be made on the Motion to adjourn during pleasure. Royal Assent will be taken at 3.30 p.m., immediately before the Statement is repeated.
1460
As this afternoon's proceedings will be on the Statement, no speakers list will be produced. I expect that many noble Lords who will wish to take part may not be aware of these arrangements until this afternoon. Under those circumstances, I hope that the House will proceed through the business on the Statement in the orderly and self-regulating way that characterises your Lordships' House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip for that very welcome statement. I am sure that the House greatly appreciates the fact that he is prepared to agree to relax the usual rules that apply to Statements. I hope that the House will have a good opportunity to debate these very serious matters. I join the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip in saying that we hope that all noble Lords will try to keep their remarks appropriately brief.

Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Amos: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clause 2,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Schedule 4,

Clause 5,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 6 to 17,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 18 to 25,

Schedules 7 to 9,

Clauses 26 and 27.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 16th December), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Disability Rights Commission Bill [H.L.]
11.34 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
At the heart of this Government's agenda is the wish to have an inclusive society. That means a society that embraces all its citizens. Disabled people form a substantial minority of the population of this country and yet they continue to suffer discrimination in their daily lives; discrimination brought about by ignorance or by thoughtlessness; discrimination which denies disabled people everyday rights which others take for granted. I am sure noble Lords will agree with me that this is disgraceful, particularly in this day and age.
We are determined to make progress to achieve that inclusive society. Establishing a disability rights commission, which this Bill will do, is a vital part of that progress. This is an historic decision. The creation of a commission will respond to a long-standing demand from disabled people—and indeed many noble Lords—for an organisation that can effectively promote their civil rights. It will enable disabled people to have equality of opportunity, access and self-determination, and it will help employers and service providers to understand the law.
Some effort has been made in recent years to tackle discrimination. The Disability Discrimination Act was passed in 1995. That Act provides some significant rights for disabled people, but it is flawed in a number of important respects—in particular, the fact that it left out the establishment of a disability rights commission. This Government came into office determined to rectify that and to put into place new approaches designed to provide practical help for people with disabilities: for example, £195 million for the New Deal for Disabled People and the publication of a wide-ranging Green Paper on Special Educational Needs last year followed by an action plan in response to that consultation last month. In June this year, we announced the timetable for implementing further provisions under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act year. On 9th March we announced that the building regulations would be extended so that the needs of disabled people could be taken into account in the construction of non-domestic buildings. To set this Bill into context, I will need to refer to some of these achievements.
Before I do, I invite noble Lords to join with me in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for his tireless efforts on behalf of disabled people. Many noble Lords will recall that he was the first Minister for Disabled People (or Minister for the Disabled, to be historically correct) from 1974 to 1979. They will also be aware of the work he did as principal Opposition Front Bench Spokesperson on disability issues between 1979 and 1992. Both he and my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke, who has also worked tirelessly on behalf of disabled people, have played a critical role in the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Disablement Group.
1462
Let me return now to more recent history. In our 1997 manifesto, we pledged to support comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people developed in partnership with all interested parties. A few months after coming into power, we announced a three-point plan to take forward our commitment to establish a ministerial task force to undertake a wide consultation on how to implement comprehensive and enforceable civil rights; to go ahead with implementing the later rights of access to goods and services in the Disability Discrimination Act; and to move to establish a disability rights commission.
In December last year, we established the disability rights task force. It draws its membership from business, organisations of or for disabled people, the public sector, trade unions and others, and is led by my honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People. It has embarked on an ambitious programme, looking at how comprehensive and enforceable rights may be secured for disabled people. The task force will provide its recommendations to Government by July 1999.
The first item on its agenda was to look at the role and functions of a disability rights commission. It did that and provided recommendations to the Government by Easter 1998. Those recommendations formed the basis of a White Paper, Promoting Disabled People's Rights - Creating a Disability Rights Commission fit for the 21st Century, which was launched in July 1998. Responses to that White Paper indicate that nearly 95 per cent. of respondents supported proposals on the role of the commission. There was also strong support for the commission's functions. It is encouraging that support was so widespread. It came not only from organisations representing the interests of disabled people—like the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and Scope—but also business and employer organisations, like the Confederation of British Industry, Barclays Bank and British Telecom. We expect to publish a report on the responses to the White Paper early in the new year.
Before I turn to the content of the Bill, I want to refer briefly to parallels with other areas of equal opportunities. Noble Lords will be aware that commissions to tackle discrimination in the areas of sex and race have been in existence for many years. The Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality have done a great deal to change attitudes and to reduce discrimination in their respective areas during the 20-plus areas of their existence. In establishing a disability rights commission, which in our view is long overdue, we are bringing disability into line with those other areas. There are many similarities between the proposed structure and functions of the disability rights commission and those of the other commissions.
I turn now to the detail of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 are concerned with establishing the disability rights commission and defining its role. The commission's duties will be to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people; to promote the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people; and to

1463
keep under review the workings of the Disability Discrimination Act and this Bill when it becomes an Act.
Perhaps I may draw noble Lords' attention to two important related matters. The Bill provides for the commission to encourage good practice and to provide advice and information. It is our intention that the disability rights commission will provide a central point of information and advice for business and public sector employers, service providers and disabled people. They will be able to go to the commission for information about the law, their rights and responsibilities under it and advice about how best to comply with it. They may also seek help on good practice. Given the range and different types of disabilities and the rate of change created by new technologies, the commission has an important part to play in ensuring that we continue to bring down the barriers that disabled people face. The commission will also have an important promotional role in spreading the message that discrimination is unacceptable and helping people to understand how it can be avoided. The importance of such a role cannot be overstated, and I am confident that in fulfilling it the commission will do a great deal to change attitudes.
The commission will be able to advise Government Ministers on existing and proposed legislation emanating from this country and from the European Union where issues arise connected with the elimination of discrimination or equalisation of opportunities for disabled people. I believe it is crucial that the expertise of the commission can be drawn upon in this respect. It will have much to say on such matters.
Clauses 3 to 5 are concerned with the commission's ability to undertake formal investigations to determine whether discrimination has taken or is taking place. They also deal with the action required by those who are the subject of investigations. Of course, we want the commission to work to influence and persuade employers, service providers and others to take action to avoid discrimination. But where influence does not work and discrimination persists, it is right that the commission should have the necessary teeth to deal with it.
I am confident that noble Lords will understand the need for robust and effective investigation processes to be in place. This must be so if the commission is to be able to do its job effectively—to stamp out discrimination and to take to task employers, service providers and others who discriminate unlawfully. The investigations need to examine the structure of organisations so that they discover not only what discrimination is occurring, but why it happens. They need to deal with systemic as well as individual cases of discrimination.
The arrangements proposed are broadly similar to those which apply to the other equality commissions. But there are differences. The provisions in this Bill will modernise and strengthen the arrangements currently in place. In doing so, we have taken account of evolving practice in the other equality commissions. We also have been sensitive to proposals put forward by these commissions which are relevant to the operation of the
1464
disability rights commission. My ministerial colleagues are currently considering those proposals. Noble Lords will acknowledge the logic of adopting for the disability rights commission an approach which is consistent with the other commissions, where that can be achieved.
There are a number of matters in this context which are important. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations supplementing provisions as far as they affect formal investigations. That makes good sense. The Equal Opportunities Commission has indicated concerns about the length of time taken to conclude formal investigations. We can learn much from examining the experience of that commission. The process clearly needs some detailed scrutiny and we will need to consider carefully whether regulations should, and how they could, streamline the process, while taking full account of the needs of natural justice. Such a process needs to be sufficiently flexible to allow for changes if experience shows a need for it. I am confident that noble Lords will see the sense of this.
Regulations may also be made to define further the scope of non-discrimination notices. These notices are served on those who have been subject to a formal investigation where they are found to be discriminating. The other commissions have submitted proposals seeking to extend the scope of notices and we would be foolish to ignore their experience. This is an area where consistency makes sense. Therefore, we wish to reach decisions on the detail of how the scope of the notices should be extended, taking account of conclusions yet to be reached on the proposals that the other commissions have put to government. I would seek here to reassure noble Lords that our purpose is not to add on a series of draconian measures; rather, to make the process more effective.
The Bill also proposes that the commission can enter into legally binding written agreements with a body which is subject to a formal investigation. The intention is that such an agreement will bring to a halt any formal investigation and avoid the need for a non-discrimination notice. Embodying such an arrangement in statute is wholly new to equality commissions in Great Britain.
We want the disability rights commission to be able to work constructively with bodies that are keen to address deficiencies identified within their organisations. We recognise that that may be best achieved through agreements. These could be reached more speedily than going through the formal investigation process and are more likely to work, with good will on both sides. However, if those agreements break down, we have made provision for aspects of them which might otherwise have been dealt with by the issue of a non-discrimination notice to be enforceable through the courts. We believe this is right. Entering into written agreements should be seen as a better option for employers or service providers who are discriminating, not a soft option.
In many ways, written agreements demonstrate very clearly one of the relationships that the commission will seek to foster. Noble Lords will not, I hope, need to be persuaded of the merits of an approach which seeks,

1465
where that can be achieved, to engender co-operation rather than grudging compliance, and discussion rather than diktats.
Clause 6 of the Bill allows the commission to assist individuals with legal support where they seek redress for being discriminated against, and defines the criteria the commission will use in determining which cases to support. We want the commission to be able to support test cases which will help to clarify the law and to help disabled people who could not secure their rights unaided. Within the criteria, the commission will be able to take account of the impact that a person's disability has on his or her ability to pursue the case unaided. The criteria will allow the commission ample scope to support those who might need its help most; for example, those with mental health problems, those with learning difficulties and those who are deaf-blind.
Clause 7 allows the commission to recover costs of representation when a court, or more rarely a tribunal, makes an award for costs. Such is the practice with the other commissions.
Clause 8 deals with codes of practice relating to employment and access to goods and services. We believe that the commission should be charged with the role of producing codes which courts and tribunals will have regard to when considering cases of discrimination. These codes will also have the function of giving practical guidance to the public, business, service providers and others on how to avoid discrimination, promote the equalisation of opportunities and encourage good practice. The commission will be required to produce a draft code for consultation before it is submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. The codes must be laid in draft before this House and another place before they can be brought into force.
Clause 9 allows for the commission to make arrangements for the provision of a conciliation service dealing with disputes under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act—access to goods, services, facilities and premises. Conciliation arrangements are already available in the area of employment, where the function is undertaken by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS). I am sure that noble Lords will not need to be persuaded of the value of conciliation.
At present, through Section 28 of the Disability Discrimination Act, the Secretary of State provides an advice service called the Disability Access Rights Advice Service, or DARAS. DARAS provides advice to organisations which advise business and disabled people on their rights and responsibilities under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. A conciliation service is also available via this route where disputes cannot be resolved with the aid of the advice given.
In future we want the Disability Rights Commission to arrange for and monitor a conciliation service and we want it to be available to disabled people and service providers directly, rather than having to gain access to it by first going to a business or voluntary organisation which provides advice.
1466
The Bill provides a number of safeguards to ensure that the information disclosed during the process is not inappropriately disclosed or used.
Clause 10 replaces the bureaucratic mechanism for reviewing the small employers's threshold below which the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act do not apply. It requires the Secretary of State to consult the Disability Rights Commission—in addition to those he is already required to consult—about adjustments to the small employer threshold. At present, employers with fewer than 15 employees are exempt from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. The commission will clearly be in a key position to advise the Secretary of State on this matter and it is important that we make use of such expertise. The Secretary of State will be required to publish summary details of any views expressed during that consultation before any changes are made.
There are a number of final matters with which I would like to deal briefly. The National Disability Council, which is—to a limited extent—a predecessor body of the disability rights commission will be abolished when the commission is established. It has been very ably chaired by David Grayson, with strong support from his deputy chair Bert Massie. Perhaps I may pay tribute now to the good work that the members of that council have done, and continue to do. Perhaps I may express my gratitude to Chris Brocksom who has steered the council's working group which recently produced a widely-welcomed and much praised draft code of practice on provisions to be brought into force under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act.
The Bill provides for the majority of commissioners to be disabled people. This must be right for such a commission; and, indeed, such practice has been reflected in the membership of the National Disability Council. The commission must be credible with all stakeholders, and we believe that such a provision will achieve this aim. The commission will extend to England, Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland, arrangements set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 will apply, which noble Lords may recall were recently debated in this House. The experience of the existing equality commissions has shown that offices in each of England, Scotland and Wales have been necessary and invaluable. We will expect the disability rights commission to operate in a similar way, but think it best that it should determine what other arrangements are necessary in the light of experience.
I look forward to debate on this Bill. The decision to establish a disability rights commission is an historic one, which I am confident will be welcomed not only by disabled people but also by everyone who is committed to fairness and social inclusion. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
11.54 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her very clear and comprehensive

1467
explanation of the purposes of the Bill. I feel a personal connection with the introduction of this Bill and its first parliamentary discussion today. The noble Baroness said that the Bill was long overdue. It was 30 years ago, almost to the day, when I introduced a Private Member's Bill in the other place, having been successful in the annual ballot. It was the Disablement Commission Bill and I have a copy with me. It is 30 years old and, in the usual way, beside the title is printed "AD 1968".
It was a year before the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, was successful in the next annual ballot in 1969. He introduced what eventually became the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has publicly recalled that the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the late Mr. Richard Crossman (who held that office from 1968 to 1970), did not view that Bill with favour and tried to strangle it at birth. But the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to his lasting credit, persevered and steered his private measure successfully to the statute book. I am very glad to see that he is speaking today.
I was less fortunate a year earlier. I was able to have a full Second Reading debate early in 1969, but sensed that the government were not well disposed towards my harmless, short Bill. Supporters of my Bill in all parts of the Commons co-operated with my plan for the day: short speeches to bring the debate to an end well before closing time—and I use that expression in its parliamentary sense. As a result, the Government did not talk it out and they could not block it at closing time, as sometimes happens with Private Members' Bills. The course that the government did take, hardly believable of a Labour government now, was to force a Division with their Whip applied. Even with their large majority at that time, I only lost the Bill in that Division by about four votes. I was a member of the shadow Cabinet at the time, but was also a private Member and could enter the ballot. Noble Lords may imagine my disappointment then and my nostalgia today.
As I explained in that debate and outside Parliament, in my view the commission would have been the beginning, virtually costing nothing. My object, with my supporters, was to induce the government of the day to take action themselves, as they were in a much better position to do so than a private Member. It was a long time after that before any government initiated legislation; indeed, that was in 1994 and it led to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It is the first and, so far, the only government measure in this field of disablement. Although it is criticised as not going far enough, it is a landmark and the very first attempt by any British government to bring in laws to prevent discrimination against disabled people. It is now core legislation on the subject which can be built upon.
I declare, again, certain interests at this first stage of the Bill's passage. I am a war disability pensioner from World War II; and the parent of a disabled person.
The shape and functions of the proposed commission were to be considered and suggested by the Disability Rights Task Force. The Government issued a consultation document in July, just before the Summer Recess, which is still collecting views. That was only
1468
five months ago. I read it carefully and noted that the task force is due to report to the Government by July 1999. The Bill is before us now. What will happen if that report has further recommendations or proposals different to the provisions in the Bill? The Bill should almost have completed its passage through Parliament when that report arrives.
The functions proposed in the Bill include those now carried out by the present National Disability Council, to which the noble Baroness referred. The council was established under the DDA of 1955. I applaud the work carried out so far by the council which has been described in its annual reports, and in particular its work in preparing codes of practice. I echo what the noble Baroness said about it. The Bill would add functions for the commission to those which are now carried out by the council—initiating litigation, supporting individuals in seeking to enforce rights—and it would have powers of investigation.
I note that the Bill will use the same definition of a disabled person as is in the DDA. I regard that as sensible and convenient, but I do foresee that there will be dissent in some quarters which did not particularly like the previous definition. Also, questions and concerns are arising as to whether there will be enough finance made available to enable the commission to carry out these new functions effectively.
The Bill uses the emotive word "rights". I inform Ministers, if they are not aware already, that there are widely differing views on the meaning of that word. In more than 50 years of moving among disabled people I have met extremes. There are some disabled people who are reticent and reluctant even to claim the help and benefits due to them; others, at the other extreme, are likely to claim rights that will strain the future commissioners' imagination and budget.
The new commission will have very different situations to face from those encountered by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. There is a very wide variety of disabilities—physical and mental—and many different kinds of disability. More than two-thirds of those falling within the proposed definition are over retiring age. Most of them were not disabled when they were of working age but are experiencing the usual disabling conditions brought on by advancing age.
The type of decision that I foresee the commission will be required to make is whether a right of access to polling booths should be enforced. Here, of course, there are alternatives—postal and proxy voting—but for that carers in particular have to ensure that disabled people are registered in good time. Personally, I would not think that that supposed right needed enforcement, for the reason that I have just mentioned. I have always voted by post, including when I was a Member of Parliament, and my home is in what was my constituency. I must explain that I was over voting age when I was wounded—I was 23—and I was 25 when I left hospital. My service vote in the election of 1945 did not catch up with my being a casualty, and ever since then I have used a postal vote and advised disabled people to do the same. If access to polling stations were

1469
to be enforced, it would mean extra expenditure for local authorities and taxpayers in order to adapt premises for about two days a year, on average, for general and local elections. I give that as an example of the sort of difficult case which I am sure will arise for the proposed commission.
As to finance, there is concern whether there will be enough made available for the range of activities and the new functions to be undertaken by the commission.
I turn now to regulations and Clause 11. All statutory instruments under the Bill are to be subject to the negative procedure. No report has yet been received, I am told, from the Select Committee on Delegated Powers. Of course, it has not had time to get round to Bills like this in the new Session, having only recently been set up again. When a report appears we should pay particular attention to it. Some of us may well think that the affirmative procedure should be required for some regulations.
The Bill will need careful examination at the later stages. I wish the commission well, while I can foresee many problems ahead for it.
12.6 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I would like to pay tribute to the admirable work that he has done for disabled people over many years, especially in the parliamentary All-Party Disablement Group. I have been chairman of that group for some 26 years, and joint chairman for the past five years since entering this House. I have watched, with great admiration, the contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. Today, dotted around the Chamber, are other members of that group, notably my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Rix, and a number of others, all of whom have also made significant contributions to the issue of disability. I must also include the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his great legal expertise and contributions. These are the people who, in my view, have contributed in a vital way. The All-Party Disablement Group is the engine-room of campaigns on disability—it is where the hard, laborious work is done—and I am very proud of the work of that group of people. Today is the culmination of their efforts, the efforts of the disability organisations and the efforts of disabled people themselves. It really is a great day for disabled people.
We are debating an historic development for Britain's 6.5 million disabled people. I believe that this commission will transform their lives and will transform their dream of full civil rights into a reality. That will be a very considerable achievement. From time immemorial disabled people have had little voice, few rights and absolutely no role. They have been excluded from society because of the deep-rooted discrimination so eloquently mentioned by my noble friend when she opened the debate. The new commission will mount a head-on challenge to that discrimination. That is why it is so very important.
1470
Blind people get help across the road, but there is no rush to employ them. In the main, employers do not want to know. Deaf people face irritation and resentment. We know from the research of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People that the handicap of deafness is a greater obstacle to obtaining employment than a criminal record or a history of drug abuse. Those with uncontrollable limbs face embarrassment and exclusion rather than practical assistance. Anyone who is severely disabled encounters discrimination in one form or another practically every day of their lives—in shops, offices, factories hotels, trains and even at football matches, where there may be only half a dozen spaces for wheelchairs. Deliberate or inadvertent, disability not only hurts but damages, and over the years, persuasion has failed to end it.
The Disability Discrimination Act in 1995 outlawed discrimination but, as my noble friend said, it was badly flawed because it failed to provide a commission, like those for race and gender, which could represent and fight for disabled people. To be quite frank, many ministerial hearts of the Tory Government were not in the legislation because, after denying the need for it, they were propelled into it by public outcry. It was an Act without an engine. Although progress was made by the Act, it was rather limited because there was no commission. I have been critical of the Labour Government on disability on many occasions but to their eternal credit, which deserves the warmest congratulations, this Government are now establishing a powerful commission, something which for years disabled people feared they would never see because so many pleas for a commission were rejected. So to the Prime Minister and his Ministers, I say "Hallelujah", and I know I speak for millions of disabled people in expressing those thanks.
I turn now to my reservations. For the commission to be successful, Ministers will need to tread a minefield with care when setting it up. Worthy and well meaning people should have no place on the commission. We want people who are understanding and have backbone. The majority need to be disabled themselves, as is proposed in the Bill. That is a welcome starting point. But we need to discuss whether a simple majority is enough. Would not the commission be more effective with two-thirds or three-quarters of its members being, or having been, disabled?
Above all we need people schooled by personal experience to the harsh reality of discrimination in all its subtle, and not so subtle, manifestations. We need to remember that disability can take many forms. Some are familiar such as wheelchair conditions, blindness and deafness, while others are less well known. The sufferers are less vocal but their needs are just as great.
However, it would be a mistake if Ministers accepted the proposal that all members should be disabled. I do not accept that. Non-disabled people from many walks of life should be on the commission because one of its essential duties will be to harmonise diverse views and be sensitive to a broad spectrum of attitudes. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Blackstone made that a clear and emphatic point in her splendid speech.

1471
Yet it will not be all harmony. The effectiveness of the Disability Discrimination Act will be mainly determined by court rulings, where there are disputes. The commission, therefore, should be active in court cases. It needs to be staffed by high quality legal experts, capable of meeting and matching the most expensive and sophisticated opposition in tribunals and courts.
Unlike the commissions on race and gender, the disability rights commission will be breaking entirely new ground. Whereas the other bodies are dealing solely with prejudice, it will have to cope with prejudice and what is "reasonable" in relation to one of the myriad disabilities being considered. The Disability Discrimination Act provides that "reasonable" adjustments should be made by employers and service providers. Disability is not a simple male or female, black or white issue. There are countless disabilities at all kinds of stages. They affect people differently and relate to jobs differently. Considering, for example, a case of alleged discrimination concerning someone with multiple sclerosis, the commission would have to take account of how serious it was, how it fluctuates, whether the job was physical or intellectual, whether the person was needed every day or periodically, how they coped and what help they required. It is by no means a simple issue.
But once a case is concluded, the Bill provides that when a disabled person has been assisted by the commission, the commission shall, under certain circumstances, be able to recover some of its expenses. I say to my noble friend that I am not too happy with that. I do not go along with that all the way because it should apply only to additional awards for costs and not to any compensation award. It would be totally wrong in principle for any compensation award to be clawed back by the commission.
A very important task of the commission will be to tackle public understanding of disability and the ignorance of the Disability Discrimination Act. This contributes significantly to discrimination and a prime task should be to raise public awareness so that people understand the problems. My noble friend emphasised that in introducing the Bill and I am delighted that she did so. The commission will have to give top quality advice to firms and service providers so that they can avoid falling foul of the law. Sensitivity, awareness and understanding are essential for all the duties of the commission, but they are particularly so for the task of promoting the equalisation of opportunities. In the long term, this positive work could be the most important and rewarding of the commission's duties.
I welcome the provision in the Bill giving power to the Secretary of State to extend the scope of the commission to other legislation. The Explanatory Notes provided by my noble friend suggest that Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 could be among those to be considered. As that Act will have an important bearing on the rights of the disabled, because it regulates the behaviour of public bodies towards individuals, it would be helpful if it was specifically included in the remit of the commission rather than be ambiguous or subject to rarefied debate.
1472
In introducing the Bill, my noble friend mentioned Clause 10 which permits the commission to consult on the exclusion of disabled people from the Disability Discrimination Act. I feel very deeply on this point. I do not believe Ministers should wait for the recommendations of the commission. Why should they? The commission has not yet been set up. We do not know when it will be set up. We do not know how it will progress. It was a scandalous decision of the previous government to exclude 92.5 per cent. of employers from the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. The Government should have a quick review of the situation and then decide that all firms except those with fewer than two workers should be included. There is no need to wait for the deliberations of the commission. Although I cannot now speak on amendments, I propose to move an amendment at the proper time to provide that Clause 10 should be deferred until the year 2000 so that the Government's hands are not tied. They can then get on with bringing in all the employers apart from those with fewer than two workers.
The funding of the commission is crucial. The Equal Opportunities Commission has an allocation of nearly £15 million a year but, despite the phenomenal complexity of disability, the amount proposed for the new commission is less. The Government have allocated £3 million to set it up and then £11 million for each of the following two years. Some disability organisations have suggested that the annual figure should be £20 million. I agree with them.
Too many hopes of disabled people rest on the future of this commission for it to be crippled by inadequate finance. If it is successful, the decades of patronage and pity, of indifference and inferiority, can be consigned to history by this potentially mighty champion of a new deal. But it will need all the help and support that we and the Government can give. I warmly commend the Bill.
12.20 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, disabled people in the UK are fortunate to have so many campaigners on their behalf. Many of the leaders are speaking today and their loyalty goes on year after year. They are from all parts of the House. I am happy to say that the All-Party Disablement Group, chaired so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is a cross-party group.
I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the Bill. I welcome the setting up of the disability rights commission as a further step towards creating comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people in the United Kingdom. I hope that there will be spin-offs from it in Europe and other parts of the world.
There is no doubt that legislation in support of disabled people needs clout. I have not heard of an organisation for disabled people which does not welcome in general the setting up of the commission. In particular, organisations for disabled people welcome the fact that the DRC will have a similar remit to those of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. It is important that the DRC will provide support and backing for any disabled

1473
individual wishing to take out an action against discrimination by any person or body, give advice to the Government on any aspect of law or propose changes to the law to further the end of discrimination. Such specific powers will give the DRC the ability to achieve its principal objective of eliminating disability discrimination. However, such powers will be pointless without government enforcement and backing.
As there are so many different disabilities and organisations representing the special needs of their members, I hope the commission will learn about all the different aspects and complexities of disabilities and take evidence from those concerned. What one person with a specific disability needs may be totally different from what a person with another type of disability needs. That is why education and flexibility are needed.
Clause 1 sets out the general duties of the DRC. Clause 2 enables the DRC to encourage good practice in the treatment of disabled people in any field or activity. Will this include hospitals? The Spinal Injuries Association has some horror stories of people who have been treated as emergencies in general hospitals and not special spinal units and have been denied basic human rights. If people cannot do some basic things for themselves—for example, a person paralysed from the neck down who cannot evacuate his own bowels—they need positive help to do this. They have been denied this as it was considered an invasive procedure. Patients are put in danger if they cannot get the basic help that they need.
Many taxis have been adapted to take wheelchairs. Yet so many people with a disability experience taxi drivers who are free but drive past them. Some people trying to get a taxi for a disabled person hide the disabled person so the taxi driver cannot see him until he has stopped. Will that be the kind of matter that the commission can look into?
Many organisations are interested in the disability rights legislation. The Confederation of British Industry is particularly pleased to support the conciliation proposals to assist settlement of claims on access to goods and other services. The separation of the conciliation responsibilities of the DRC should ensure that impartiality and confidentiality are maintained during the process. The CBI has two key concerns at this stage of the Bill on which I hope the Minister will be able to comment. First, it is concerned that the remit and additional powers of the DRC should be clearly defined on the face of the Bill as relating to disability discrimination and disabled persons. In particular, it seeks clarification on the proposals for the DRC's interface with the Human Rights Act. Secondly, it is concerned about the extent and potential of the DRC's investigatory role and powers.
It is good that the DRC will be offering information, advice and support and will be taking cases forward for disabled people. It will provide information and advice to employers and service providers. Are hotels service providers? Recently I was attending a fund-raising function at the Dorchester Hotel. There were no ramps at the main entrance. In the past few years the hotel has been fully refurbished with millions of pounds being
1474
spent on it. As I was humped up and down the steps, I thought what a benefit it would be for the porters who have to hump luggage up and down every day to have a ramp. What helps disabled people helps other people too. Some hotels have made excellent ramps, which make such a difference, while others, such as the Dorchester, just do not bother.
I hope that this legislation will make people sit up and think and help to change attitudes. With people living longer and with there being more elderly people with disabilities in society, access is becoming even more vital. I hope that the chairperson of the DRC will have wide knowledge of disability and be dynamic and a diplomat as one needs good relationships between all groups. Disabled people need a level playing field, but to get that one needs positive discrimination and good will.
I should like to thank the Government for bringing forward this legislation and to wish the Minister and all noble Lords taking part in this debate a happy Christmas.
12.28 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am naturally delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. She among others on both sides of your Lordships' House is familiar with my work over many years as honorary parliamentary adviser to The Royal British Legion. I have come to this debate from a meeting earlier today—attended also by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham—of the Legion's Gulf War Group. The group was formed to help the ex-servicemen and women who returned seven years ago from the Gulf conflict with undiagnosed illnesses which have left them chronically sick and disabled. Thus it may be timely and appropriate to remind ourselves today of their plight as the conflict with Iraq is renewed—with what outcome it is too soon to predict—and of how deeply important this Bill, which I most warmly welcome, is to them as it is to tens of thousands of other needful people, like the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Holderness, whose heavy physical disabilities were sustained in service to this country.
As parliamentarians, all of us know, more than most people, not only that success has many fathers but just how many fathers it can attract: the greater the success, the more numerous its fathers.
We are met today, as my good and noble friend Lord Ashley said, to celebrate a success of historic importance for Britain's 8 million disabled people, for which incredibly even William Hague almost claimed fatherhood when speaking about this Bill in another place on 24th November. Yet in advance of any DNA test, I think most of us who know the Bill's origins can agree about its true paternity.
It was Peter, now Sir Peter, Large, to whom I am sure historians will attribute this Bill's paternity, who chaired the committee of inquiry appointed in 1979 to investigate acts of unjustified discrimination which still, even today, pile handicap on handicap for people with disabilities. The Committee of Inquiry into Restrictions Against Disabled People (CORAD), as his committee

1475
was called, and of which Colin Low was also a distinguished member, had power to investigate all aspects of discrimination and published its report in 1982. It was my good fortune, as Minister for Disabled People from 1974–79, that, notwithstanding the severity of his disability, Peter Large had accepted my invitation to chair the inquiry.
CORAD' s report stressed and documented the urgent need to make unjustified discrimination unlawful by means of a commission with powers and duties to conciliate and, where necessary, to take enforcement action. But the Minister to whom the report was submitted in 1982 decided that legislation was unnecessary. He was satisfied that education and persuasion and the voluntary application of goodwill would end unequal treatment and eventually transform the lives of disabled people.
Following that decision, one Minister after another blocked every parliamentary attempt to give effect to the CORAD report during 13 years of systematic obstruction in another place. My noble friend Lord Ashley, then, as now, chairman of the All-Party Disablement Group, and for whom my abiding regard and profound respect is known to everyone taking part in this debate, gave the Government an early opportunity to reconsider their position by introducing a Ten Minute Rule Bill endorsing the report. Three such Bills were put forward by Members of another place in 1983, all of which went no further than First Reading.
My Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, with detailed provision for a commission to make the rights that it conferred enforceable, which I introduced after winning parliamentary time in the Private Members' ballot in November 1991, was blocked in three successive parliamentary Sessions in another place by manoeuvres as crude as any I have seen in 34 years at Westminster. It was blocked for the first time in January 1992, and it was not until 1993—by which time my Bill had twice been approved at all stages by this House, due to initiatives taken by my noble friends Lady Lockwood and Lord Ashley, with strong support from the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix—that I was able to seek a further Second Reading debate for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in another place. But the Bill was again obstructed.
Then came the good news. My friend Roger Berry, who had worked with me to enact my Bill from the moment he first won his parliamentary seat in April 1992, secured a high place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills for the parliamentary Session 1993–94. Without hesitation, he agreed to reintroduce my Bill and I pay tribute again today to his dedication in promoting it in the face not only of further obstruction but also of prevarication and parliamentary behaviour by the Bill's few opponents that was censured on three occasions from the Speaker's Chair.
It was further good news that Harry Barnes, another active supporter of the Bill, succeeded in the ballot for Private Members' Bills in the parliamentary Session 1994–95 and achieved a virtually unopposed Second Reading. But by then another Bill had appeared. The Government had been shamed into introducing their
1476
own Bill. But it made no provision for a disability rights commission without which it was bound to be defective. The Government's Bill provided only for an advisory council, which was described by Peter Large as,
"a wheyfaced ghost of what is required".
The Government's tactics then were to talk out the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill yet again before enacting their own measure. We succeeded in Committee and on Report in extending the scope of the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill but, without the commission for which the Bill now before the House provides, it was a car without an engine—as defective as equal opportunities legislation for women would be without the Equal Opportunities Commission.
It was nevertheless an important breakthrough that the Major Government had at last conceded that education and persuasion were not enough to end discrimination against disabled people. Peter Large's judgment was now totally vindicated in having written to me 13 years earlier stating,
"The Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People, which you set up as the then Minister in 1979 and I had the honour to chair, strongly believes that campaigns to educate and persuade are too costly and ineffective in the absence of a legislative framework of acceptable behaviour".
He was echoing the view of Martin Luther King when he said:
"Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless".
Had the Government recognised the wisdom of Peter Large's judgment in 1982, Britain would have led the world in making unjustified discrimination against disabled people unlawful, as we did in 1970 by legislating on access to the built environment for disabled people. Instead, we shall still lag behind many countries—not least the United States—until this Disability Rights Commission Bill is enacted. While other countries across the world read and quickly acted upon the CORAD report, it will then have taken the United Kingdom 17 years to implement the most important of its recommendations.
Much credit is due to present Ministers, including the Prime Minister, for their humanity in honouring as soon as they could their election pledge to enact this Bill. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Blackstone and to Margaret Hodge for the priority that they—with David Blunkett and Andrew Smith—have given at the DfEE to the heavy departmental work it involves. I want especially also to thank the Minister for the Arts, my friend Alan Howarth, who, as Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, set up the task force and produced the White Paper published in July. His principled and tireless support for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, from both sides of the House of Commons since it was first introduced in 1991, is worthy not only of praise but of admiration.
Nor should anyone forget that this Bill is also the achievement of countless numbers of unnamed disabled people and their organisations who fought the good fight when others wearied. Naturally, they are concerned now to ensure that the disability rights commission is hampered neither by resource constraints nor limitations

1477
on its power to vouchsafe fully enforceable civil rights. They want, in particular, our civil rights legislation to extend to all employees and to see transport and education included within its framework.
Like the Law Society, they want the disability rights commission to undertake formal investigations and to be able to impose strict time limits to ensure that the process is completed within a reasonable timescale. They are anxious to see the perverse effects of the outcome of the R. v. Gloucestershire County Council, ex parte Michael Barry case addressed with more urgency and to end the reversion to a "pot luck" system of basing rights to adequate services not on the extent of need, but on where the disabled person lives.
They want to see guidance from the Department of Health, working in partnership with the DfEE, insisting that independence is not about survival but full participation in society and the support necessary for independent living made available to disabled people as of right. After all, accessible places of employment are of no use if you do not have the independent living services to reach them.
Of course, one of the problems of spending departments like the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health is that they are often unfairly attacked for decisions that are dictated by the Treasury. In this policy area, their difficulties are compounded by a fundamental error in Whitehall's approach to costings. The costs of public provision for able-bodied people are treated differently from those of providing for disabled people. It is seen as quite "normal" to provide services to help the able-bodied by installing escalators in public places. But provision for disabled people, like lifts at stations, is treated differently as a "special" and abnormal expense. From now on, "normal" provision must include the needs of disabled people if civil rights are to become a reality. Otherwise, disabled people will still find themselves apart from and not a part of society.
The issue of civil rights for disabled people is one of social decency. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said, it was wrong and not very creditable that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was obstructed for so long in another place. Fully assured civil rights have become the defining principle of all enlightened policy-making on disability. For without civil rights, disabled people are doubly disabled. The handicapping effects of their disabilities are made harder to bear by the gratuitous social handicaps for which there is no moral justification. And the overriding justification for giving the Bill an enthusiastic Second Reading today is that what is morally unjustified ought no longer to be legally permissible in Britain.
12.43 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I feel honoured to follow such a distinguished list of those who have campaigned for disabled people. I do not like the word "rights", but in some instances it is correct to use the word. It is a right for disabled people to be treated properly and as though they were ordinary people and not something rather peculiar.
1478
In particular, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has over 30 years of campaigning, the noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Morris of Manchester, 25 years each, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, whose length of service is probably far longer than I realise, is joined with them. The four of them together have probably been campaigning for a total of at least 100 years.
I welcome the Bill. In many ways it is totally unnecessary as it should have been part of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I am delighted that the Government have brought it forward now, because when that Act was a Bill going through this House I was one of those who wanted a disability rights commission in it.
I particularly welcome the duty of the commission to keep the working of that Act under review and to publish a summary of views of those who are consulted on the small employer exceptions. I understand that most of those who gave views when the small employer exception was recently reconsidered wanted the size of the employer reduced not just to 15 employees but to two. If those views had been published, that is where we might well be today, instead of wasting time.
I also welcome the fact that the commission is to advise the Government generally on the effects of the legislation that they are bringing forward. So often in the past I and others have talked about disability on Bills that have nothing to do with disability at all. I remember in particular the road and streetworks legislation where no provision was made to ensure that holes in the roads were properly protected, that roads were properly lit, had proper ramps, and such matters.
Clause 2(5) allows the commission to charge for any facility or service. What does that cover? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. For example, may it charge for formal investigations on behalf of an individual covered under Clause 3? Where the commission assists an individual in relation to proceedings, as provided for under Clause 6, does it prevent that individual from obtaining legal aid? How is that affected by the Access to Justice Bill now going through your Lordship's House?
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, mentioned the recovery of expenses from an individual. Where the commission recovers expenses from an individual whom it has assisted (recovery provided for under Clause 7) can the recovery be from damages awarded to the individual or from the repayment ordered to that individual for expenses incurred by that person, apart from expenses incurred by the DRC on that person's behalf?
With regard to the commission, I welcome the fact that the majority of commissioners will themselves be disabled. However, will at least one of them represent families with a disabled child? There is no mention of that in the Bill. Will there be an advocate on the commission for those whose disabilities are so profound as to preclude them from membership of the commission? Is not the commission to act in a quasi-judicial capacity under Clauses 3 and 4? Will it therefore have members with the appropriate legal qualifications and experience?

1479
Finally, as to codes of practice, I welcome the fact that the commission is to prepare codes of practice which should be approved by the Secretary of State. However, should they not be issued by the Secretary of State himself? The Bill gives the impression that they are to be issued by the Disability Rights Commission, which, of course, has no access to Parliament. Are not all codes of practice and regulations issued under other legislation all the responsibility of, and issued by, the relevant Secretary of State?
I welcome the Bill, but I hope that we shall be able to improve it on its passage through the House.
12.49 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, having been duly transformed from chairman of Mencap to being president of Mencap in the past couple of days, I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in the main debate on what must be considered a landmark piece of legislation in the advancement of civil rights for disabled people.
Like the Minister I wish to begin by acknowledging our debt to those in your Lordships' House who have from the outset campaigned relentlessly for civil rights for disabled people, notably the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, who sustains political momentum on this issue through his role as co-Chairman of the All-Party Disablement Group, and members of the All Party-Disablement Group themselves, many of whom have already spoken in this debate. I wish to mention also the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who is due to speak in this debate and whose name has not yet been mentioned in regard to this Bill, and of course the indomitable noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, whose Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill set out the principles which we now hope will come to fruition.
I express my relief that the expertise of this House can be marshalled at the early stages of this legislation. The significance of this Bill cannot be overestimated, but the best of Bills benefit from close and informed scrutiny. The National Disability Council has done its best, as we have heard, and has done more perhaps than might have been anticipated. However, it has been constrained by the modesty of its remit. Now we have the opportunity for a more significant leap forward, and where better to leap than in your Lordships' House eight days before Christmas!
The proper establishment of the disability rights commission will confer a right of redress for individuals who have experienced discrimination. These are men, women and children who have hitherto been awarded protection from discrimination in theory, but left without a supporting mechanism for redress of grievances in practice. The creation of the disability rights commission will mean that the law on disability discrimination will be properly enforceable, helping people with learning disabilities to participate and to contribute fully to society. The disability rights commission will have an important role in raising awareness and educating the wider public in order to promote a better understanding of disability issues,
1480
including awareness of the needs of people with learning disabilities, which have in the past sometimes been overlooked.
There is a common misconception that disability is physical and that the provision of physical access through portable ramps and wider doors will resolve most of the difficulties or barriers to access facing disabled people. However, the problems facing people with learning disabilities stem not just from physical barriers or the absence of "reasonable adjustments" such as auxiliary aids, but an unwillingness on behalf of providers of goods or services to serve disabled people or to provide a service on equal terms. Access for people with learning disabilities depends much more on people than on ramps, and the barriers are people rather than stairs. Opening minds, heads and imaginations has the edge on widening doorways, necessary as that sometimes is.
One example is the recent case—I am sure many of your Lordships may have read of this—of 10 adults with learning disabilities who were refused permission to enter a pre-booked party at a pub when the landlady considered that this would constitute—that hoary old excuse!—a breach of the fire regulations and her patrons' comfort! Quite often people with learning disabilities need no more specialised help than a positive and enlightened attitude on behalf of employers, service providers and of course the general public.
The commission's ability to monitor the implementation of the DDA is also important. The climate of opinion among businesses, service providers, the wider public, and even the Government is still in need of radical change. The Government's own surveys demonstrate the extent to which service providers are unaware of their duties to make reasonable adjustments under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. There is a lack of awareness of the reality that more helpful personal services as well as physical changes will make their services more accessible and attractive to everyone—such as older people and those with young children—not just those traditionally called disabled.
Thinking specifically about the structure and composition of the disability rights commission, I would like to say a few words on the issue of representation. It is Mencap's experience of mixed disability fora and seminars, that it is those with a physical disability who are well represented and are able to voice their opinions, while those with a learning disability are not represented or adequately supported to take full part in discussions.
For those reasons, Mencap was extremely disappointed that no organisation is currently represented on the Disability Rights Task Force, although Mencap and other learning disability organisations are contributing to this work at a distance through correspondence and telephone calls. The proposal that 50 per cent. or more of the new commissioners will be disabled people, is indeed right and proper. Nevertheless I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of a wide representation of impairment specific interests among the commissioners, including people with learning disabilities.

1481
Given the enormity of the tasks ahead, a realistic level of funding is imperative. The figure proposed in this Bill falls, as we have heard, between the budgets for the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Racial Equality Commission. I hope that the Government will give a commitment to review the resources available once the commission is fully operational.
In addressing the House this afternoon I would like to focus on some of the practicalities involved in enabling people with learning disabilities to exercise their rights under the law, and then say a word about the importance of keeping anti-discrimination legislation under review so that real progress can be made in improving the day-to-day lives of disabled people.
I warmly welcome the fact that the White Paper upon which this Bill is based recognises that extra support will be required by people with learning disabilities in asserting their rights. There are several matters of importance in this connection.
First, it is important to remember that while recourse to the courts is a necessary safeguard, principles can also be protected by pressure outside the court system. Going to court is not easy for people who may be expected to relive painful experiences. In view of this, coercion into litigation, no matter how well meaning, should be avoided wherever possible.
If the commission is successful in bringing cases before the courts, it is vital that judges and magistrates have the training so that people with learning disabilities are awarded the same protection through the justice system as others enjoy. Indeed I spoke about this matter in your Lordships' House only two days ago when we were discussing vulnerable witnesses. Help should also be on hand from the commission for parents and carers involved in championing the rights of the person with learning disabilities.
In terms of the commission's remuneration following litigation, I should be grateful if the Government would clarify two matters. Similar questions have already been asked by the noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Swinfen. First, what arrangements are in place to cover costs incurred in unsuccessful cases? Secondly, will costs recovered from individuals be ring-fenced by the commission to fund further costs of representation?
My final point in terms of the commission's support for individuals is that it seems to be an oversight that this piece of legislation does not incorporate a right of appeal for people whose cases are refused help from the commission. It is vital that all those who approach the commission, and in particular vulnerable people, have confidence in the fairness and transparency of its judgments.
I turn now to the wider functions of the commission. Let us not harbour any illusions over what this commission can in practice achieve. The commission is new, the legislation with which it deals is not. The Government admit that the DDA is flawed. It is failing to deliver comprehensive rights to disabled people. Areas in which the rights of disabled people need protection cannot be neatly compartmentalised in the way in which DDA definitions operate. It is nonsense
1482
that the Act offers protection from unreasonable discrimination by large employers, but not small ones. I welcome the advance warning by the noble Lord, Lord Stoke of Ashley, of his intention to table an amendment to remove this absurdity at an early stage. There is only limited value in widening access to employment if health and social services care is not provided in order to make the daily routine of employment feasible. The scandal of shrinking domiciliary care and related services which enable disabled people to live independent lives has to be brought into the civil rights frame.
There are other issues, for example, access to education and transport. Can we really believe that when disabled people have to struggle in order to get education and training, and it may be another decade before some forms of transport are accessible, welfare-to-work strategies will be a resounding success?
Without wishing to digress into the realms of philosophy, there are several critical questions which need to be addressed. Perhaps some of my esteemed colleagues will pursue these ideas. How far do civil rights take us in the absence of service rights? It is a little like respecting people's citizenship but not facilitating their survival. How can we secure in legislation a right to independent living and equality which means that basic domiciliary care, accessible transport, and equality of access to education and employment are delivered as of right? The inaccessibility of services such as health, education and justice to those with learning disabilities forms the basis of Mencap's concerns and has an impact on an individual's ability to play a full and healthy part in society.
Disability organisations are examining problems that cross over the boundaries of government departments. I sense a willingness to work across the boundaries and to promote greater co-ordination of government policy in relation to disability. I can only hope that rhetoric about joined-up government will be taken seriously across all departments who plan disability policy. The commission has an extraordinary task ahead in going beyond the letter of the law and looking to identify and remedy other forms of discrimination and social exclusion. Only then can the establishment of a disability rights commission be truly celebrated. The good news is that in establishing this commission the Government are signalling their readiness for reform. Joshua walked several times around Jericho before the wall fell. We have visited this issue so many times over so many years that I hope the walls of prejudice and discrimination are near to cracking. Just a few more trumpet blasts will do the trick.
1.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for this opportunity to speak in the gap and promise to observe the convention of brevity. I can scarcely add a trumpet blast to what has already been said. What I say is no more than a feeble peep. From these Benches I should like to extend a very warm welcome to the aims and principles of the Bill and the setting up of a disability rights commission.

1483
I am delighted that in the course of her introduction the Minister referred to the disabilities of those who suffer from mental illness. So far this matter has not been raised by noble Lords in the debate. I should like to draw brief attention to the disabilities endured by such people. I take as an example schizophrenia. It is a fact that for approximately one-third of people who suffer an episode of schizophrenia it is the first and last episode because complete recovery follows. But in cases where people endure further, even repeated, acute episodes frequently there is a serious diminution in social and intellectual skills. Such diminution amounts to genuine disability. The medication that keeps them well also adds further disabilities, especially when it comes to public life and their representation in social life.
Sometimes the obstacles that people who suffer, or have suffered, from mental illness include difficulty in doing a full day's work because of accumulated reaction to stress within the workplace. It may include a fluctuation in the illness and the degree of wellness which the individual experiences. One day may be good and the next day less good. Sometimes, sadly, such people suffer a partial relapse. Despite these disabilities it is vital that these people have employment opportunities.
My experience of people who suffer mental illness is that they desperately want to escape from the company and society of those who are mentally ill, which is very often thought to be all that they are capable of. Discrimination is genuinely encountered by such people. There is discrimination where a past record of mental ill health is disclosed to an employer or, for example, where there is absolutely no opportunity for part-time work. That is not to mention the serious situation caused by the continuing poverty trap for those who attempt to work but who are then penalised when it comes to the support that may be available from public funds.
I draw attention to the importance of Clause 8 which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already mentioned. It is my experience of those who suffer from mental illness and their reception in the community that enforcement is, generally speaking, counter-productive. The formation of codes of practice which suggest changes in attitudes and atmosphere is absolutely vital if the stigma of mental illness, which frequently hangs around for years and years after an episode, is to be challenged. I acknowledge the existence of the very good work that is being done in the area of employment by the Richmond Fellowship and other organisations; including, notably, Clubhouse International which has a technique for developing contracts with employers that give them confidence in the performance of certain tasks.
In conclusion, I underline the importance of acceptance in the community of those who courageously, and often very successfully, cope with mental illness. I look forward to the work of the disability rights commission and perhaps—who knows?—membership of that commission by those who have experience of this enormously difficult and disabling condition.
1.8 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may seek your Lordships' indulgence to intervene very briefly in the gap in order to raise a short question to which I do not expect a substantive answer at this stage. The matter arises on the codes of practice referred to in Clause 8(4) of the Bill, page 6, line 14:
"The Commission may not issue a code of practice unless … a draft of it has been submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State and laid by him before both Houses of Parliament".
My short question is whether either House will be able, when a draft code of practice is laid before it, to suggest for consideration by the commission amendments to that draft before it comes into effect under subsection (6). If not, might the Government feel that it was worth considering the inclusion of such a power?
1.10 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, at this stage in the debate we have got to the point where everything has been said but probably not everybody has said it. Virtually all the speakers have spent varying degrees of time trying to get something like this Bill before the House, discussed and passed into law. One or two speeches have perhaps had a hint of triumph around them. Certainly, some people have had an extremely long battle to fight in order to gain their moment of glory. I have been engaged in it for only a few years, and that certainly feels long enough for me. When we were discussing the precursor to this Bill, I think I described it as being rather like a nouvelle cuisine meal in front of a hungry man because it did not have its main course, which was a commission. Indeed I believe I beat the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, to it by comparing it to a car without an engine on Third Reading. It was one of my purple passages on the subject.
The need for the commission is undoubted. But one fact has to be addressed straightaway. It may not have sufficient funding. For reasons already mentioned, people with different degrees of experience of disability groups have spoken about the diverse needs. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, put his finger on it exactly when he said that certain groups are seen to be the major group—the disability group of someone in a wheelchair. The person in a wheelchair has needs and those needs have to be met. However, I have spent I do not know how many hours trying to convince people that not all disabled people have wheelchairs.
Legislation on this whole subject needs to be addressed in incredibly diverse ways to cover a number of different public attitudes. The educational package alone, to make the proposals effective, could swallow up the £11 million provision overnight virtually. I hope that the Government will keep the issue under review. I ask them for some reassurance that they will do so. There is a grave danger that everything will be spread so thin that nothing is achieved. That would be the worst outcome imaginable. Having fought so hard for a commission, we must all guard against it being denied the wherewithal to become effective. If it does not have

1485
sufficient funding we might even have been better off with something with fewer powers but able to concentrate on doing one job: that is a fact.
As to the commission itself, I see that people will be appointed for between two and five years. I wonder why that divergence exists. Is it possible that the commission will have a rolling membership? I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that and perhaps give some idea of the process of appointment. It is worth remembering that the commission is going to make effective something which will become a rod for everybody's back, including any government. The appointment procedure should take that into account. Future governments, as well as the current Government, may well find themselves locked in conflict with the commission. Powers should be built in to allow the commission to work effectively. Unless that is done we are in danger of creating another poodle. As we are discussing the future of our own House and must create something with a degree of independence built into it, I would have thought that we had the expertise available in this House to ensure that similar consideration was given to this Bill.
One of the issues which has recurred throughout our debate has been that of charging for the recovery of costs. There was a certain prickle down the back of my neck when I heard that subject mentioned. I believe that the Equal Opportunities Commission had that power proposed to it and turned it down. Why are we bringing it in again? It is absolutely essential that we have ringfencing around where that funding goes, so that the money is seen to be used in a manner which will further the commission's investigative powers and its powers of prosecution. The commission has to be seen to be using the powers properly. The probity of the body will be equally as, if not more, important than any power it actually wields.
The Minister referred to accessibility on a geographical basis to the commission. I hope that the commission will have a good regional basis. I caught a reference to Scotland and Wales, but I believe it must also be regionally well based. Other commissions operate on that basis. The Equal Opportunities Commission has offices all over the place, so there may well be a case for incorporating the two, at least in the initial phase. Since there is perhaps an argument for bringing all the commissions together to give them more "bite" perhaps there could be some experimentation along those lines. I shall be interested in due course to hear the Government's thinking on that point. It seems to me that civil rights and equal rights causes have a great similarity, at least in approach.
I turn to the subject of disability discrimination exemptions. The fact that a small firm can behave unreasonably whereas a large one cannot is patently absurd. Indeed, when the Disability Discrimination Act came forward, I tried to have that removed from the Bill but I was, unfortunately, unsuccessful. I give the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, my full assurance that if he tries again to have it removed he will have my support and that of the Benches I represent—fuller, one hopes, than they are at present.
1486
The powers of investigation of the Act require clarity. There is a provision regarding the Equal Opportunities Commission which allows someone, when a judgment or submission about discrimination has been made, to stall for time. I hope that the Government will put a fixed time limit upon any referral back of any judgment which has been made.
I should like to draw a halt to my comments here on the grounds that, basically, we are all on the same side so far. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, this is the opportunity for us to stop having a disability discrimination section during debates on every major Bill that goes through your Lordships' House. There is the opportunity here for many of us to develop new parliamentary interests and the Minister will not need to waste so much time dealing with this kind of measure. I hope the Minister can give an assurance that the commission will be allowed to act quickly so that matters are dealt with. We may, in the end, be talking about the most efficient cross-party pressure group in this Chamber. That will be a tribute to its success, power and expertise, and not to its ineffectiveness.
1.19 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I rise your Lordships may be wondering what this has to do with the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear: not much, if anything. I suspect that my noble friend the Chief Whip decided that I should come before you and try to speak on something other than the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. Someone has intervened to say that this is an open list!
My noble friend may also have had in mind the fact that I piloted through your Lordships' House the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and listened to some of the same players making the same arguments—and resisted them, I have to say. Some of your Lordships have been very patient and reasonable in forbearing to tease me too much about the events of 1995. But I believe that that Act was a major step forward for disabled people.
From this side of the Chamber we subscribe to the spirit of the Bill before us today, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy indicated. My noble friend has had a long interest in these matters. He has shown us that physical disability does not inhibit one getting pretty close to the top of one's chosen career. My noble friend did extremely well in a number of fields including being Secretary of State for Scotland. I believe that he is an example for people with physical disability that one can achieve a huge amount in one's chosen career.
My noble friend made a reasonable point which I wish to underline on the question of affirmative and negative resolutions for secondary legislation. We shall look forward to seeing what the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee says before we tax the Minister with difficult decisions on affirmative and negative resolutions.
I always enjoyed those debates because they allowed me to share the boards with the noble Lord, Lord Rix—something I never thought that I would do. Again today

1487
I had the pleasure of listening to him. I agreed with much that he said although not all. Philosophically one should avoid adding too many things to the column headed "fundamental human rights". If one is not very careful one begins to diminish the few rights which I believe are fundamental human rights. One has to be cautious. Some of the rights of disabled people can sometimes not be fully achieved because of the disability and the nature of what those people wish to do. I believe that that is well recognised.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, rightly drew to our attention, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely, that there is more to disability than physical disability. It is a subject of special interest to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. The right reverend Prelate drew our attention to mental illness, and, learning disability is a particular interest of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I found it interesting when he said—I think I have it right—that when it comes to lowering barriers it is perhaps more important to work on people rather than on ranks. As I said on a number of occasions during the passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill, that is really the most important aspect. One can do a certain amount in the physical world; the important factor is to make people realise the range of disabilities and the potential of disabled people. That is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, made an important point: that among the membership of the commission there should be people who are interested in learning disability, and there should not be concentration on physical disability. Sometimes both problems are contained in the same person but often they are not, and people with learning disability can look perfectly normal physically but have real problems which should be dealt with.
We give the Bill a reasonable welcome. My right honourable friend William Hague said in the debate in another place on the Queen's Speech that the commission will ensure that the disability rights legislation is properly enforced and that it leads to a lasting change for disabled people. Your Lordships will realise that when we were both at the Department of Social Security we had some responsibility for these matters. My responsibility merely extended to answering the issues in your Lordships' House.
While we give the Bill general support, it does not mean that we shall not study it in detail in Committee and at Report stage, as a number of noble Lords have said that we should. I am happy to say that most of the detailed work will be done by my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lady Seccombe. I suspect that I shall be involved in the weightier matters of constitutional change. However, I wish to raise a few points. My first point concerns Schedule 1 which sets out the provisions relating to the constitution of the commission. Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 stipulates that,
"after the appointment more than half of the commissioners will be disabled persons or persons who have had a disability".
I have already raised the point, and come to the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on defining disabilities. It is right that the commission should have people who have first-hand experience of disability, but it must also contain people who come from the business and service
1488
world on which the disability commission may well impinge. I hope that the Minister will assure us that some members will be drawn from those backgrounds and that the concerns of business and commerce and the service world will always be given a fair hearing. The best way to do that is to make sure that there is some representation on the commission.
My other point on representation on the commission is how the Bill takes into account the changed constitutional position of our country. After next May many of the matters which will affect disabled people, and which may be drawn to the attention of Government by the commission, will be the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. I think more particularly of the Scottish Parliament: it is to have legislative power and to be in many ways a more powerful body than the Welsh Assembly. Perhaps I may frame my questions more on the basis of the Scottish Parliament than the Welsh Assembly although there is a read across to Wales as well.
I believe that I read somewhere that the Government would appoint someone from Scotland and Wales to the Commission. I wish to know the basis on which that will be done. I hope that the Secretary of State for the British Government will not be the person who appoints someone from Scotland. I hope that the appointments will be on the advice of the First Minister (or the Prime Minister) of the Government of Scotland and the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly. He should not be asked just to send a list of three or four persons' names. He should be able to say, "Joe Bloggs is the person I want", and Joe Bloggs ends up on the commission. That is important.
It is important that on matters which are within the remit of the Scottish Parliament the commission will have to report to the Scottish Parliament. Will the Scottish Parliament be able to ask the commission's advice in exactly the same way as the Bill envisages that the Government here will?
Let us say that the commission gives the Scottish Parliament some advice on issues which are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. For whatever reason—perhaps because Scotland is rather hillier and different from England—the Scottish Parliament decides that it cannot go along with the advice, yet the Government here decide that they can go along with the advice for England and possibly Wales. Can I be assured that the Government here will not attempt to override or overrule the decisions made by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament?
Those are questions which will be asked about every Bill that passes before your Lordships' House from now on. The Government have changed the constitutional arrangements of this country out of all recognition and the consequences are still not being properly considered by Government, as we know from at least one document which was leaked from a Whitehall department.
I move on from questions on composition and the interaction between the commission, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, to another point.

1489
Recently, there was some very negative publicity for the Commission for Racial Equality which highlighted the dangers of setting up a commission such as this one. A recently retired commissioner from the Commission for Racial Equality pointed out that it had chosen to,
"introduce a litigious and aggressive attitude towards race relations rather than a conciliatory one".
I seek an assurance from the Minister that the commission which we are setting up in this Bill will avoid those mistakes; that it will work and co-operate with and persuade people rather than taking them to court.
Apart from settling the composition of the commission, the Bill's true importance lies in its determination of the remit of the commission. The main point of the Bill is to replace the old National Disability Council with this new, more powerful commission. Like the NDC, it will provide advice to the Secretary of State concerning matters of expertise within its field and will be involved with the preparation of codes of conduct. However, the commission will have new powers with regard to investigation and the initiation of litigation and the provision of support for individuals seeking to support rights.
The Bill confers on that new body functions which give it significant scope for judicial action. That puts the new commission on an equal footing with the racial equality and equal opportunities commissions. It is an important step for disabled people. But I am concerned about the balance between the various powers of the commission. Nobody wants to see the commission as merely a legalistic body. I underline the point I made previously: if it is to be effective, it must have an educational, advisory and cajoling role, especially in relation to employers and service providers. On this side of the House, we should prefer to see a commission heavily into education rather than litigation.
The final point I wish to make is on the financial aspect of the matter. A number of your Lordships have already dealt with that. The transition from government side to opposition side allows one to say that the Government are not putting nearly enough money into this. I can almost guess the answer that I shall be given. The money involved here will be £3 million for the start-up year and £11 million for each of the following two years. RADAR has said:
"Given that the CRE has Government funding of almost £15 million, this is a severe disappointment for disabled people and indeed for business who need good quality advice to ensure that they do not fall foul of what is a complex piece of legislation".
I accept that it will be difficult for the Government to judge the budgets which are appropriate for those various bodies. However, comparisons will be made, whether the Government like it or not. The comparison made here—and it has already been made—is that it will be asked whether the Government attach less importance to the rights of disabled people than they do to the issue of racial equality. The Government must watch that they do not fall into traps in relation to funding.
1490
Finally, should we not await the passage of the Bill and decisions about the size of the remit of the commission before financial decisions are finally made?
We have had an interesting debate. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, will arrange for someone to send her words to the Dorchester which will probably not like the publicity it has been given.
There was one matter with which I did not agree and which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen, whom I am used to having behind me, if not with me, on these matters; that is, the matter of bringing small employers into the net. As your Lordships know, I batted fairly vigorously on that. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, used a statistic about the number of employers involved. But that is a fairly false statistic because the reality is that the large firms, which are involved, are where the great bulk of people actually work. Therefore, it is not a very accurate reflection just to use the number of small companies—
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend will find that 95 per cent. of people who are employed are not covered even under the revised regulations. It is the people who matter, not the number of firms.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, having debated this previously, my recollection was that the Act covers the great bulk of people in the workplace. But my noble friend has a great interest in these matters and I must certainly check before I use those figures again.
My noble friend said that lots of people had said that there should be a reduction. Your Lordships should be careful before imposing burdens of regulation and cost on small businesses, often businesses revolving around one person with his employees. If your Lordships know anyone who is involved in such a company, it will be possible to confirm by talking to them that they have plenty to do at the moment in obeying the various rules and regulations which already exist without adding yet more to them.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Lord has talked about burdens on industry. Does he not agree that the Act provides that only "reasonable" adaptation needs to be made. The word "reasonable" is a quote from the Act.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I know that. I did not wish to become involved in an argument about this. I just wanted to put down a marker. For many small businessmen, it is extremely difficult to define what is "reasonable". It may involve them seeking advice from a lawyer for which they must pay. That is another problem for them. I urge caution. It is much more important that small businesses should be encouraged in these matters rather than have legislation imposed upon them.
Having said that, I look forward to my noble friends, the two noble Baronesses, dealing with the Committee stage and I wish the Bill well.
1.37 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I very much welcome the full debate that we have had on this important Bill. As I said, the establishment of the commission is an historic decision and it is one which I believe will be welcomed by disabled people and many others right across the country.
We have heard a great deal of interesting history today, notably from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and my noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Ashley of Stoke. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said that there is at least 100 years of campaigning, if we add up the number of years that noble Lords, both inside and outside the House, have worked hard to promote the interests of disabled people.
I recognise also, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, suggested the efficiency of the cross-party group on disability. I know that we shall be hearing more about them during the course of the later stages of the Bill.
We have a responsibility to ensure that we provide the most effective commission possible which will be able to perform all the necessary functions that lead progressively towards the elimination of discrimination. To that end, I welcome the many constructive comments that I have heard. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that we should like to see a commission which is not just a legislative body. We want it to provide advice and information and to educate people about the rights of disabled people. It will have a very important role, working with a whole variety of organisations in pursuit of those aims. Of course, it will also have a key role in providing employers and service providers with such advice. I am sure that raising awareness will be a central part of its work.
I was delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was speaking for the Opposition on this Bill. As he said, he has considerable experience, having taken the DDA through this House. I am delighted to have his support for a disability rights commission, even though it is just a little belated. I am only sorry that I shall not be seeing him across the Dispatch Box when we reach the later stages of the Bill.
I turn now to some of the comments raised in the course of the debate. A number of noble Lords raised the matter of funding for the commission. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred to that matter, although he admitted that when in government those matters look rather different from when one is in opposition. The noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Rix and Lord Addington, also referred to funding. We estimate that the commission's running costs budget will be around £11 million per annum. We have also put aside £3 million for setting-up costs. That estimate was arrived at by looking at what functions we expect the commission to carry out and costing them using the best available information that we have. We believe that this estimate is realistic and that it will enable the commission to carry out its functions effectively.
The commission will need to provide an effective advice and information service in the way that I have already set out, and the funding reflects that. I believe I am right in saying that the funding we propose for the
1492
commission compares favourably with that of the existing commissions where the functions are similar. However, because the commission will be a new organisation working in a more complex area, we have allocated it almost double the resources of its sister organisation, the Equal Opportunities Commission. I hope Members of your Lordships' House will welcome that. There is no reason to think that those funds will not be adequate both to undertake its enforcement work and its promotional activities. However, that is something that the Government will want to review.
A number of speakers in this debate—my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke and the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen, Lord Rix and Lord Addington—referred to the issue of recovery of costs. The provision in the Bill allows the disability rights commission to recover the costs associated with assisting an individual when an award for costs is made by a court or tribunal or agreement is reached in respect of costs as part of the settlement. That again mirrors the arrangements in place for other commissions.
I should make it absolutely clear that the Bill does not provide for the commission to recover costs from compensation, settlements reached out of court or in a tribunal in respect of compensation. The question of whether the commission should be able to recover the costs from compensation awards to an individual was raised in the White Paper. It is clearly a sensitive issue and one that gave rise to debate. There are arguments in support of such a provision which have force and we shall need to weigh them carefully against any arguments to the contrary.
The Government have not reached a definitive view on that matter. However, no provision has been made in the Bill to do so. But I hope your Lordships will see the wisdom of not ruling out now for all time the possibility that the commission may be allowed to recover costs from compensation or from settlements reached. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked a more specific question in relation to the recovery of costs. It is only when the DRC assists a disabled person with expenses, such as solicitors' or barristers' fees, and the court or tribunal orders the other party to pay those expenses that the DRC will be able to recover them. If a court or tribunal awards to a disabled person expenses with which he had no help from the DRC, the disabled person will retain those expenses.
Many speakers in the debate raised the issue of the appointment of commissioners. A number of different speakers pointed to the importance of ensuring that specific groups of disabled people are not left out in the work of the commission, and perhaps at this point I can assure them that the Government's intention is that all forms of disability should be covered. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred particularly to the fact that disability is sometimes seen as physical disability. The right reverend Prelate rightly raised the issue of those who suffer from serious mental illness. It is important that we do not forget such groups and the Government want to be absolutely clear today in saying that they will not be forgotten.

1493
The commission must establish credibility with its key stakeholders from the start if it is to be effective. It must understand the needs of disabled people and those of employers and service providers to be able to do its job effectively. In that regard I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was saying. The Secretary of State will seek to appoint commissioners so that collectively they have a wide range of experience. As I mentioned earlier, we expect to have a commission of around 10 to 15 strong.
Noble Lords will surely understand that all the commissioners cannot have direct experience of every kind of business or every type of disability—that would be quite unrealistic. Again, as my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said, we cannot and should not aim for all or nearly all of the commissioners to be disabled people; we also need representatives of business and the service world. The provisions in the Bill reflect the Disability Rights Task Force recommendations. The recruitment process will be an open and accessible one and appointments will be based on merit. People who are not disabled will be free to apply and, other than taking account of the requirement to appoint a majority of disabled commissioners—that is the absolute requirement; it can go somewhat higher, as my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke suggested—there will be no barrier to the recruitment of a wide range of people if they are good candidates for the post.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked what would happen if a future Disability Rights Task Force were to come up with different recommendations than those embodied in the Bill before us today. I believe that the task force considered in great detail the role and functions of the disability rights commission. We have already received its advice. The July 1999 recommendations will concern other issues and not the specific question of the role and function of the commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to codes of practice. The DRC will issue codes of practice but the Secretary of State must first approve them, place them before Parliament and bring them into force. That is similar to the arrangements that exist for the other equality commissions—they are almost the same as for the EAC.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about assistance in relation to the health service. Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act provides rights to disabled people in the area of access to goods and services. It covers the health service, and so far as problems faced by disabled people relate to discrimination, the disability rights commission will be able to assist them.
The noble Baroness asked whether hotels are service providers. I can confirm that that is the case and we intend to bring in the rights of access provision relating to the removal of physical barriers somewhat later. It is important in the meantime that service providers, as a matter of good practice, move forward in that kind of area.
1494
The noble Baroness asked also about the whole issue of conciliation. She was concerned about the relationship of the commission to conciliation arrangements. We recognise that the commission should not be directly involved in such arrangements. That is why the Bill provides for the commission to engage another organisation to take on the function of conciliation in the area of access to goods, facilities, services, premises and so forth. To do otherwise might lead parties in conciliation to feel that arrangements were not impartial. Every effort will be made to ensure that confidentiality is maintained for both parties to conciliation. The Government also accept that the value of conciliation is very high. It can mean avoiding what could be long, expensive and distressing experiences for all parties.
The noble Baroness also referred to concerns raised by the CBI with regard to regulation powers and our intentions in respect to Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. That section of the Human Rights Act makes it unlawful for a public body to act in a way that is incompatible with the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
When we consulted on the White Paper on the disability rights commission, we proposed that the commission should have the ability to assist individuals bringing cases under the Human Rights Act in cases where discrimination on the grounds of disability was an issue. We have included regulation-making powers in the Bill to allow us to do that. We believe that regulations will provide us with flexibility. In particular, we want to consider whether, and to what extent, the commission should be able to support cases brought under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act where they involve issues of discrimination. The relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act are not expected to be brought into force before 2000. That issue involves complex questions of law and practice and we will want to consider the detail carefully in consultation with others before coming to final decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made reference to polling booths. I believe he was using that as an example where one does not necessarily need to intervene because there are other provisions. The Government accept that there are perfectly good provisions in existence and unnecessary intervention would be unfortunate. It would be a matter for a DRC to focus its efforts effectively where they are needed. That is why the Government wish to appoint very strong commissioners who are able to do that.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for replying on this matter. I was not expecting a reply. I simply gave that as an example of the kind of thing that the commission will have to tackle. It is bound to be raised, but nobody would regard it as a right when there is the perfectly good alternative of postal voting.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government entirely accept that that is a perfectly good alternative. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord

1495
Campbell of Croy and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I believe they are both aware that we have not yet had a response from the committee as it has not yet had time to consider the matter. Of course, we shall look carefully at any recommendations it makes and we shall want to respond positively to them.
A number of speakers in the debate, including my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke and the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Addington, mentioned the small employers' threshold. The Bill provides for an amendment to the DDA so that the Secretary of State must consult the commission before making any proposals to alter the small employers' threshold—the threshold in terms of the number of employees below which the employer provisions of the DDA do not apply.
As I think noble Lords are aware, after our recent review that limit has been lowered from 20 to 15. It has included an extra 45,000 employers and brings another 70,000 disabled people under the protection of the provisions. I am sure that many noble Lords will welcome that as a step in the right direction, although I accept that some noble Lords who have taken part in the debate would like it to go further.
However, I must correct the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. It is completely wrong to suggest that 95 per cent. of employees are not covered. On the contrary, around 80 per cent. of employees are now covered as a result of the latest change. The provision in the Bill is concerned with the method of consultation on further changes to the threshold and it is not itself a mechanism to make further alterations to the threshold.
My noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke indicated the complexity of employment issues in some instances for people who have disabilities. The commission should be well placed to give advice on when small businesses—
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I would like to clarify that point if my noble friend will permit me. Is it not the case that the Government can hold a review, can lower the number of firms and can bring in all firms, except those with fewer than two workers, without the need for a commission? That makes this quite unnecessary. The Government can act, and act decisively, to include nearly all firms in the DDA.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government believe it is right to involve the commission in advice on an important matter of this sort. For that reason there is a clause in the Bill to make sure that can happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked about the right of appeal for those who are not given help by the commission. The task force considered whether there should be a right of appeal where the commission does not support an individual, and it concluded that instead the commission should write to an individual explaining why it had decided not to support that person, setting out the reasons clearly. Those arrangements apply to the other commissions and seem to work perfectly well.
The noble Lord also asked about access to education, training and transport as a right. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the task force will
1496
consider and report on the composition of comprehensive rights. We shall be hearing from the task force later and considering the report carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, also asked about the ability of the DRC to charge for any services that it makes available. It is intended that this provision should cover, for example, charging for attendance at a conference or charging for copies of reports that it has published. It will not be able to charge for support in formal investigations. The ability to make charges is consistent with those powers of the EOC and the CRE under the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who spoke in the gap, asked about the role of both Houses of Parliament on the issue of codes of practice. The commission will ensure that all codes are subject to wide-ranging and comprehensive consultation in draft form. Noble Lords will have a full opportunity to comment at that stage. Once it is laid before the House, it will not be susceptible to amendment unless the process of consultation is started again. I hope that is clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about regional offices. That is an issue that the disability rights task force considered. It recommended that the DRC's services would need to be available to disabled people and to employers throughout Great Britain. However, it was not convinced that regional offices were the best way to achieve that or that they would offer best value for money. Alternative methods—for example, through regional seminars, workshops and commission staff travelling round the country—will make the DRC accessible and be an efficient way of targeting services where they are most needed.
We agree with the disability rights task force that the commission should consider whether it needs more officers around the country in the light of its experience. It is not something that is ruled out, but I do not think that that should be on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked about devolution issues. I can assure them that arrangements will be in place to ensure that there will be at least one office in each of both Scotland and Wales. In addition, one commissioner will be appointed with the agreement of Scottish Ministers and one with the agreement of the First Secretary in Wales. The commission's annual reports will be provided to Scottish Ministers and to the First Secretary in Wales. They will submit them to the Scottish Parliament and to the Welsh Assembly respectively. However, the matter of equal opportunities is reserved to the Westminster Parliament. That reflects what has been agreed. That is why we have established a commission which will have a remit to include the whole of Great Britain.
I hope that I have managed to answer almost all of the questions asked. If I have failed, I shall write to those noble Lords whose questions were not answered.
Perhaps I may return to two points raised by my noble friends Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Morris of Manchester. My noble friend Lord Ashley said that

1497
deafness can be a greater obstacle to getting a job than is a criminal record. We must try to resolve that and to ensure that that is not the case in the future. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for the appreciation that he has expressed for the introduction of this Bill and, indeed, for his "Hallelujah".
As my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester said—I think that he was quoting—morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said about those Members of your Lordships' House who have fought for greater fairness and equality for disabled people, and I join him in saying that the greatest tribute must be given to those many disabled people who have fought for so long for their rights. We support them. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Parole Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 1998
2.2 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The order before your Lordships will be made under Section 50(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and will extend the powers delegated to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State. Specifically, the board would have authority to take decisions on the grant of parole to determinate sentence prisoners who are serving a sentence of up to, but not including, 15 years. At present, the board has those decision-making powers in respect of determinate sentence prisoners serving up to seven years. The order does not deal with the arrangements for considering the release of discretionary or mandatory life sentence prisoners. There are no plans to change those arrangements.
The order is part of the Government's wider commitment to modernising and improving the performance of the criminal justice system. The Prison Service has a central role in taking forward this programme of change, and in working with other criminal justice agencies to develop more effective ways of protecting the public.
The parole system, introduced in its current form by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, plays an important part in reducing the cycle of offending behaviour and hence reducing the overall level of serious crime. In particular, parole offers a valuable incentive to prisoners convicted of more serious crimes to address the root causes of their offending behaviour while in custody. However, decisions about parole are primarily about risks. I am afraid that we cannot get away from that. For the parole system to operate effectively, and to maintain public confidence, the evaluation of risk must be undertaken very carefully. Above all else, decisions on releasing prisoners on parole must be concerned with the need to protect the public. It is a testimony to the success of this
1498
process that only around 5 per cent. of those released from prison on parole are recalled for reoffending while on licence.
Alongside effective decision-making, the Government are also conscious of the importance of timely decision: both for prisoners themselves and to ensure the most efficient and effective use of prison accommodation. The Prison Service is working together with the Parole Board to reduce delays. A range of improvements to existing procedures are being introduced to make the parole process more efficient; these actions are being supported by independent research and audit projects. The goal is to ensure that all those prisoners regarded as suitable for early release are freed at the earliest possible date.
It is in this context that the Government have reviewed the way in which parole decisions are taken in cases involving determinate sentence prisoners. The Parole Board currently has delegated authority—by means of the Parole Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 1992—to take decisions on the grant of parole to determinate sentence prisoners who are serving sentences of at least four years and less than seven years, and who were sentenced after 1st October 1992. In other cases involving determinate sentence prisoners, the Parole Board currently performs an advisory function, and final decisions are taken by Ministers, or by the Prison Service on behalf of Ministers. Last year, the board's recommendations for release were agreed in all but two out of 520 cases. This clearly underlines the quality and consistency of the board's decision-making and raises questions about the need for the board's recommendations to be subject to review before a final decision is made.
The Government, therefore, take the view that the Parole Board's delegated authority should be extended. We published our proposals in a consultation paper entitled, Improving Parole Decision-Making, on 6th October. At the end of the consultation period on 4th November we had received 38 responses to the paper: 33 supported the paper in their entirety; five others offered differing degrees of support. The proposals also have the full support of the Parole Board's chairman and chief executive.
The proposals outlined in the consultation paper are those which are now set down in the order that we are debating today. The central proposal is to extend the Parole Board's decision-making powers to cover prisoners sentenced to determinate sentences of up to, but not including, 15 years. I should stress that there is no magic claim for moving the cut-off point from seven years to 15 years. Certainly, there is no direct correlation between the length of the sentence and the complexity of the parole decision. Wherever the line is drawn, the board is likely to be faced with a small number of complex or contentious cases.
We have aimed to strike a balance between removing the existing inefficiencies in the system and ensuring that the release of offenders responsible for committing the most serious offences would be subject to ministerial veto. Prisoners serving longer sentences are likely to include those considered a significant danger to the

1499
public at the time they were sentenced. There is clearly a "public interest" argument in allowing decisions in these cases to involve an element of review, including the possibility of referral to Ministers in particularly contentious cases. Most importantly, the vast majority of the correspondents to our consultation exercise on this issue agreed that 15 years was an appropriate threshold. The order, therefore, sets out proposals for extending the scope of the Parole Board's delegated authority to encompass determinate sentence cases involving sentences—I say again—of up to, but not including, 15 years. This will include those sentenced before 1992 who are not covered by the present delegation.
The draft order also reflects the need for transitional arrangements for cases where the Parole Board makes a recommendation prior to being granted its new powers, but the Secretary of State has not acted upon it. We propose to limit the Parole Board's new powers to take final decisions on those cases which are considered by the Parole Board after the new order comes into force. Cases where the Parole Board has made a recommendation prior to the order coming into force, but where no final decision has been reached, will be dealt with under the current procedures. Increasing the scope of the board's delegated authority to take decisions in this area would be a positive recognition of the quality of the Parole Board's assessments in these cases. It would also allow decisions to be made more quickly. I commend the draft order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Hoyle.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the order has been presented by Ministers as a sort of adjustment of functions; in other words, a kind of streamlining within the Home Office. I rather suspected that the over-used word "modernisation" would creep into the noble Lord's speech and, indeed, I was not disappointed. I am sure that that will help his standing with the spin-doctors.
However, I believe that the order is more significant than just being a matter of streamlining in two respects: first, as regards its origins; and, secondly, its effects. The root of the proposals lies in the Treasury. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State confirmed that to the Standing Committee in another place when it considered the order on 8th December. He said that the proposal was part of the comprehensive spending review, that it arose from considerations of efficiency and cash saving and that it saves between £70,000 and £75,000. The Treasury is ever watchful of candle-ends. Of course, we have no indication of where this money will go.
However, this proposal does not seem to have arisen originally from a decision of penal policy, or from some consideration of the proper borderline between the respective roles of Ministers and of the judiciary and its colleagues on the Parole Board. That is important in that it throws some light on the Government's thinking in respect of the borderline, which, as your Lordships know, is a matter of controversy between the Government and others, including the Lord Chief
1500
Justice, as regards other aspects of the release of prisoners. We on these Benches are on the side of the Government, although it might perhaps be more accurate to say that we are pleased that the Government continue to follow the policy which was introduced in our day.
I am, therefore, glad to point out that the Treasury origins of this order show that the Government's view remains, as the noble Lord the Lord in Waiting said, that the Home Secretary, answerable to Parliament, should decide the release date of prisoners guilty of the most serious offences, including those serving life sentences, whether mandatory or discretionary.
That brings me to the important effects of this order. As the noble Lord said, it means that prisoners serving between seven years and 15 years will have their release dates fixed by the Parole Board directly, and not by the Home Secretary with its advice. That takes out of the direct responsibility of Ministers answerable to Parliament decisions on the release of prisoners who have committed perhaps not the most serious offences, but, nevertheless, serious enough to have warranted long prison sentences. We are talking mainly about the judgment of the risk of releasing these prisoners rather than the term "appropriate form of punishment for the offence concerned" or of "deterrence".
But the risk of releasing these prisoners is a most sensitive matter as far as the public are concerned. The Minister told us a few moments ago that some 520 prisoners serving between seven and 15 years are released under the terms of this type of legislation. He also said that about 5 per cent. of paroled prisoners are subsequently recalled from licence because of other offences. That seems to me to mean that some 26 offences, broadly speaking—these are obviously not precise figures—are likely to be committed by those released under this legislation. By definition, they are people already known to be capable of committing serious offences. That is some indication of the risk involved.
There appears to be no particular reason for choosing 15 years—"no magic" I think was the phrase used by the Minister. The Criminal Bar Association has close knowledge of these matters and, I understand, suggested 10 years. All that the Minister in another place said was that the Government thought 15 years was about right bearing in mind the need for efficiency. The Minister said much the same just now. That is not very reassuring to those who had hoped that this was a carefully judged matter based on the consideration of the seriousness of the offences involved. So far we have been told nothing, in either House, about, for example, the numbers of armed robbers or serious sexual offenders who are likely to be involved in this modified system. It would be helpful to know the numbers—if not today then in due course—as it is a measure of the risk involved.
To those concerned about the early release of serious offenders, the main reassurance is that we are told that the Government will keep an eye on the situation. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to repeat that reassurance given by his colleague in another place and tell us that the Government will, if necessary, revise the figure of 15 years downwards.

1501
This efficiency measure may involve a greater risk to the public. It will certainly reduce the answerability to Parliament for these decisions. It certainly should be kept under close review. If it appears that the protection of the public has been reduced, then the £75,000 will not have been wisely saved.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, it is not particularly Treasury led, as the noble Lord said. We believe that this is a way of increasing efficiency and reducing delay and, at the same time, not increasing the risk to the public.
The noble Lord asked me what would happen to the £70,000 to £75,000 which is estimated will be saved. We intend that it will go towards the much broader responsibility of the Prison Service for developing constructive regimes. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that that is a good way for the money to be spent.
The noble Lord asked why 15 years; why not 10 or any other number. Most of the responses that we had from many people who are closely involved in this matter were in total agreement with the paper and that the figure should be 15 years. If it is less than 15 years there would still have to be a careful assessment of the risks to be taken. In only two cases in 1997–98 was there a disagreement where the Minister did not accept the Parole Board's decision. We believe that 15 years is the right length of time. Whatever the length of time, very careful consideration would have to be given to all the cases that came before the board. We believe that this is the right way forward.
I give the noble Lord an assurance that the matter will be kept under constant review. Having seen what the Parole Board has done in the past and what it has done in relation to its previous powers and in relation to the cut-off at seven years, we can all agree that we owe the Parole Board a debt of gratitude and that it is the right authority for considering these cases in the future. I am sure that it will consider public safety as a priority in arriving at what are very difficult decisions. With those few words, I hope the House will agree the order.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may raise a point with him. He promised to keep this matter under review. Can he be more specific? Would it be possible at the end of one year to show whether this has been working successfully? On this side of the House we support the measure and it has had general support in the consultative process. We should like to see at the end of one year the outcome of these applications.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I shall pass on his suggestion to my right honourable friend that it should be considered after one year. I repeat to him the assurance, which I have already given, that there will be a constant review. It may well be possible to do just what the noble Lord suggested.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baglan Energy Park Project
2.21 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon Lord Howe of Aberavon rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have to secure the future of the Baglan Energy Park project in Neath-Port Talbot.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in asking Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have to secure the future of the Baglan Energy project in Neath-Port Talbot, my principal purpose is to impress upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and indeed his colleagues the urgency of the case for enabling that project to go ahead as soon as possible and without further delay.
The problem and the related proposal for an energy park both arise from the relocation over some years of BP activities from south-west Wales to sites closer to the North Sea oil and gas fields. They started, as far as concerns Baglan, in 1994, with the closure of the ethylene cracker there. The most recent announcement, about a month ago, foreshadowed the disappearance over some time of half the remaining 300 jobs at Baglan.
Ironically, that announcement was accompanied by the further announcement of new investment by BP in Hull and Grangemouth, creating on that side of the country more than 3,000 jobs and supported by the granting of two consents under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1939, precisely the consent required for the Baglan Energy Park. The answer in the form of the energy park, about which I shall say a word in a moment, is put forward not just by BP but with the full support of all the local authorities in the region and of the Welsh Development Agency. It is a project for which Section 36 approval has so far been withheld because of the moratorium imposed under the energy policy, announced initially by the Government last December and confirmed in October this year in the White Paper, Cmd. 6041.
I wish to say just a few words about the position of BP and my own position. BP's position in relation to the project at Baglan is overwhelmingly driven by a wish on its part to mitigate benignly the consequences of its eventual departure and is much to be supported for that reason. I mention myself merely to say that I currently have a consultancy relationship with BP in relation to quite different matters outside this country altogether.
The energy park is a unique and imaginative venture. It seeks to make good use of the large site, up to 1,500 acres, which will become available on the departure of BP, alongside the M.4 between Neath and Port Talbot, with a convenient exit nearby. The project is capable of creating some 6,000 jobs if it is granted the availability of new on-site power generation. The proposal relates to combined cycle gas turbine plant which would offer competitive energy to investors. That would be the unique selling point of the location. In an ideal place, electricity would be available at up to 30 per cent. below the cost of its availability elsewhere because of the presence of the generator on site. At last there would be a chance so far as concerns south-west Wales of offsetting the disadvantage there as compared with sites

1503
further east. The volume of direct inward investment coming to south-west Wales per head of the population has been only one-tenth of the volume coming to south-east Wales.
The idea for the energy park has been developed from 1994 onwards by the Neath-Port Talbot county borough council. It is the borough in which I was born and of which I and the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General are both freemen. The idea was brought forward by that council in partnership with the Welsh Development Agency and BP and possible prospective independent power producers. It was launched formally in 1996 and the first of the two consents necessary—that under Section 14 of the Energy Act 1976—was granted as long ago as October 1997. It is the second licence under Section 36 of the Electricity Act applied for in 1996 which is still awaited and which has been held in abeyance since the moratorium was announced in December last year. A year later this project, which is so important for employment, is still waiting, and in the current 12 months some 2,800 job losses have been announced in the borough, to add to a total of some 20,000 over the past 20 years.
The most important underlying long-term cause for the decline in employment is undoubtedly the decline of the coal industry. Thirty years ago, when the cousin of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, the late Tom Hooson, and I wrote a booklet about the Welsh economy, some 10 million tonnes of coal a year were being exported from Swansea and Port Talbot; 109,000 people were employed in the coal industry in Wales; and seven pits were working in the Afan Valley and the Aberavon constituency. Now, for Wales, in effect the age of coal is all over. That is why the proposers of the energy park so desperately need that project to replace the pits. It has been advanced with the firmest possible support of the City of Swansea; the South-West Wales Economic Forum; the West Wales Training and Enterprise Council; the West and South-West Wales Chambers of Commerce; the Welsh Local Government Association; and the Welsh Development Agency, which has already committed in principle almost £5 million to the development project and has secured positive expressions of interest from 14 investors capable of creating some 1,600 jobs.
So I come to consider the only obstacle to the progress of this enormously worthwhile project. I refer to the evolution and apparent application of the Government's energy policy as confirmed in the White Paper published just over a month ago. I emphasise that it is no part of my purpose today to overthrow that policy. It would be futile to try to do so. I understand why it was brought forward. I wish merely to dispel its serious negative impact on this very positive project. The trigger for the revised energy policy was the impact of the dash-for-gas and its impact on the coal industry in places where it still survived.
The very same factor as that which inspired the project was the inspiration of the policy. The task is to achieve a sensible reconciliation of those two. It would be ironic, indeed tragic, if one should impede the other.
1504
So I invite your Lordships to consider for a moment some of the details of the White Paper CM/4071 which, in my judgment, show no reason why the policies should be in competition with each other. First, in paragraph 10.05 of the White Paper, the director of energy supply, Professor Littlechild, said that if the policy then in prospect was adopted—about which he was less than enthusiastic—it would be helpful if it could be operated in a flexible fashion and reviewed and relaxed at the earliest possible opportunity.
To that, the Government responded in paragraph 10.19 of the White Paper that their policy consisted of a general presumption that new gas-fired stations will normally be inconsistent with the policy objective. I emphasise the two words "general" and "normally" because they set out a presumption which is, by definition, a rebuttable presumption. If one turns to what is said elsewhere, the Government say:
"The policy will be short-term, temporary and aimed specifically at protecting diversity and security of supply".
More important than that, they say that, particularly where one of the two necessary consents has already been granted, in paragraphs 10.26, 10.30 and 10.31:
"The Government commits itself to taking account of all the circumstances of a particular case, taking care to weigh the impact of the interests of the promoter against the wider public interest and diversity and security of supply".
They emphasise that even more strongly in the case of any project which is a combined heat and power project.
It follows from all that that any attempt to confine approval within the precise wording of the White Paper, whether wording of principle or of the exception, would be not only unnecessary but actually misconceived. The Government are committed and, indeed, obliged—as one would expect—in law and in fact to consider any application on the basis of all the circumstances of that case. The legitimacy of that approach has been confirmed by experience, first, in Wales, at Shotton—admittedly in relation to a combined heat and power project—where a consent has been granted. Also, in reference to cases on the part of BP, at Grangemouth and at Saltend in Hull Section 36 permits have been granted. It is notable that in those places the permits have been granted where employment opportunities are expanding dramatically as a result of BP's transplantation. It would be most unfortunate if permits were denied in South Wales where exactly the opposite is happening.
I come to three closing points, the last being the most important. First, what effect will an approval here have on security and diversity of supply? The director of operations of Swalec confirms that South Wales itself suffers from a serious deficiency in generating capacity, with the coal-fired station at Aberthaw being the only operational station. So in his judgment, the addition of the Baglan Bay project would positively contribute to the Government's objective in that respect.
Secondly, environmentally there were some objections from local interests. That is understandable because I know as well as anyone that Port Talbot is not notorious for the universal permanent cleanliness of its atmosphere. The most important feature is that 1,100 megawatt CCGT, even on that scale, would represent a

1505
substantial environmental benefit because it would have lower emissions to air than the existing BP generator which burns heavy fuel oil, (HFO) and gas.
I now come to my final point. BP's application is in two alternative forms. The application remains on the table, open for approval in more than one of those forms. The original application was for an 1100 megawatt station. That is to remain on the table. The alternative application put forward quite clearly is for a two-stage or three-stage approach to the matter. The two stages of the first part of it would be, first, a 270 megawatts combined heat and power scheme. Secondly, if no investors with heat load equivalent to BP came forward, it would comprise the fitting of a steam turbine to make a single module of 400 megawatts GCGT. Both those two things together form part of that alternative. However, BP stresses that that is viable only if consent to both those two parts is forthcoming together. At a later stage BP would be happy to seek consent for the full 1100 megawatt project.
I received from the Secretary of State this morning a letter dated 14th December which states that BP had notified his officials that it would not proceed with any application for a smaller station. I want to say as emphatically as I can that that is neither my understanding nor the understanding of the Chief Executive of the Port Talbot and Neath Borough Council, to whom I spoke this morning, because we are each in possession of a letter from BP dated 16th December which states,
"Please be assured that BP has not withdrawn its application to build a power station at Baglan Bay. We remain, as ever, fully committed to the regeneration of employment through the energy park and to the provision of competitive energy. We believe that we are flexible in evaluating any options which meet the current stricter consents policy … We have looked hard to identify alternatives which meet the above criteria and thus far have been unsuccessful … A balanced CHP scheme would meet the existing consents policy".
And that has not yet been arrived at.
There is clearly confusion somewhere here about the nature, scope and impact of the existing consents policy, because CHP is not an essential feature for approval under the existing policy. It is one of the alternatives identified. The existing policy is for each proposal to be considered on its own, with all the circumstances being taken into account. That existing policy on that basis not only permits, but also requires, full consideration of all the factors adding to the merits of the case. It requires Ministers to address the right question. That question is not: does this case fit the minutiae of existing policy formulae already published? The right question surely—and above all in these circumstances—is: how can we be sure that a policy or formula originally propounded to help people or places threatened or affected by the decline of the coal industry does not work gravely to the disadvantage of one of those areas, and thousands of people, who are already most gravely affected by the decline of that industry?
The BP letter states—this is the optimistic point—that it has not found the right answer "thus far". However, BP, the borough council, the Welsh Development Agency, and all those who support them, are eager to find the right answer. So, too, are the two local
1506
Members of Parliament in whose constituencies this project arises. Happily both of them are Members of the Government. Peter Hain at the Welsh Office is the Member for Neath and my old and learned friend, the well respected lawyer, the Attorney-General, John Morris, is the Member of Parliament for Aberavon. Moreover, he is a former Secretary of State for Wales. He is a lawyer for whom I have great respect because he is the kind of lawyer of whom most laymen would most approve. He is not someone who tells you why you cannot do what makes total sense; he is someone who helps you to work out the best way to achieve an objective, if it is possible to achieve it. According to the newspapers he is due to meet the Secretary of State on the 21st of this month, three days before Christmas. I hope that nothing that the Minister will say this afternoon—I am sure I can be confident about that—will do anything to impede a lawyer of that talent and of that interest, working together with a Secretary of State of such well advertised talent, to find the right answer to this question.
The cry of the Prime Minister at his previous attendance at the European Council was, "jobs, jobs, jobs". This application is about jobs, jobs, jobs in an area that desperately needs them. The Ministers have it in their power to arrive at the right answer.
2.39 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon on asking this important Question on behalf of the community in which he was born and brought up. First I must declare an interest. I am a director of Associated British Ports Holdings plc, the owner of the port at Swansea, Port Talbot dock and the Port Talbot tidal harbour, and a strong supporter of the Baglan Energy Park project.
I have interests, but not of a commercial kind, that go back much further. When I became Secretary of State for Wales in 1979 I found Welsh industry in a parlous condition. Much of it was overmanned and uncompetitive. The British Steel Corporation was forced to reduce huge overmanning at the Llanwern and Port Talbot strip mills and to close its tinplate works in South Wales. Further west at Llanelli the steel works and car component manufacturers closed down. Coalmines closed with a rapidity which exceeded even the most pessimistic forecasts. The impact on suppliers, the ports and other trades has been severe. The development of the North Sea oil fields dashed hopes that the oil terminals at Milford Haven would provide a long-term foundation for industrial development in south-west Wales. In due course it meant that long-established oil and chemical operations would move to the east coast.
In the years that followed the Welsh Office, government agencies, local government and the private sector have been remarkably successful in attracting inward investment to Wales and re-establishing a diversified industrialised economy, but it has been much easier to do it in the north east and south east corners of Wales. Further to the west it becomes more difficult.

1507
There is almost an invisible barrier somewhere to the west of Bridgend. That was a fact of which I was acutely conscious as the Member of Parliament for Pembroke.
Much has been done even in the Swansea and West Wales region. Port Talbot is now one of the two most modern strip mills in the world and BSC is one of the most efficient steel companies in the world. That is a remarkable and encouraging step forward. The Swansea valley is no longer one of the most polluted spots on earth but home to many modern industries and commercial organisations. Inward investment has been attracted to sites around Baglan. I am glad to say that ABP has been able to re-open the long-closed Port Talbot dock. The tidal harbour can now take the largest coal and ore carriers needed to service the steel works and has the capacity to handle traffic for other projects that require that kind of facility.
However, as my noble and learned friend has informed the House, much more needs to be done particularly at a time when we are confronted with another severe spate of job losses. I have no doubt at all that it will be a high priority of the Welsh Development Agency and the new Welsh Assembly to move industrial investment west to Port Talbot and beyond as far as they have the ability to influence the decisions of industrialists.
Against that background, government policy appears to be perverse and inflexible. A central object of the Government's energy policy is to assist the coal industry and to save jobs. If we are to have such a policy it makes sense only if it avoids the creation of job losses elsewhere. It needs to be flexible enough to reinforce job-creating projects and not undermine or destroy them.
The press release of Neath-Port Talbot County Borough Council issued on 26th November makes disturbing reading. It tells us that,
"A delegation from South Wales led by Noel Crowley, Leader of Neath-Port Talbot Council, walked out of a meeting with Department of Trade and Industry officials … in a row over the future of the Baglan Energy Park".
The press release goes on to say that, according to Mr. Crowley, it became clear just after one hour that all the officials were interested in was whether the precise words of their energy document fitted the scheme. He said that they were not concerned with job losses, extra jobs or the fact that the whole of south-west Wales was behind the project, despite what my noble and learned friend said with such authority about the assurances given in the White Paper, their legal implications, and the wording of the energy policy.
This is an imaginative project. Instead of blocking this BP-led initiative the Government should be seeking energetically to reinforce the company's efforts. This is a remarkable, almost unique, site of 1,500 acres, of which 750 are readily capable of development with magnificent road and rail communications, good port facilities, cheap energy and steel.
When Secretary of State I was confronted with the decision of the Nissan company to establish a major car manufacturing plant in this country. I discovered that there was no large industrial site readily available anywhere in Wales. During the planning procedures of
1508
the previous decade no one had apparently considered that such a site might ever again be needed. We learnt then, as we have learnt subsequently, the value of having such sites available.
This is a magnificent site. It is magnificently located and with the advantage of the cheaper energy and steam it surely will be able to attract significant new projects. Indeed, there are encouraging prospects from the inquiries which have already been made if—it is an important "if"—the project is allowed to proceed. I believe that if there is the political will, it can proceed. We ask the House this afternoon to assure us that they will create that political will and the desperately needed jobs in that part of South Wales.
2.46 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, for alerting me to the problem and for the way in which he couched the Question. It is interesting to note the terms of the Question which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will bear very much in mind. The Question asks what proposals Her Majesty's Government have to secure the future of the Baglan Energy Park project in the present situation. I suppose that I have an interest to declare. I am chairman of the Severn River Crossing Company which is responsible for both bridges across the Severn. It is arguable that if there were an increase or decrease in bridge traffic it is an interest that I should declare and I so do.
Two things seem obvious about developments in industry in Wales. I regret as much as anyone the decline in industrial production and in the industrial health of this country in general, and in Wales in particular. Of two criteria for success, the first is close proximity to good communications. The Baglan Energy Park is on an all-important junction of the M.4. It is virtually at the end of the M.4 corridor. It is at the wrong end from the point of view of prosperity, and that is the great problem. Nevertheless, it is a well-placed site. The second is that any development must be close to a cheap and reliable source of energy. With the decision announced some time ago by BP to close its oil-fired electricity generating plant, and with the Government putting consideration of the future application and use of the park on ice, this area has suffered what can be called a double whammy.
The real issue seems to be this. However anxious the Government are to help what remains of the coal industry, which one can perfectly understand, can they afford in the discharge of their duty to Wales, and in particular to this vulnerable part of south-west Wales, to allow the moratorium to override the desperate need of the area for this development? There is not the slightest doubt of the desperate need. This is not a party political issue of any kind. I think that Members of all parties are very anxious about it.
It really depends upon the Government's appreciation, it seems to me, of two factors: first, the local factors, the likely short-term and long-term effect of frustrating the development by delay. What does that entail for the short-term and the long-term future of the

1509
area? I would have thought that for the long-term it would be very serious indeed and for the short-term the cause of alarm and despondency to a high degree.
The second consideration is to appreciate the depth and seriousness of the present economic problems facing this country generally and indeed the global economy. Private investors do not hang about if there are rejections or delays. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, both adverted to this point. Of course developments go elsewhere. People have been lined up by BP to assist with the development of an energy park and they are not going to hang on if the matter is delayed indefinitely.
There is really no alternative here either on environmental or economic grounds. I have had representations made to me of how desirable it would be to have a green development of the park. However much we would like to see a green development—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, who has much greater knowledge of the area than I have, referred to environmental problems throughout the area—a coal-fired generating station is not a feasible project here, on environmental grounds if nothing else. And of course on economic grounds there is no available alternative.
I have no doubt really that everything points to the urgent need to approve the development. South Wales generally, and the south west of Wales in particular, need regular, guaranteed and cheap electricity supplies. We will not attract inward investment without that kind of provision being made. It seems to me, from everything I have read, that this development would provide an additional secure source of production. I understand that Mr. Mandelson is to deal with this matter. Should he really allow this moratorium at the present juncture? I happen to believe that the economic crisis facing this country—and it is also a global one—is much more serious than most people have acknowledged so far. If we miss this opportunity, months and weeks are very important now. It is not a matter of years. There is an urgent necessity to approve the development unless we are prepared to see the prospect of 6,000 jobs disappear in a part of Wales which simply cannot afford that.
Mr. Mandelson appears to me—although I have no recollection of ever meeting him—to be introducing a much more flexible approach in his department, which I entirely commend. I hope he will listen carefully to the views of Mr. John Morris MP and Mr. Hain, both of whom are very much involved in this matter. All parties in Wales regard it as of vital importance for the future prosperity of the Principality. I warmly support all the efforts made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. We look forward with interest to hearing the Minister today deal with the actual question: how are Her Majesty's Government going to deal with this problem?
2.55 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, first, I apologise for the poor quality of my voice due to the onset of one of those colds which has laid low so many Members of your Lordships' House over the past few weeks.
I begin by adding my congratulations to those already given to my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon on initiating this debate on a subject of great interest and relevance to the area associated with my noble and learned friend's title.
Baglan is at the heart of the new county of Neath-Port Talbot which is giving its full support to the energy park proposal along with all the other major players in that heavily industrialised area—BP Chemicals, Swalec, the electricity distributor, British Steel, the Welsh Development Agency and a host of other bodies reeled off by my noble and learned friend.
But the fact that the project has attracted the support of my noble and learned friend carries considerable weight. I am sure that the Government will pay due regard to the powerful and detailed case which my noble and learned friend advanced for this project. He has been ably supported in that by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
My approach to the project was via the combined heat and power station to be sited close to the Shotton Paper Mill in the Deeside Industrial Park in North Wales. That application, too, was caught for a time by the moratorium resulting from the Government's review and restatement of energy policy in the White Paper of October 1998. I was among one of those who made representations that the scheme should be allowed to go ahead. I am glad to say that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has now given his consent for that excellent scheme.
Although the Shotton scheme was intrinsically sound and fully integrated, there were planning objections of an environmental nature. Those were the main cause of the hold-up, together with the fact that the Government had to consider the scheme in the context of their new statement of policy. Some 51 planning conditions were agreed between the company and the planning authority. They are now attached to the planning permission deemed to be granted.
The difficulties facing the Baglan energy scheme appear to be of a very different order. First, there is the difficulty that BP Chemicals cannot guarantee that it will be available to provide steam to the site indefinitely. As I understand it, there is a planned run-down of the BP chemical plant. Therefore, the long-term feasibility of the first stage proposal for a 270 megawatt combined heat and power plant has been called into question.
Such a proposal, were it feasible, may well accord with the Government's energy policy and may receive the go-ahead, as Shotton has done. But as I understand it, no alternative supplier of steam to BP Chemicals has yet been identified and so the entire scheme is stymied, if I may use that golfing expression, with the Government's energy policy constraints lying between the scheme and its realisation, hence the importance of the smaller starter scheme.

1511
But it has already been pointed out in the debate that the concerns which underlie the Government's energy policy, well understood as they are, derive themselves from other factors. But there are other equally valid concerns such as the promotion of industrial and manufacturing development and the consequential preservation and creation of jobs. Those considerations are of tremendous importance, particularly to us in South Wales. It is such concerns that originally inspired the Baglan Energy Park scheme, as my noble and learned friend said in his opening speech, with the power plant as its centrepiece. The original proposal was for a 1100 megawatt plant that would provide energy on a highly competitive basis, thereby attracting new users to the site and helping to stabilise the current fragile supply situation in South Wales. The new plant was to replace the existing BP Chemicals generation plant and deliver
substantial environmental benefits by reducing emissions to the atmosphere.
That is clearly an important consideration to local people who, according to Monday's Western Mail petitioned against the 1100 megawatt plant on the grounds that Port Talbot already has,
"one of the worst records of air quality in the country".
I am inclined to agree with my noble and learned friend who commented on this; I do not believe that the petitioners fully appreciated the improvements in emissions that the 1,100 megawatt scheme was intended to bring.
The raison d'etre of such a scheme is probably stronger now than ever and arguably transcends the reasoning behind the Government's restrictive energy policy in the particular circumstances of the Neath-Port Talbot area. Those of us familiar with the area know of its high dependence on heavy industry; we have heard a great deal about coal and there is a heavy dependence on steel. There has been an abiding desire to attract alternative businesses to the area. It is estimated that some 2,800 manufacturing jobs, many at British Steel and BP, have recently been lost. The need to replace them is becoming acute and likely to become more so as time passes.
Unemployment in the area is above the Welsh average and clearly causing concern. The role of the Baglan Energy Park in creating eventually some 6,000 jobs has been well thought through and accords with the thinking of the Welsh Affairs Committee which published its report in November of this year under the title Investment in Industry in Wales. It said,
"A necessary aspect of infrastructure is the guaranteed availability of power. CBI Wales witnesses complained to us of the consequences for industry of continued uncertainty over gas exploitation and the development of power stations".
The committee concluded:
"A properly planned energy policy, though largely outside the remit of the Welsh Office, is vital to the economic development of Wales".
I wholeheartedly endorse that conclusion and trust that the Welsh Office will take a fresh and vigorous interest in the formulation of such a policy. I am bound to say that it will come as news to many people in Wales that the Welsh Office is not as deeply involved in the formulation of energy policy as it should be.
1512
The Baglan Energy Park, with its sound aims and objectives, must have a pivotal role in such a policy, especially at this time when a substantial part of Wales is likely to achieve Objective 1 status and attract European investment. Neath-Port Talbot is within the West Wales and Valleys Region which meets the GDP criterion for Objective 1 status; in short, the region's GDP is below 75 per cent. of the European Union average. In the prospect of Objective 1 status, I see a powerful additional reason for the scheme to be given consent. It will act as a magnet for new industrial and business development and help draw such developments westwards beyond Bridgend and nearer to Neath and Swansea. It would be a crying shame if projects under the Objective 1 scheme could not be developed for lack of power in the area.
As pointed out to us by the West Wales Chamber of Commerce, it should be noted that in contrast to south-east Wales, inward investment to south-west Wales has been sparse. Between 1985 and 1996 the region, which contains 25 per cent. of the population of Wales, attracted only 10.5 per cent. of the inward capital investment per head. The need is great.
I have no wish to prolong the debate. but I believe that the case for promoting the Baglan Energy Park and its power station centrepiece is overwhelming, bearing in mind the location on the coastal plain at the lower end of the valleys in what is very likely to be an Objective 1 area. As has been pointed out, alternatives to gas-fired combined cycled gas and turbine plant have, I am assured, been evaluated and found to be inadequate to meet the needs of this unique situation. Therefore, I urge the Government to act as soon as possible and grant the necessary consents.
3.6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in welcoming the Unstarred Question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, I have no hesitation in saying that he has secured unanimity in debate. Every single speaker is in favour of the Baglan Energy Park and seems to think that the Government are against it. In responding, I hope that I am able to convince your Lordships that we are in favour of the park going ahead as quickly as possible and in favour of removing whatever obstacles exist to its successful development.
It is an important element in the Government's regeneration strategy for the whole of the south-west Wales economy whether or not it involves an energy park element. Creating and safeguarding jobs in this area of Wales is seen as one of the Welsh Office's main priorities. If the business park is to be an energy park, the development must be consistent with the Government's energy policy. I need to set out our views as clearly as I can and the action that we are taking on the business park itself.
Wales as a whole has been relatively successful in securing inward investment and encouraging the growth of its indigenous industries. But the south-west area of the country has had particular problems, to which the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts of

1513
Conwy, referred. That is mainly due to global market conditions in the oil, chemical and steel industries. Another factor is the chemical and oil industries' preference for siting plants nearer to North Sea developments. There have been particular problems in the west Wales area, referred to eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who knows it so well. The Government have pressed the Welsh Development Agency and other economic support agencies to focus on the area as a priority for economic development. That is clearly set out in the Government's document Pathway to Prosperity—A New Economic Agenda for Wales.
As for the business park development, everything possible is being done to support the development partners: BP Chemicals, Neath and Port Talbot Borough Council and the Welsh Development Agency. I hasten to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and his description of the benign motives behind BP's involvement in that project. It has been truly admirable. It is concerned about the social obligations that it feels it has as a result of the necessity to wind down some of its activities.
I agree also with noble Lords' description of the wider support for the plant in South Wales. Everything said on that was right. The only exception, which he recognised, is the opposition of some environmental groups—notably, Friends of the Earth—and the Baglan Park Pressure Group which has achieved a petition containing 10,000 names, plus 500 letters, and which has written to me on this subject. Their views deserve consideration.
The Welsh Development Agency has already committed significant sums of money on site access and infrastructure works and allocated around £4 million for phase 1A of the development. The following phase (phase 2) involves public expenditure of nearly £9 million, some of which will be European funding.
Baglan has many advantages, to which noble Lords have properly referred. One such advantage is its location. It has first-class road, rail and sea links. The M.4 is close by, as is Talbot Parkway station. The local workforce is skilled, hardworking and flexible. The area has powerful and well established economic development agencies which are available to help firms wanting to settle there. There have been firm inquiries from firms of varying sizes which could provide employment for over 1,500 people, and there have been many more expressions of initial interest.
As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, recognised, the area is likely to be designated as an Objective 1 region for European structural funds. If that happens—it looks highly likely, given the figures—development status will follow, and plant and machinery grants will be available wherever the safeguarding or expansion of employment is possible. Regional selective assistance would also be available.
It is clearly an important additional selling point for the business park if on-site, low-cost energy supplies are available. As I said, that is important, but it is by no means essential. We are talking about a difference of
1514
30 per cent. in energy costs. However, for many of the businesses that are likely to enter the park, energy costs represent a small portion of their total costs and therefore of the considerations which influence them when deciding where to locate. As has been said, the business park has many other advantages. As electricity prices are falling in any case, the energy component may now be less strong as an influencing factor. Nevertheless, the Government intend to address questions relating to the energy aspect of Baglan Park sympathetically within the framework of our energy policy. That policy was arrived at after extensive consultation and is set out in our White Paper of October this year, which is snappily entitled, Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government Response to the Fourth and Fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee. I said that without taking a breath!
The White Paper considered in detail the issues facing the electricity market, especially in England and Wales. It emphasised that our energy policy should be to achieve secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. However, the way in which the energy industry was privatised, with the market concentration of National Power and PowerGen and with the electricity pool that the extraordinary auction system left untouched resulted in a distorted market, with electricity prices higher than necessary and with serious risk to the diversity and security of electricity supplies.
Therefore, in the White Paper the Government drew up a radical programme of reform of the electricity markets. The programme will enable us to achieve secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. In the meantime, the White Paper concluded that it was necessary to have a stricter policy on consents for new power stations to avoid a serious risk of our security and diversity—and the option of coal playing a major part in electricity generation—being lost permanently before the distortions could be addressed.
I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said about the report of the Welsh Select Committee; indeed, it sounded to me as if it was endorsing that policy in general. If I were to apply that policy to South Wales, because the issue of supply in South Wales has been raised, I would have to say that the electricity generation and transmission system in this country is an integrated one in England and Wales. I have been told that the National Grid company has stated that the supply arrangements for South Wales meet the set quality standards. I acknowledge that electricity prices in South Wales are slightly higher than in other parts of the country, but it is not necessary for there to be local electricity generation capacity in every region of the country. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I should like to make a comment. I happen to have in front of me a letter from Swalec to BP, which was written in January 1998. It spells out in some detail some of the risks of interruption, and so on, that exist at

1515
present. It makes absolutely clear that Swalec considers that this plant would improve the security of supply and produce considerable benefits, quite apart from cost.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge that. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, referred to Swalec's views. However, it is important for us to take a national view and that is why I quoted the views of the National Grid.
The stricter consent policy to which I referred will be temporary and is only required for as long as it is needed to enable our market reforms to be carried through. I can confirm the quotations which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, gave from the White Paper; he certainly quoted correctly. During that period, new natural gas fired generation, except for combined heat and power and black start units, will normally be inconsistent with the Government's policy. While the policy remains, all applications to build gas-fired generation, including Baglan, will be measured against it.
At this point I believe that I should attempt to clarify the situation of the status of the BP application, to which the noble and learned Lord referred in detail. On 27th November BP wrote to the Department of Trade and Industry stating that it does not propose to submit any new application for the 1100 megawatt plant. The noble and learned Lord referred to the two possibilities of smaller plants—one for combined heat and power and the other a 400 megawatt plant. Clearly, the economic justification for a combined heat and power plant depends on the ability of the developers at Baglan to attract the right kind of industry. I have in mind, most notably, chemicals and food and paper, which have heavy steam use and would therefore justify the construction of a combined heat and power plant. However, the example of Shotton given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, was a combined heat and power plant. We are sympathetic to that suggestion and have set it out as a reasonable exception to the general policy. We are also prepared to listen to arguments about the other smaller plant, which the noble and learned Lord referred to as coming from BP.
The result of all this is a challenge for the promoters of Baglan to find a way in which the park can proceed which is in accordance with the Government's energy policy. The Welsh Office has discussed options with the partnership and remains willing to contribute to the process of finding a way to develop a successful business park. I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord says. Of course we understand the objectives and constraints set out in the policy document, but in any particular case—perhaps above all in this case—there remains available to the Government a discretion to take account of circumstances. Accepting a smaller plant at this point would be an enormous contribution and the decision
1516
would be widely acclaimed. Does the noble Lord acknowledge that the discretion exists to consider the case in that way?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge that the noble and learned Lord was quoting correctly from the White Paper. My use of the word "normally" makes that clear. I cannot deny that the Member of Parliament for Aberavon will see the Secretary of State on Monday next. That is evidence that the issue is not closed.
I have to resist the notion that somehow the Government are opposed to this business park. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said that we are keeping it waiting; the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that we were blocking it; the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that there was an urgent need to approve the development. The development is approved; it is all going ahead. There remains only the secondary issue of the contribution of electricity generation there, and that is open for negotiation.
We are committed to the business park at Baglan. We will continue to work with the development partnership, drawing on the advantages which we have all recognised to give the project the best possible chance of success. The Government have concluded that the new energy policy which, in the longer term, has been designed to ensure that market conditions deliver competitive, low-price electricity for the whole country, should not be a barrier to the development of the business park at Baglan Bay.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, I had intended to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.30 p.m. The House will meet at 3.30 p.m. for Royal Assent and, following a short Business Statement by myself, the Statement on Iraq will be repeated by my noble friend the Leader of the House with a subsequent debate. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the normal Christmas tributes should be paid at this point during this afternoon's proceedings rather than at the end of what might be a rather sombre debate later this afternoon. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.30 p.m.—I am told that I can move the adjournment now and then withdraw it. One learns something every day about the procedures of the House.
It is a great pleasure to move the adjournment as we run up to the Christmas Recess. It has been a long year and, in many ways, a fascinating year. I find it hard to think of a year in which proceedings in your Lordships' House have been so exciting or, indeed, so thoroughly scrutinised by the media. It may be a sign of things to come.
It has been a long year, as I have said. I am sure that the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip will remind us all that we have just concluded a very long Session. There was never any doubt in my mind that we would conclude the Session before the Christmas Recess. The House sat on very many days indeed. It has been said

1517
that it was the longest Session of the House of Lords since the Long Parliament of Oliver Cromwell. If it was not, it sometimes certainly felt like it.
The long Session is occasionally cited as a criticism of your Lordships' House but I regard it as a tribute. Despite the immense upheaval caused by the general election, your Lordships' House has, almost without exception, continued to proceed with Business in the usual way and has observed the normal conventions. I will not say anything about the exceptional proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. For obvious reasons I am pleased that the House resolved the question of this Bill in the way that it did earlier this week.
My second point on the length of the last Session—and it was indeed a very long Session—is that the House was not often asked to sit extremely late into the night. Indeed, despite one or two scares, we managed to avoid an all-night sitting. I have learnt that the threat of breakfast is an effective weapon as a show of discipline in your Lordships' House.
All in all it has been a fascinating year. I am sure that the year ahead will be even more interesting. It is therefore more appropriate than ever that I should pay tribute to all those who serve your Lordships' House with quiet efficiency and dignity, both visibly and behind the scenes. Although your Lordships' House is staffed by a small and dedicated band, there are too many individuals or groups involved in the work of the House for me to praise them all. I believe it would be unfortunate were I to single out any groups for particular comment as I would not be able to mention them all. However, I should say a particular thank you and farewell to the Yeoman Usher, Air Vice-Marshal David Hawkins-Leth, for whom today is his last day on duty. He has served the House well. I know I speak for the whole House when I say that he has our very best wishes for the future.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Carter: My Lords, under these circumstances, I hope that the entire staff of your Lordships' House will allow me to give them a well deserved thank you from us all for their hard work and efforts over the past year. I therefore wish all of the staff of the House a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
In conclusion, perhaps I should say how much I am looking forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his new capacity as Chief Whip for Her Majesty's main Opposition party in the Lords. The noble Lord will remember well that when he was a Minister in the Department of Social Security I was his shadow for a time. We got on well then and I am sure that we shall get on well now. I am also sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will not mind me saying, as a new Chief Whip and new to government, that I benefited enormously from his wisdom and understanding when he was Opposition Chief Whip. I am absolutely certain that I will have the same positive and constructive relationship with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his new capacity. I do not expect an easy
1518
ride; nor indeed did I do so last Session. It is the duty of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to oppose and I fully expect the Opposition in your Lordships' House to maintain that tradition in the coming Session—so long as they do not overdo it. But I am certain that opposition will be conducted in the co-operative and constructive spirit which so characterises your Lordships' House.
I should also say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his advice and counsel throughout the year and to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who performs the difficult task of convening what I can only describe as the unpredictable ranks of the Cross Bench Peers. My Lords, I wish all of you, in the usual channels and indeed throughout the House, a very merry Christmas.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.30 p.m.—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may start by echoing all the words of the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip, and in particular those he directed to me. As he said, he and I have worked together in different capacities for some time. We have had disagreements in the past and I dare say that we shall have disagreements in the future. But I hope we can ensure that, as far as possible, the usual channels will continue to operate in the best possible manner. Perhaps I may also echo his words of farewell to the Yeoman Usher, whom we will all miss and whom we thank for all that he has done over the years.
The noble Lord the Chief Whip said that it seemed a long time since the Session started. It seems to me to be a pretty long time since we came back in October. It also seems to be a particularly long time since I took on the onerous duties as Opposition Chief Whip only two weeks ago. Someone may have said that a week is a long time in politics. Well, two weeks has seemed to be a particularly long two weeks. I think I can say on behalf of myself and the entire House that all of us, whether Members of the House, servants or Officers of the House, are very much looking forward to the Recess that is about to start.
The noble Lord almost tempted me to say a word or two about the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. I see the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in his place. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish is still in the House but I have asked him not to come back to make a speech which, by this stage, many noble Lords will know fairly well. But my noble friend would be more than happy to do so should noble Lords so wish.
After what has been a very long Session, after what has been a very long spill-over period—from October to the new Session—and after the weeks since then, all of us can say that we need a good holiday. That is particularly true, as the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip said, of all those who serve us through thick and thin, if I may put it that way, over the year. We all owe them the most enormous thanks. In so doing, I think we must warn them that there will be a very busy and,

1519
as the Chinese might put it, a very interesting year ahead of us. I join the noble Lord the Chief Whip in wishing everyone a very happy Christmas.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to associate myself and my colleagues with the comments of the Government Chief Whip and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and to echo their words in paying tribute to the work of the Yeoman Usher, who is about to retire.
We have certainly kept very long hours over the past year or more and will undoubtedly sit for many long hours in the next few months. I also pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Carter, for maintaining civilised relations between the usual channels, which is the only way in which this House is capable of operating. I wish to express on behalf of my noble friends our gratitude to the staff of the House, whose dedicated work on our behalf has done so much to make our lives agreeable.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I rise on behalf of the independent Peers who sit on the Cross Benches—noble Lords will note that I say "independent"; the Chief Whip said "unpredictable". Whether unpredictable or independent, we are here and we are all of independent mind. I echo the remarks made about the Yeoman Usher. To us he has been a special help, guiding us, or pushing us, whichever way we wish to go. I am told that he is to enter the recycling business. I hope that his future is recycled in the proper direction. We owe him great tribute and wish him and his wife all the best in the future.
I wish to thank a number of those who so far have not been mentioned: the Doorkeepers, whose unfailing courtesy and help has been notable during what has been a difficult Session; the attendance officers whose messages keep flowing and who bewilder us with the speed with which they get messages to us; and those in the refreshment department, who at State Opening performed a miracle in the way in which they kept body and soul together.
Those who are often not mentioned are the telephone operators and security staff. We do not see them all that much, but they do a great deal for us in keeping the House going and keeping everything working. We thank them particularly for the work that they do.
Finally, 1999 will be an unpredictable year for hereditary Peers. I hope that we shall not be booted out on tumbrels as has been threatened in another place, but that we shall go with dignity and with understanding on the part of the Government.
On behalf of these Benches I offer all noble Lords and staff best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to add the thanks of these Benches to those already articulated. It behoves the Lords Spiritual to mention in particular the invisible hosts as well as the visible hosts of those who serve us in this House. Speaking for myself and others on these Benches, the pleasure of serving your Lordships is very much
1520
enhanced by the courtesy and friendliness with which we are so regularly treated. Even at this particularly sombre moment, I wish all noble Lords a peaceful Christmas and a happy New Year.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Royal Assent
3.34 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I should say a word about how the Government intend to handle the debate this afternoon. These are unusual circumstances. As I informed the House this morning, the proceedings will not exactly follow those on a normal Statement. The purpose of that variation from our normal proceedings is to allow noble Lords more flexibility in taking part in debate.
In view of this and the fact that the Statement in another place is being followed by a debate in which Ministers from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence will take part, my noble friend the Leader of the House will begin proceedings by repeating the Statement that is being made in another place. The Front Benchers will then speak in the usual way. My noble friend the Leader of the House will then open the debate by responding to the Front Bench speeches.
It is then proposed that any Back-Bencher who wishes to speak should do so, we hope with reasonable brevity. Then there should be a single wind-up speech from the Government Benches at the end of the Back-Bench contributions. My noble friend Lord Gilbert will respond to the debate.
I hope that the House will agree that this way of proceeding will reflect the desire of the House, expressed through the usual channels, that proceedings this afternoon should not be confined to those for a Statement but should reflect more closely those for a debate.
I should also add that allowing my noble friend Lord Gilbert to wind up in a single speech rather than intervening immediately on points from Back-Benchers will, perhaps, contribute to the feeling that this is more of a debate than a normal Statement.

Iraq
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on Iraq. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission I will make a Statement on Iraq.
"Yesterday I authorised the participation of British forces in a substantial US-UK military strike against targets in Iraq. As the House knows, this attack began last night, maximising surprise through the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and precision bombing by navy-based manned aircraft. The operation is now continuing and, as I speak, British Tornado aircraft are engaged in action. I spoke to their commander last night and congratulated him on the bravery and professionalism of his forces. I know the whole House will join with me in wishing them well as they risk their lives to help ensure peace and stability in the Middle East and more widely. We are very proud of them.
"Our policy has always been to seek genuine Iraqi compliance with the demands of the Security Council.
"The objectives of this military operation are clear and simple: to degrade the ability of Saddam Hussein to build and use weapons of mass destruction, including command and control and delivery systems; to diminish the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his neighbours by weakening his military capability. These objectives are achievable and the action proportionate to the serious dangers Saddam Hussein poses to his immediate neighbours, the Middle East region and the international community more widely. The targets, throughout Iraq, have been very carefully selected to reflect these objectives. We are taking every possible care to avoid civilian casualties or damage to ordinary civilian infrastructure.
"The House will forgive me if I say no more about operational details at this stage. To go further could endanger the lives of those involved. But first reports from last night's operations suggest that they were successful and inflicted the kind of military damage we were seeking.
"Madam Speaker, when I spoke to the House on 16th November, after we and the Americans had stayed our hand because of a written Iraqi promise of full co-operation with the UN weapons inspectors, I set out in some detail why we had come to the brink of military action. The House will forgive me if I once again set current events in their proper context. It is vital that people understand that the threat from Saddam is real, not theoretical.
"After the Gulf War had revealed the extent of Saddam's arsenal, Iraq agreed in April 1991 to accept the destruction of all its weapons of mass destruction and not to develop such weapons in the future. They also agreed to a Special Commission to monitor and oversee this process. That was the price they were
1522
made to pay for the cessation of hostilities. The capability Saddam had at the time included: a nuclear weapons programme only a few years away from producing an effective bomb; long-range missile stocks able to threaten all his neighbours; a chemical weapons arsenal of huge proportions, which he had already used on the Iranians in the 10-year war he started with Iran, and on his own people; and a biological weapons programme capable of producing enough deadly toxins to destroy the population of the globe several times over.
"It was expected then that the Special Commission, together with the International Atomic Energy Agency, would complete this process in a few months. But it was not to be. What no one fully foresaw at the time was the huge effort Iraq would put into blocking it. The inspectors have been constantly harassed, threatened, deceived and lied to. A special and elaborate mechanism to conceal Iraqi capability was put in place involving organisations close to Saddam Hussein, in particular his Special Republican Guard.
"Despite this, UNSCOM achieved a huge amount, particularly after the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, later murdered by Saddam, destroying for example more than 38,000 chemical weapon munitions, 48 Scud missiles and a biological weapons factory designed to produce up to 50,000 litres of anthrax, botulism toxin and other deadly agents. But much—too much—remains unaccounted for. Iraq has consistently sought to frustrate attempts to look at the records and destroy the remaining capability. Let us be clear. Saddam still has capability in this area, not least to develop more weapons in the future. To give only one example, over 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals for the nerve gas VX have not been found or accounted for.
"Meanwhile, Saddam's conventional military capabilities remain at a very high level. He has more than one million men under arms, including 75,000 in the Republican Guard and 15,000 members of the Special Republican Guard. Saddam attaches importance to only one thing: his ability to dominate his people and his neighbours by military force. He wants to retain all the weapons he can, including weapons of mass destruction. He has used them before. I am in no doubt of his readiness to use them again if he has any opportunity. His brutality and ruthlessness are too well documented for there to be any doubt of this. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights issued a new report on Iraq in October. He documented massive and extremely grave violations of human rights, including the widespread and systematic use of torture, a new policy of penal mutilation and amputations introduced by Saddam's son, Uday, and innumerable and illegal political executions.
"After the full extent of the weapons programme was uncovered in 1996 and early 1997, Saddam began to obstruct in real earnest. He cast doubt on the independence of the inspectors. He sought to exclude

1523
US and British members of UNSCOM. He sought to declare certain sites out of bounds, on the grounds that they were personal palaces.
"This led to a series of crises with the Security Council and the international community, and a recurring threat of force—first in October 1997, when he eventually backed down, then in February this year. The House will recall that this was eventually resolved by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan going to Baghdad and concluding a Memorandum of Understanding with the Iraqis. In this, Saddam undertook to co-operate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, and confirmed that this meant 'immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access in conformity with Security Council Resolutions'.
"But the pattern continued. Then Saddam broke altogether this agreement with Kofi Annan. In August he suspended co-operation and on 31st October ended it. That was why on 14th November I gave authority for British forces to participate in a US-UK strike against Iraq. That was only averted by another offer from Saddam. The Iraqis agreed in terms that spoke of a, 'clear and unconditional decision of the Iraqi Government to resume co-operation with UNSCOM and the IAEA'. They said `UNSCOM and the IAEA could immediately resume all their activities according to the relevant resolutions of the Security Council'.
"Let me remind you that these resolutions call on Iraq to comply unconditionally with the demands of the Security Council to give up all its weapons of mass destruction, and to co-operate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA. Resolution 707 of 15th August 1991, for example, passed after the first evidence of Iraqi non-compliance, demanded that Iraq should, `provide full, final and complete disclosure … of aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction', and that it should allow UNSCOM and the IAEA, 'immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records, and means of transportation which they wish to inspect'.
"There were some who thought we should have taken military action on 14th November. But, despite our severe doubts, we went that extra mile. We gave Saddam that last chance. Even at the risk to our own credibility, we were determined to avoid, if we responsibly could, the use of force. At the same time, we and the Americans also gave the clearest possible warning that, should Saddam break his word once more, there would be no further warnings or diplomatic arguments. I told the House on 16th November that if he again obstructed the work of the inspectors we would strike. No warnings. No wrangling. No negotiation. No last minute letters. President Clinton also set out what Saddam had to do: allow unfettered access for UNSCOM and the IAEA and abide by all the relevant Security Council resolutions. Otherwise the US stood ready to act without further warning.
"Saddam Hussein is a man to whom a last chance to do right is just a further opportunity to do wrong. He is blind to reason. We were not unconscious of
1524
that but we wanted to show that reason, not vengeance, motivated us. So, acting on the promise of unconditional access, Richard Butler was asked to put his inspectors back in immediately, carry out the full range of his tasks and to report back to the Security Council. He said that he would do so within a month. On Monday last, a month later, he did so. The report was very clear and damning. Copies were placed in the House yesterday. Butler summarises UNSCOM's experiences: limited co-operation in some areas, yes, but otherwise a clear pattern of obstruction over documents, access to Iraqi personnel and above all the surprise inspections of suspect sites so vital to UNSCOM's completion of its task. Co-operation has indeed been less good in some areas even than in the difficult times of the past.
"The evidence is clear, as set out by Butler. Important and relevant documents have not been handed over. Their existence has even been denied in many cases, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The documents are vital because they would reveal how many weapons Iraq has and where they are or may be located. We know that the Iraqis have deliberately destroyed as many of these documents as they can including in the second half of November as UNSCOM was resuming its work.
"The Iraqis have also blocked legitimate inspections including one to the Baa'th Party headquarters. This visit was not an idle provocation because there was reliable evidence of relevant material at the site. In another case, an inspection of the former headquarters of the Special Security Organisation was eventually allowed to go ahead, but only after the building had been emptied not only of any relevant material but also of its furniture and all equipment of any kind.
"Butler's conclusion is clear and unequivocal: 'In the light of this experience, that is, the absence of full co-operation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the substantive disarmament work mandated to it by the Security Council and, thus, to give the council the assurances it requires with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons programmes'.
"Anyone who has followed at all the pattern of events in Iraq in recent years must come to the same inescapable conclusion. Whatever the arguments about particular incidents Saddam's attitude to the inspectors and their work cannot remotely be described as full co-operation. It has instead been as much deliberate obstruction as he thought he could get away with. Moreover, he has also consistently sought in the past 18 months to use this obstruction deliberately to try to blackmail the international community into lifting sanctions—a step which we support when he has complied with his obligations but which is quite unacceptable before he has done so and while the threat remains.
"Madam Speaker, in these circumstances we had a stark choice. Either we could let this process continue further, with UNSCOM becoming more and more emasculated, including its monitoring capability,

1525
Saddam correspondingly free to pursue his weapon-making ambitions and the one-sided and unjustified bargaining over sanctions continuing, or, having tried every possible diplomatic avenue and shown endless patience despite all Saddam's deception, we could decide that if UNSCOM could not do its work we should tackle Saddam's remaining capability through direct action of our own. In these circumstances there is only one responsible choice to make. We are acting now because Butler's report, delivered on time, was so clear. And because, if we were going to act, it was obviously better that we should do so without giving Saddam unnecessary time to prepare his defences, and disperse whatever he could to new locations.
"In particular we were very sensitive to the imminence of Ramadan and very reluctant to have to start a military campaign during Ramadan, out of our respect for Moslem sentiments. On the other hand, waiting until after Ramadan would have given Saddam a month to prepare. It would have been highly risky in military terms, and likely to reduce significantly the effect of our attacks.
"I want to deal with one thing straight on. There are suggestions that the timing of military action is somehow linked to the internal affairs of the United States. I refute this entirely. I have no doubt whatever that action is fully justified now. Had it not been taken now, it would have been with my personal disagreement. I know that President Clinton reached the same conclusion for the same reasons. Had he acted differently, out of regard to internal matters of US politics, that would have been a dereliction of his duty as President. Instead, not for the first time, he has shown the courage to do the right thing and he has my full support.
"Other questions arise about this military operation. Let me deal with some of them. Is it a specific objective to remove Saddam Hussein? The answer is it cannot be. No-one would be better pleased if his evil regime disappeared as a direct or indirect result of our action, but our military objectives are precisely those I have set out. Even if there was legal authority to do so, removing Saddam through military action would require the insertion of ground troops on a massive scale—hundreds of thousands, as the British Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Charles Guthrie, made clear this morning. Even then there would be no absolute guarantee of success. I cannot make that commitment responsibly.
"What will happen once the military operation is over? The answer to that depends at least as much on Saddam as it does on us. I hope he will finally come to his senses and recognise that the only way to find support in the international community and light at the end of the tunnel is full compliance with the Security Council's requirements. UNSCOM must remain ready to resume its work and to accomplish the task set by the Security Council and agreed to by the Iraqis.
1526
"Alternatively, if Saddam will not see reason, then after this military operation is concluded, we will work to ensure that Saddam's weakened military capability cannot be rebuilt and that the threat he poses is fully contained. We have the ability to do so, even without UNSCOM if necessary. We will certainly be better placed after this military strike than if we had to go on dealing with a Saddam Hussein whose military capability had not been weakened and with an UNSCOM increasingly impeded from any serious work. We will maintain and enforce rigorously the existing sanctions. If necessary, and if we have serious evidence from our intensive surveillance, or from intelligence, that his capability is being rebuilt, we will be ready to take further military action. Saddam should have no doubt of our continuing resolve.
"We will in any case do all we can to ensure that the present arrangements of oil sales for food and medicine can continue. I trust that this time Saddam will allow the mechanism to work properly for the benefit of his people, rather than spreading lies about the effect of sanctions. He has the means to care for his people if he chooses to use them. Let me be absolutely clear once again. The Iraqi authorities can import as much food and medicines as they need. If there are nutritional problems in Iraq, they are not the result of sanctions—let us not forget that Iraq is continuing to export food to her neighbours. We also constantly look at ways we can do more to help the suffering of the Iraqi people, for example, whenever we review the workings of the sanctions and oil for food regimes, and through our own aid effort.
"The decision to take military action against Iraq was taken with great regret. It is a heavy responsibility. There will be casualties in Iraq, despite all our efforts, although I hope all concerned will be fully alert to Saddam's very well-documented modus operandi of fabrication of evidence.
"I am encouraged by the international reaction. Most of our allies have offered full support. Others who have felt unable to do so have shown their understanding. I believe that, among the Arab countries, the view expressed at their meeting in Doha in November, that Saddam must bear the responsibility for what happens, holds good.
"As I said last night, we have absolutely no quarrel with the Iraqi people. We have no desire to jeopardise the territorial integrity of Iraq. We look forward to the day when Iraq will have the government its people deserve and will once again be a great country. We have the deepest respect for Islamic sensibilities, here and in the region. But we have acted because we must act to counter a real and present danger from a tyrant who has never hesitated to use whatever weapons come to hand.
"Madam Speaker, I would rather that we had not had to do this. I am aware of the risks we are asking our forces to face. I do so, not lightly, but with a profound sense of responsibility.
"But I do so confident they will achieve our aims, and convinced we have taken the right course of action. For whatever the risks we face today, they are

1527
as nothing compared to the risks if we do not halt Saddam Hussein's programme of developing chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
"I ask the House for its support".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, first, on behalf of the Official Opposition in this House I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating this full Statement. I also welcome the fullness of the Statement. I hope that the House will understand and recognise that if my words are considerably briefer than the Statement offered it is no criticism of the length of the Statement which we very much support. Is the noble Baroness also aware how much the House values the fact that when a Statement of such national importance is made by her right honourable friend in another place the Leader of the House is able to repeat it in this House?
On behalf of the Opposition we on this side express our full support for the action which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government, while deeply regretting the behaviour of the Iraqi dictator which made it necessary, and expressing the hope that casualties to Iraqi citizens, with whom we have no quarrel, are minimal.
The Statement includes a particularly grim record of agreements made and broken by Saddam over many months and years, and that in itself is to be deeply regretted. Is the noble Baroness aware of the unqualified admiration and unreserved support of this House for those British servicemen who are involved in Operation Desert Fox, and how much our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families at this time?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have, I believe, the very best trained and best qualified pilots of any armed force in the world. Will the noble Baroness ensure that the support of this House is made known to those involved in this action, not just the front line troops but also those who work behind the scenes to make these operations possible?
On the more substantive parts of the Statement, can the noble Baroness inform the House what diplomatic activity is being carried out in parallel with the military operation to maintain good relations with our allies and to broaden as much as possible the coalition against Saddam Hussein? Is she in a position to tell the House which countries in the European Union have offered messages or assurances of their support to this operation—that was not entirely clear from the Statement—and whether any of our partners in Europe have criticised the operation?
I recognise what the noble Baroness said in the ministerial Statement about the timing of the development. However, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the Prime Minister discussed the timing of the beginning of the United States part of the operation with the President of the United States? Was he among those who urged the President to start the operation at this time?
1528
Is the noble Baroness the Leader of the House also aware that one of the concerns of British citizens is the potential risk of direct or proxy terrorist action against British nationals or their property here or abroad? Will the noble Baroness assure the House that all possible steps have been taken to guard against such threats?
It is also important that the political objectives of military action are clear. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness will therefore again confirm to the House the purpose of the operation. Am I right in understanding from the Statement that its aim is to destroy known or suspected weapons of mass destruction and the ability to make them: that it is to degrade the Iraqi military capability overall, presumably by killing soldiers and destroying material and command and control systems, but that it is not to unseat the Saddam regime? Can the Minister also say whether, after this action, the British Government will be prepared to resume efforts to negotiate with Saddam Hussein?
Finally, and on a slightly different note, can the Minister inform the House of the plans that she and the Government have to ensure that Parliament as a whole, and this House specifically, is informed and consulted in the event of any major change in the operation or its objectives during the coming Recess? I understand the special arrangements which are being taken today to deal with the Statement. I am also aware that I have asked many questions and I will accept answers at the end of the debate from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert.
It is coming up to Ramadan in the Middle East and Christmas in the United Kingdom and the western world. It is a particularly sad time for the world to come into conflict. As I said earlier, our thoughts and our prayers should be with all those involved.
4 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Rodgers as a result of a family bereavement outside London, I rise to support the Statement on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. In the circumstances, it was unavoidable that Britain should take action with the United States. Clearly, Saddam Hussein has broken all the terms of the UN conditions attached to his regime. Under those circumstances, we had no choice but to intervene. The hardest question to answer is: what follows? How do we avoid endless destructive confrontations with the Iraqi regime?
I welcome the declaration in the Statement that it is not the intention of the British Government that the action is intended to remove the current regime and the recognition that it is impossible for us to do so. Does the noble Baroness note that within the United States much comment has been that the objective ought to be the removal of Saddam Hussein? Are we clear that from the British Government's point of view, our objectives remain limited?
I also note in the Statement the suggestion that UNSCOM is unlikely to be able to continue with the task and that from now on we are into the business of containment and surveillance most likely from the outside. We on these Benches recognise that the most

1529
useful way forward is sharper military containment with the further easing of economic sanctions to aid the civilian population.
I wish to ask the Minister about some of the wider issues within which the confrontation has to be seen. After all, it is part of the whole problem of western policy towards the Middle East. This morning I was told by one of my friends that in Amman one can buy pictures of Saddam Hussein and Yassar Arafat together. There is an unavoidable linkage between the Arab confrontation with Israel—the Israeli/Palestine peace process—and the extent to which the current Iraqi regime is able to count on popular support within other Arab countries. One recognises that Saddam Hussein's chances of destabilising other regimes in the Middle East is considerably increased by the collapse in the international oil price and that not only weakens other regimes in the Gulf but, potentially, Saddam Hussein himself.
How far do the British Government consider that in dealing with the future of Iraq we must also look at the immensely complicated Kurdish question which overlaps Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran and which nearly brought Syria and Turkey into a conventional armed confrontation only some weeks ago?
Does the Minister believe that there is more that the British Government might be able to do in the current extremely delicate process of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations? I understand that today the Israeli Finance Minister resigned and has called for the formation of a government of national unity in Israel as a means of furthering the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. From these Benches we welcome that. It seems to us that that is a step forward in the direction that we and other European governments would welcome. Are the Government now pursuing much closer European co-ordination in relation to future policy towards the Middle East as a basis for a closer US-European dialogue?
I ask two other final questions. Given that the build up in arms throughout the Gulf, the original build up of Saddam Hussein's original capacity, was aided by arms sales from the West, and others, to that region, do the Government now consider it important to reduce future arms sales to the Middle East? Do we believe that there is potential in building a closer understanding among the major member states of the United Nations so that it is possible on future occasions to build a Security Council consensus which, unfortunately, on this occasion we have been unsuccessful in building?
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords who have commented and asked questions on the Statement. In particular, I thank them for their general support for the action which the British Government have taken with, as both noble Lords made clear, great regret which I know is shared on all sides of the House.
I reinforce the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the support of this House for the servicemen serving in the Gulf. I shall, of course,
1530
convey that support and the good wishes which he expressed to them on behalf of the whole House. It was important that he also mentioned those who served behind the scenes and not simply those in the front line. Again, I shall make that very clear to people when I pass on those messages.
The noble Lord asked about the reaction of our European allies, and, in particular, whether comments had come from them. They are still coming in. There are a variety of actions. For example, a French news agency quotes the French Foreign Minister as saying that he regretted that Saddam Hussein had not demonstrated the necessary co-operation and he deplored the serious human consequences that would follow. On the other hand, he supported the necessity for the air strikes on Iraq for which, he said, Saddam Hussein bore the prime responsibility. The Spanish Government has issued a statement saying that Iraqi behaviour has forced the international community to have recourse to force. Italy has said that the crisis caused by Iraq's continuing obstructive attitude produced this result. Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a persistently negative attitude. From Austria it was said:
"We understand the action and we hold Saddam Hussein responsible".
That is not a comprehensive record of everything which has come through diplomatic channels but those remarks are still coming in. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands has said that the air strikes are necessary.
The noble Lord asked also—and this was reflected in some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire—about the diplomatic efforts that are continuing alongside military action. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, as well as the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State, Mr. Fatchett, who has special responsibilities for that region, have all had, and continue to have, extensive contacts with a wide variety of countries in the region, including those about whom the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was particularly concerned. That responsibility to continue diplomatic efforts, in so far as is possible in this very complicated military situation, is continuing. There is no question of those efforts being suspended or ignored.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred to the reaction from the Arab world. As I said in repeating the Statement, we understand that those countries stand by the statement made at the beginning of November when they met in Doha on the question of the responsibility for any military action lying firmly with Iraq. It is important to look more broadly at the issues which the noble Lord rightly raised in relation to Israel and they will be part of the ongoing diplomatic initiative which I described as continuing with my right honourable friends in the Foreign Office and in the defence department. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Gilbert will speak later about his own efforts.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether the President of the United States and the Prime Minister had spoken on the subject of the timing of this military action. I can confirm that they have done so and I believe that they did so yesterday before any

1531
announcements were made. On the question of terrorism, we are all aware of the difficulties that that potentially poses to citizens of our own country and the necessary steps are being taken to minimise that threat.
Both noble Lords asked about the purpose of this military action and, without unnecessarily repeating the words used in the Statement, perhaps I can paraphrase that again. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, it was a long Statement and the purpose was given at the beginning. The purpose was,
"to degrade the ability of Saddam Hussein to build and use weapons of mass destruction and to diminish the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his neighbours by weakening his military capability"
to threaten them across a broad front. It is not—as was said in the Statement—the explicit purpose to remove Saddam Hussein himself; it cannot be. In any form of international legal situation it would be impossible for that to be an explicit aim. But, again to quote from the Statement and as the Prime Minister said in another place:
"No one would be better pleased if his evil regime disappeared as a direct or indirect result of our action".
But the military objectives remain the clear and simple ones described in the original Statement.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked whether it would be possible for UNSCOM to continue, whatever the result of the military action. That is the aim of the allies involved and of those involved from the United Nations perspective in this international work. We hope that it will be possible for UNSCOM not merely to resume, but also to complete its original task and do so with greater vigour, clarity and support than has been possible in the many years since it tried to start to do this work.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked what arrangements will be made for this House to be kept informed over the Christmas Recess. We are aware of that on this side of the House and I know that my noble friend the Chief Whip has in his mind—as he always does—various fall-back arrangements which could be invoked if that became necessary. I am sure that will be taken forward through the usual channels and the usual constructive dialogue will help us all to achieve what we need to do.
Mention of the Recess re-emphasises the point made by both noble Lords; that is, that this is a sad moment to have to make this kind of Statement and to respond to noble Lords at the time of the beginning of the Christmas holidays. I know that we all feel the weight of responsibility which the Prime Minister personally described for this action and hope that it will have at least a satisfactory outcome without extending the appalling suffering which we know the Iraqi people have been enduring for many years.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, as Chief of Defence Staff during the Gulf War I have great sympathy for the Government and my successor as members of a war Cabinet which must decide whether or not to commit forces. It is of course the Government's responsibility to decide when to commit
1532
hem but there must always be a clear understanding of what the military objectives are. The Prime Minister said last night, and it was repeated again this afternoon in the Statement, that,
"Our objectives in this military action are clear. To degrade his capabilities to build and use weapons of mass destruction and to diminish the military threat he poses to his neighbours. The targets chosen therefore are targets connected with his military capability".
The two words "degrade" and "diminish" are not precise. I am not necessarily asking for precision, but I believe that it is very important, when military forces are committed, that there is a clear understanding between those who are committing and those who are committed on how the objectives are to be measured.
In the Gulf War I set out to ensure that there was a very clear military objective. It was perhaps easier then than on this occasion. In the Gulf War of 1991 the objectives were to evict the Iraqis from Kuwait and to destroy and damage the Iraqi military capability, particularly the Republican Guard, so that they could not return immediately to Kuwait when the coalition forces had departed. That second part was generally taken to mean that there was about a 50 per cent. reduction in the fighting capability of the Iraqi Republican Guard.
My intention is not to seek any particular percentage but to suggest, I hope, that such measurements are clearly understood between our Government and the American Government and between the two armed forces. Now that Saddam Hussein is aware that we are seeking to diminish and degrade his capabilities, he will be extremely tempted to delude and deceive us on those two scores. Our intelligence and reconnaissance of the results of our attack will be extremely important so that we can judge whether the diminishment and degradation have been sufficient.
I finish with one other thought. At the moment we are relying entirely on military action to achieve the objective of stopping Saddam Hussein—I hope, for good—but no other methods of dealing with that objective appear to have been addressed with quite the same clarity. I may have misunderstood the position. It would have been nice to have heard more about an Iraqi government in exile which was getting greater and greater support. It would have been nice to know that internal resistance in Iraq had been helped and aided much more than appears to have been the case, at least from what one reads in the newspapers.
Those sort of actions—a government in exile and assisting resistant forces—paid enormous dividends in World War II. This is a much smaller type of engagement, but I do not think that it necessarily means that those types of activities should be overlooked. Certainly, to all those on the military side who are committed, and who are willingly and bravely doing that which is required of them, I believe that those other activities have a very important part to play in the overall strategic objective of Her Majesty's Government.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, the outbreak of hostilities between nations and the use of deadly force is never anything less than an evil from which we pray

1533
to be delivered. On occasion, it may be the lesser of evils, when the threat to peace and justice is so concrete, so actual, and so insistent that no more constructive or hopeful alternative exists.
The most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have issued their own statement urging the importance of clear objectives and well-defined limits in a conflict that is unsought and which the leadership in Iraq has had the means to avoid.
For most of us, the circumstances of modern democracy and the extraordinary reach and penetration of the media give the lay public the illusion of knowing what has driven those who were ultimately responsible for the decision to fight to their sombre conclusion. In fact, so bewildering is the flood of instant comment and opinion that the outcome is, if anything, a deepening of public feelings of helplessness.
However, I still believe that two things are beyond dispute. The first is the fact that our own Prime Minister and his immediate advisers are fully conscious of the gravity of the course upon which they have embarked and they have publicly acknowledged the risk to innocent lives. At this time, he and they deserve our prayers and understanding, as they wrestle in the days ahead with agonising choices. Secondly, it is the case that the men and women in our Armed Forces, committed by our democratically elected Government to serious dangers including the loss of their own lives, deserve our support and prayers. For their sakes, and for the sake of the innocent people who will inevitably be caught up in the outcome of this conflict, I believe that none of us can hope and pray for anything other than that this time may be very short; nor, I believe, are we permitted to suspend the requirement of prayer for those who at the moment are our enemies in battle.
At the same time, we can, and should, be extremely clear about the evils which have been committed by the regime which we oppose and its potential for still worse. Only time will clarify the wisdom of our past policies and actions or of our present decisions, but opposing this evil with courage and resolution commands respect.
I pray—I ask others to join me in praying—that justice and peace will quickly be restored to Iraq and the Middle East and to all who believe in the one God, especially at this poignant season of Advent and Ramadan. Men and women of Christian and of Moslem faith never cease to believe in the ultimate victory of good over evil and to long for the triumph of justice, compassion and peace within human affairs.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive Statement and in particular for bringing together the most powerful and persuasive reasons why it was necessary to take effective military action against that odious and threatening dictator.
My noble friend will be aware that a considerable debate will now begin not only in our country but probably throughout the world on whether this was the right thing to do. It would help us to convince people if the Government could marshall in some suitable form
1534
those very persuasive arguments to which I have just referred and which my noble friend was good enough to put before us.
In putting such material together will my noble friend have in mind three particular targets? The first is public opinion here, which cannot be taken for granted. Secondly, I refer to our friends in Europe who, although I am glad to hear that a number of positive reactions have been recorded, seem to lack a full understanding of, and concern about, what is going on outside the Continent of Europe but in an area which should be of enormous importance to them. Thirdly, and finally, will the Government continue to increase, if they can, the flow of information? I refer not only to our Arab friends in the Gulf and the Middle East because if we could find a way of penetrating the "Iron Curtain" around Iraq and of reaching the Iraqi people I am sure that that would only be to our very great benefit.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, following the remarks of my noble friend Lord Shore, I should like to point out that the Government have already anticipated his requirement for a statement on their position on the subject. A remarkably fair statement was in fact issued a few hours ago. I very much regret that I find myself unconvinced by it, but it is a good statement of the position. It shows that this matter is a pretty close run thing. We have not heard much dissent so far and, therefore, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I enter one or two notes in that regard.
When the Prime Minister announced what he felt to be the position into which he had been forced, I believe that he should have added a few words to his conclusion. He said:
"We act because we must".
But I believe that he should have added to that the following,
"in spite of the Russian and Chinese dissent".
If he had done so, because it was being done in that light, the attack could not have taken place. However, it had in fact already started, so the Prime Minister was announcing something that had already happened. Therefore, I think that I am contradicting myself there. Nevertheless, your Lordships will understand what I mean.
The great power unanimity rule would have applied. There is a rule in the Security Council that, in this kind of matter, there must be unanimity among the great powers—and Russia still rates as a great power in the Security Council, although it is only a single superpower now—otherwise the action taken is illegal. That was the original position taken by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. He made it clear during the course of discussions that he needed unanimity from the Security Council. However, he did not get it. The matter was then put to one side, and we are now proceeding on what is basically an illegal operation. That, to say the least, is unfortunate.
I do not know whether my noble friend the Leader of the House was asked about this or whether she volunteered it. I have in mind the question of what will happen after the military operation is over. In effect, my

1535
noble friend said that discussions would then take place with the Government of Iraq. My view is that those discussions should have taken place before the military action rather than after it. The situation will remain roughly the same after the military action. There was no reason why a further step could not have been taken in an attempt to find a solution.
I join enthusiastically in the descriptions which have been made of the leader of Iraq. Indeed, no words could describe the sheer impossibility of dealing with this man. Nevertheless, certain steps could have been taken before the military action and will have to be taken after it. I shall give your Lordships an example of one thing that might have been done. The Russians and the Chinese could have been asked to provide a force to protect the UNSCOM people. That prospect could have been discussed and this action might then have been avoided. The trouble with war is that, although one knows the point where it starts, one never knows where it will end. We do not know where this one is going to end; it might end in an almost unimaginable disaster.
The Russian ambassador to the United Nations said that he "rejected outright" the justifications given by the US and UK—I am reading from a government document—and declared that no one country could act for the council or,
"assume the role of a world policeman".
The Chinese ambassador said:
"There is absolutely no excuse for attacks to use force against Iraq. The use of force not only has serious consequences for the implementation of the security council resolutions but also pose a threat to international peace as well as regional stability".
France was more guarded in its remarks, stating it deplored:
"the spiral which led to the American military strikes against Iraq and the serious humanitarian consequences they could have for the Iraqi population".
Without much further ado, I have indicated to your Lordships the line along which I think we should have gone. We should not have embarked upon an unannounced military attack; we should have made further attempts, of the type that I have indicated, to reach the peaceful settlement that at some stage in these proceedings will still have to be made.
Lord Munro of Langholm: My Lords, I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said about the Royal Air Force. May I add, as the Secretary General of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, that the standard of airmanship of the Royal Air Force is the highest in the world and the standard of our ground crew is quite exceptional. We wish all of them the very best over the next few days and weeks and hope that they all come through unscathed.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, will recall, the build-up took rather longer during the Gulf War and that war looked as though it might continue for a longer time. Some of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons were called out then in support of the Royal Air Force, particularly the medical squadron and the movement squadron. As a reserve in the order of battle, all of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons are keen and anxious to fulfil any
1536
duty called upon them in support of the Royal Air Force. We are keen and anxious to be involved, if required, but I hope that this short, sharp, quick strike over the next few days will make that unnecessary. I hope that we are extremely successful and come through the whole operation with the minimum number of casualties.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, like many other noble Lords, I get no great satisfaction from the events unfolding in Iraq, but many of us must feel that we have no alternative but to support selective military action by the Americans at this time. You cannot go on making threats and giving final warnings and not being as good as your word. I give everyone freely the benefit of the doubt that the timing has had more to do with the imminence of Ramadan, and perhaps other military factors, than with impeachment proceedings in Washington.
I naturally support our Armed Forces, some of whom, yet again, may have to put their lives at risk at the drop of a hat—the ultimate commitment. I hope that none of us forget that. We can only hope and pray that the Smart weapons of the United States will live up to expectations and surgically take out the relevant targets at which they are aimed.
Is it not high time that we tried to introduce a more positive side to our policy towards Iraq and the Iraqi people, as opposed to the clearly negative side of the necessary present air offensive? You cannot go on making a desert and calling it peace. Our military offensive may succeed in doing irreparable and irretrievable damage to Saddam Hussein's capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and then to employ them, but if with all the intelligence at our disposal we cannot do this, I cannot see much point in attempting it at all. Would this not be a good moment, having administered the stick and from a position of strength, to offer some carrot to the Iraqi people, with whom, as the noble Baroness said, we have no quarrel? This could be in the form of a pan-Arabian Marshall Plan or the full, partial or gradual withdrawal of sanctions. Yes, of course this may, at least for the time being, confirm Saddam's position; although no more, I suspect, than a stronger, non-Arab power with little risk to itself knocking hell out of a weaker Arab one with as yet little capacity to hit back.
I am quite convinced that, eventually, destiny and retribution will catch up with him. But at least such a move would give our policy in that part of the world some constructive end gain which I believe would be increasingly widely welcomed by Arab countries, by the third world, by some of our European partners and, above all, by the United Nations.
I remember so well, when I went out to the Middle East with a parliamentary delegation under the noble Lord, Lord Pym, soon after Iraq invaded Kuwait, how all the Arab governments were adamant that, however much they wanted Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and taught a lesson, they did not want Iraq broken up as a country. That for the moment meant, and may still mean, Saddam Hussein for a little longer. So I do hope that the Government can come up with some

1537
constructive thoughts about the future as opposed to merely having to justify what we have to do at this particular moment.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I call for pity for the Iraqi people. Tomorrow is Ramadan, when all serious Moslems fast from dawn to dusk to mark the sanctity of their faith. For the Iraqi people, Ramadan has lasted for more than seven years. Their starvation, lack of drugs and lack of clean water supplies have been laid bare in front of us as sanctions have continued. The tragedy is that they have been misled by those in their government.
I made great efforts recently to meet the Iraqi minister for health. I obtained an invitation to visit a World Health Organisation conference in which I had no part to play but where the Iraqi health minister was to be. With great efforts I managed to arrange a meeting with him. He did not want one at all. Your Lordships will be saddened to hear that when I offered millions of pounds of aid—in food, clothing, medicines, bedding and civil engineering projects to assist in creating clean water supplies and sewage treatment facilities—the health minister refused the lot. He said to me personally and before witnesses that the Iraqi people had no need of anything at all. Your Lordships can weep for the Iraqi people because of the evil people they have as their leaders.
As wars roll on and follow other wars, the victims of earlier tragedies are forgotten. Today I wish to place before your Lordships the plight of the prisoners of war from Kuwait. We rescued Kuwait, and a number of people were kidnapped by Iraqi forces as we drove them out of the city. Those people have never been seen or heard of again. I ask your Lordships: please do not forget them. Those prisoners of war from Kuwait have families who mourn for them.
Probably the next war in the Gulf will be over water. I draw the attention of the House to those poor people, the Marsh people of Mesopotamia, who have lost their water, their living, their capacity to survive. I have assisted in the caring for hundreds of thousands of those people and other Iraqi refugees inside the Islamic Republic of Iran. Their suffering is devastating.
During this debate noble Lords have called for solutions other than those of military assault. I see no other immediate solution. What can we do? Surely, even this assault cannot contain the biological weaponry. This is a dreadful man in charge of huge weaponry that can be used against us all.
I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and other colleagues who assist in dialogue. Where the US is so suspected in the Gulf, Britain, as a leading member of the European Union, has a major role to play. AMAR and UNESCO have together been carrying out dialogue in recent days with 50 eminent thinkers on Islam. Here we can in the long run play a strong part in altering the hearts and minds of those inside Iraq and around Iraq in bridging the gap that has arisen between Islam and the European Union,
1538
so wrongfully, in recent years. The conference has concluded that there is no faultline between Islam and Europe. Let us join hands, cross that bridge, and together work hard for peaceful solutions through dialogue and other constructive methods. I support the Government wholeheartedly.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm the proportion of Iraq's gross national product that is devoted to defence? Is it not the highest in modern history? Will my noble friend confirm that Iraq, with a population of barely 20 million, has almost a million people in full-time military service, with hundreds of thousands more in a reserve capacity? Is it not the case that the children of Iraq are in great need but that Iraq maintains 500 helicopters, over 300 combat aircraft, and 3,000 tanks and armoured vehicles? Does that not present a very serious threat to its neighbours? If the world were to allow that regime to develop the more horrifying weapons that Saddam Hussein wishes to develop, it would be madness.
Is it not the case that the natural wealth of Iraq, even with sanctions in place, provides it with a capacity to feed its children? Would it not be better for the children to be fed? Is it not the case that Iraq cannot maintain a literacy rate of 50 per cent? Would that not be a better use of its resources? Is it not the case that in Iraq three-fifths of children are denied secondary education? Would it not be a very good idea if those children had that opportunity, and an opportunity to live in peace, which is currently denied? Would it not be appropriate for us to remind the Middle East and those who are concerned, as we ought to be, about Ramadan, that Saddam Hussein and his executioners and torturers have never been particularly scrupulous in their observation of that festival? Would it not also be appropriate for us to remind Russia, China and those who are hesitant in relation to the Middle East that it would be better for them to act as statesmen rather than salesmen and to help us in seeking to secure peace and decency in that part of the world?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, first, I wish to congratulate the Government and the Government of the United States on taking this decision. The decision to free Kuwait in the first stage was right. The decision to cease the Gulf War at the time we did was right. And the decision not to attack Saddam Hussein a few weeks ago was also right. I believe and hope it will be proved that the decision to attack him yesterday was right.
However, there are one or two matters which concern me, one of which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Craig: the objectives. I was a military man for a long time. The objectives are not all that clear, either politically or, so far as we understand, militarily. They need to be more clearly defined. I hope that that has already been done for the benefit of our servicemen on the ground.
Perhaps we do not want to obtain full compliance from Saddam. We will never get it. He may pretend, but we will never get it. Perhaps what we are trying to do

1539
is to create an environment for his replacement that will facilitate his being replaced by, we hope, a more reasonable regime.
Secondly, I am concerned about the real support we have had from our European partners. I believe that some people have an eye—and I have, because it is an interest of mine—on the Caspian Basin. It is close to Iraq and Iran and holds the core, the nub, for the future of the petrochemicals industry and petrochemicals of the world. Control of the Caspian Basin, not so much the minerals there but the routes out, is critical. I am not sure how much interest our European partners have in it, other than those on the Black Sea. I ask the Government to look over their shoulders to see whether the interest is perhaps—cynically—a little economical.
Lastly, having spoken to a few people today such as taxi drivers, I ask the Government to ensure that the reasoning behind the decision—which I and all noble Baronesses and noble Lords in the House support—is understood clearly. It has nothing to do with the timing of Mr. Clinton's problems in Washington. It is sad that it is Ramadan and Christmas. I understand the difficulties, as I am sure everyone in the House does. One question is: can we achieve what we want between now and Ramadan? Shall we take any notice of Ramadan as a religious festival starting tomorrow? Alternatively, shall we continue the war if we have not achieved our objectives? I hope the Minister will not answer if it is a security problem.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, a few weeks ago we had a discussion here in the middle of the night. The House was packed—there were six people. We talked about the United Nations and international law and the rights and wrongs of commencing military action. I do not wish to repeat it, although it would be interesting to go over some of the fundamental points again.
Two days ago, my noble friend Lady Symons, answering a question from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke eloquently about the importance of the United Nations acting co-operatively together, with or without clear legal justification. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, to tell the House what is the news from the United Nations today—this morning, as it is there. Have there been any developments since what was reported in the morning press here today?
You can legally make war on another country—and this is an act of war—in self-defence against aggression. That is one justification, but that is not the case here; there has been no aggression against the United States or this country. Alternatively, you can do it under a UN Security Council resolution. There has been endless argument about whether the existing Security Council resolutions would justify, or do justify, this type of action. However, it jumps to the eye that the Security Council is divided; that is extremely obvious. If it had not been divided, no doubt we should have been going there as quickly as we could, obtaining the agreement of at least all the permanent members. As it is, the Americans and ourselves are taking the action. The Russians and the Chinese have entered the most vivid dissent and France has taken a position one can describe
1540
only as one of extreme reserve. I have hardly ever seen a cooler note struck without it being an outright disavowal of a course of action.
I wonder whether the Government have reflected sufficiently. Let us remember that we are not talking about the general attitude they should take to Saddam and Iraq, we are talking about the quite specific choice of backing by our own military force the action taken unilaterally without us by another permanent member of the Security Council. I wonder whether the Government have thought sufficiently about the repercussions of this on Europe and on the Government's new hopes of achieving a European defence identity, the St. Malo agreement and all that, and whether there is a sufficient basis for going ahead with the, in some ways, rather easy course that we are taking with the Americans—strike now and think later—and rejecting the more difficult course of going back to the machinery of world co-operation.
Let us think for a moment what would happen if there were at this moment a Sino-Russian bombardment taking place against some country—I shall not name it as it is impossible to find an equivalent to Iraq in this context—without clear UN cover. What would the United States and ourselves say about that? This is a mirror image, in a way, of what is happening. It is always useful to glance in the mirror from time to time, even if the glass is a little distorting.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I hope that these events produce a conclusive answer. I fear not, but hope that I am wrong. Is the Minister aware that a cruise missile destined for Iraq landed in the Iranian city of Khoramshar causing damage? That is regrettable and has, in part, produced a negative attitude in the near region.
By extension, what is known about the approach of the Israelis? Will they contain themselves, or be contained, in the event of any Scud missile attack on Israeli territory? Is there a broader strategy in the event that this bombardment is unlikely to remove totally Iraq's capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction, as I fear this time Baghdad will possibly react by expelling UNSCOM, thereby terminating the international community's inspection and monitoring capacity?
Finally, can the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, say whether we are finally to be rid of the scourge of Saddam, together with his ne'er-do-goods and arsenal?
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I add my support to the Prime Minister and the Government for the resolution and the action that they have taken. I wish to raise one or two questions and points. First, during the Gulf War the cost of operations was largely borne by the Gulf states themselves. Have any arrangements been made, or are they envisaged, in respect of the costs which the British forces, at any rate, will incur in this action?
Secondly, on the question of dealing with Saddam Hussein, I noted at the time—as I am sure many others did—that the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 23rd February, which ended the earlier crisis (the

1541
memorandum of Secretary General Kofi Annan), was not signed by Saddam Hussein but by Tariq Aziz. I wondered at the time whether this meant that Saddam did not feel himself bound by it. If at the end of this action Saddam is still in place and if—I accept that we do not know—there is again an agreement made of any kind with the Iraqi Government (if it is still led by Saddam Hussein) I hope that on this and any future occasion we ensure that he personally signs any such document. It is perfectly clear that no one else can act in his name.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, referred to the Russians. It is well known that given their present economic situation the Russians are desperate for sanctions to end in order that they can get the dividend that they would otherwise get from their very large investment in the development of new oil reserves in Iraq. We are talking about billions of dollars of revenue to Russia per year. Mr. Primakov, the former Foreign Minister who now heads the government although not the state of Russia was very active in attempting to negotiate the end of sanctions for this purpose. We should take into account the motives of the Russians in being at the very least lukewarm in their support of what has happened. I am not concerned by the reaction of the Russians in considering whether or not we should be taking this action.
What is to happen in the future? The question is whether Iraq will survive as a country. There may well be a possibility of civil war in Iraq. There will be real dangers from other countries on its borders. For example, on its eastern border with Iran there are a number of Iraqis, and perhaps Iranians dressed as Iraqis, waiting to go in. Of course, the Turks have a considerable interest in Turkestan. It must be in the interests of that part of the world that the territorial integrity of Iraq survives. Possibly the best outcome is a non-Saddam-led provisional government. I hope that anything that can be done to support that will be done.
We in Britain have two particular contributions to make in addition to the professionalism, valour and integrity of our Armed Forces. First, we have a great deal more knowledge, understanding and empathy with the Middle East than the United States who are, and probably always will be, regarded with deep suspicion. Secondly, we are quite good at strategic thought for the future. I am not convinced that America has taken that on board. I hope we ensure that we are really plugged into the major decision-making apparatus in Washington which we presently support in its military action. I hope that we can make a real contribution to strategic thought as to what happens next.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, a leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Mr. Abraham Ahmed, is quoted in today's Evening Standard as saying that although he is sure that Saddam Hussein must go before any progress towards democracy or decent government can take place in Iraq, the present action will not help but will have the converse effect. Does the noble Lord who is to wind up
1542
the debate have any fears that as a reaction to the US-British attack Saddam will once again turn on the Kurds in the north or the Shiah in the south?
To echo the words of the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig of Radley and Lord Bramall, how will this action encourage opposition to Saddam within a positive plan? Reading comments by various residents of that area and neighbouring countries, I am afraid that it may well have the opposite effect.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and I wish both the teeth arms and their supporting services every success in bringing this application of force to a successful conclusion. What in fact, we might ask, is a successful conclusion? One in which Saddam Hussein goes back to the United Nations and complies with its requests? Not enough mention, I believe, has been made in the Statement of the role played by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will not only recognise that but will also state that we shall give every support to the Secretary-General if he has to go back again to Baghdad to discuss further matters with Saddam Hussein and his Government.
Secondly, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, suggested offering a carrot in the way of reducing the application of sanctions. I ask the Government to be very wary of that. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, for stating in Written Answers to me that Saddam Hussein depends on the export of oil. Cut off the money from that export of oil, and he will not be able to pay his Republican Guard.
Thirdly. a question about Saddam Hussein's neighbours. Are we doing enough, ourselves and the Americans, to safeguard those neighbours while we are applying force? We know what happened over Scud missiles in the last Gulf War and that the Americans and ourselves have assisted the Israelis with Patriot anti-missiles.
Finally, we always have to talk about our own resources and housekeeping. Can the Minister assure us that the costs of the operation will not be borne out of the Defence budget entirely and that the Treasury will be generous in its assistance so that our Strategic Defence Review is not knocked sideways by this conflict?
Lord Monson: My Lords, unless Saddam Hussein is insane, which is a theoretical possibility although not many experts seem to believe that he is, he must have realised that an attack was likely if he continued to defy the United Nations resolutions. Why therefore has he exposed his country to aerial bombardment? Either he has something exceptionally nasty up his sleeve for the countries doing the bombarding or he calculates that the attacks will somehow result in medium-term or long-term benefit for him and his clique, or both.
The noble Baroness did her best to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Government were well prepared for coping with the first danger. One hopes that her optimism is justified. Obviously she cannot give any

1543
details publicly; but I wonder whether she or the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, can comment on the second danger. That is to say: is there any possibility that the attack could in some strange way strengthen rather than weaken Saddam in the long term?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as one who has had a fairly long time in political life both before and during the war, and some very minor military experience during the war itself, I feel bound as a member of my party to give my full support to the Prime Minister for the very agonising decision that he must have had to make. It is a very comfortable posture to be able to sit on the fence and take the middle line on the basis of indecision, possibly lack of knowledge or possibly a regard for a future political career. But a decision has to be made, and I feel sure that the Prime Minister has made the correct decision. It is not the custom of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom on such important matters to sit on the fence. Decisions have always contained an element of risk, and the rights are not always overwhelmingly on one side.
For those of us who had experience of the last war, the decision at that time was comparatively simple. Our war aims were clear because they were immediate and involved our own survival. It is much more difficult to make a decision on a world-wide scale concerning a part of the world with which the British population as a whole has had little contact.
In the time that has elapsed since the repeated breaches of undertakings offered to the world and to the United Nations by Saddam Hussein, one's mind must have vacillated considerably one way and another. But bearing in mind the necessity for making a political and military decision, I am convinced that the Prime Minister has made a correct one; subject only to this. It is offered not by way of criticism in the slightest but because the pressure of events must bear heavily upon the time of any individual at the head of his own country. I refer to the definition of the aims and the purpose of the whole exercise. In that respect I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who has enormous experience. One of the first things before embarking on a military operation, either on one's own or in conjunction with allies, is to make quite sure, and to articulate clearly, precisely what one's military aims are. I believe that in that respect we should do so quickly within the next few days. Provided we do that, and provided our aims are honourable, I have no doubt that ultimately right will prevail.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I fully support the action that the Government have taken to date and agree in particular with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said especially in regard to the support of the Iraqi Opposition.
I should like to emphasise one aspect. It is absolutely vital that the current military action is 100 per cent. successful, and, to ensure that, it must be given sufficient time for it to succeed. Perhaps the Minister will reassure the House on that point.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, noble Lords will remember that in Kipling's novel Kim the hero on one occasion pressed his face to the window of an officers' mess in the north-west frontier and overheard the colonel saying to the adjutant, "Remember, remember, this is punishment not war".
That recollection is relevant for two reasons. First, the colonel was wrong. I think that the implication of all we have heard today in this extremely interesting and important debate following the powerful and important Statement made by the Minister is that we are not involved in a punishment activity. We are concerned with the first stages of what could be a long conflict—a war in fact. The war aims have been mentioned several times and they should be looked on as such. That is why all noble Lords were so impressed by the powerful speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig.
When talking about supporting the Iraqi Opposition, for example, one is plainly not concerned only to diminish and degrade Iraqi military force. One is concerned with the implicit as well as the explicit background to the whole affair, which might involve the destruction of the Iraqi Government. "Destroy" might be a better word than "degrade" and "diminish".
The story is also relevant because in these circumstances the colonel is the President of the United States and the adjutant is the Prime Minister. The Government ought to explain to your Lordships and to the public at large why, during the past years, we have elected to give such strong support to the United States in respect of Iraq. Is it because we have such long experience of the Middle East, particularly of Iraq which this country invented and ran during the first 30 years of its independence? Is it because of the special capacities of our Armed Services? Is it because we have some particular weapons which the United States does not have and needs? Is it because we want to be involved in the war or punishment process? I do not say that that is a wrong identification, but it is desirable for us and our European allies to know exactly why we are there and they are not thought to be essential.
5.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, I begin by addressing the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, as to why we find ourselves always alongside our American friends and allies in dealing with the dictator in the Middle East. I submit that it is for none of the reasons which the noble Lord put forward. It is simply that our two Governments totally agree as to the right course of action to take in the circumstances which we face. We are two responsible Governments who believe that we should live up to our international responsibilities. We take it upon ourselves to enforce the spirit of the international community as set out in successive United Nations Security Council resolutions. That is all that needs to be said and I am pleased to see that the noble Lord nods his assent.
We are not involved in punishment. I make it absolutely clear that we are not punishing the Iraqi people. We are trying to get compliance and in failing

1545
to do so we are determined to do what we can to reduce the military capabilities of Saddam Hussein and, most particularly, his capabilities in respect of the production and possible use of weapons of mass destruction.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked whether we would give the operation time to succeed. I am sure that your Lordships would not expect me to share with them my knowledge about the operational plans of the British and American commanders. However, I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the language that has been used on several occasions, and not just in the past few days, is that this time the action against Saddam Hussein will be substantial and sustained. Sustained is the word which matters.
I was grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Bruce for the Prime Minister. He is right in saying that it is easy to sit on the fence and to do nothing. I entirely agree with him about the necessity for our military aims to be clear. That point has been repeated many times by noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I can do no better than refer your Lordships to the text of the Prime Minister's remarks which will appear in Hansard tomorrow morning. I shall not repeat them because I am sure that your Lordships will find that the Government's position is set out very lucidly in that Statement which was repeated by my noble friend the Leader of the House at the beginning of the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked why on earth Saddam Hussein should have exposed his country to aerial bombardment. He offered various possibilities and theories as to why that may have been the case, including that he might have something nasty up his sleeve. There are many other possibilities. From what I know, this time, Saddam Hussein has made a very serious miscalculation. It is quite possible that he thought he had far more time. He thought he could go again this far to the brink and then, as he did in November, put his hands up and make some conciliatory gesture and get away with it. He thought that he would get the armed forces of the United States and the United Kingdom all psyched up so that they would have to be wound down again. He thought that he would win another psychological victory over us. This time, he has miscalculated very badly. It is most improbable that any attack on Saddam Hussein, in the long run or even in the short run, will strengthen his regime because I am quite sure that the effect on the targets which we attack will be so devastating that it will be clear to the Iraqi people the devastation which he has brought down upon them.
The noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, talked about he role of Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will give him full support at such time that it is appropriate for him to go back to Baghdad, as we have always done in the past.
The noble Earl suggested that we should be chary of giving a carrot to Saddam Hussein, which was an argument rather in the contrary direction to that advanced earlier in the debate by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. There is constantly on offer to Saddam Hussein and any successor Iraqi government the carrot of total suspension and removal of sanctions
1546
as soon as there is full compliance with Untied Nations Security Council resolutions. The matter is as simple as that. I do not believe that any other carrot is appropriate. We hope that, as a result of the activities of today and yesterday, Saddam Hussein will be aware of his responsibilities to his people and will realise that he has currently embarked upon a path of insanity.
I was asked about the costs of the operation by the noble Earl and whether or not they would be borne by the defence budget. I am not aware yet that my Secretary of State has had any discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer but normally, costs of military operations are borne by the contingency reserve.
My noble friend Lord Rea asked whether or not Saddam Hussein would turn again on the Kurds and the Shi'ites. I must be perfectly candid with your Lordships. It is quite possible that he will, if not turn on them, seek to make absolutely certain that there is no threat to his regime from either of those directions. With any luck, the result of the allied attacks will be a weakening of the revolutionary guard and its ability to impose the sort of iron discipline on Iraqi society which we have seen in the past. But it is quite possible, in the short term, that he will step up his reign of despotism in relation to those two wretched groups of people.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, asked whether or not a cruise missile had landed in Iran. When I came from the Ministry of Defence, we were still concerned about that report. We are inquiring into it. I regret that I can give your Lordships no further information on that matter but I am sure that, as soon as we have the answer to that question, it will be put in the public domain as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, asked whether or not there were any agreements with Arab states on cost sharing. I am not aware of there having been any negotiations in that regard. However, one of the crucial elements in the decisions of the past two days was to create, as far as possible, an element of surprise. The last thing we wanted to do was to go around tipping our hand throughout the Gulf, having negotiations with people and saying, "Next week or the following week we are contemplating doing this or that. Will you divvy up a certain proportion of the cost?".
Discussions will take place when the present operations are over but that is as far as I can go in answering the noble Lord's question today. His idea of having Saddam Hussein sign any future document is an intriguing one. I do not know why he thinks that Saddam Hussein's signature on a piece of paper will be any more reliable than any other guarantee he, or any member of his government, have given in the past.
The noble Lord talked of civil war in Iraq and dangers from bordering countries. I can assure him that it is firmly the policy of Her Majesty's Government and that of our American allies to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq. We have no desire whatever to see greater turbulence in that part of the world which might result from the break-up of that country. The noble Lord asked whether or not we contribute to the United States' strategic thinking. The answer is that we do, regularly,

1547
at every level of government both between the State Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office here, between the Ministry of Defence and the Pentagon, and of course between the Prime Minister and the President.
My noble friend Lord Kennet asked whether there was any news today from the United Nations. As far as I know there is none but it is still fairly early in the morning in New York. I suggest—this is not intended as a flippant remark—that any news bulletins will be more up to date than my information by the time they come to his screen.
My noble friend talked of possible unfavourable repercussions with our friends and allies in Europe. It is always possible to find arguments for doing nothing. If we have disagreements with our friends in Europe, they were not at the top of our considerations in the decisions we were taking today. We know that a lot of our friends in Europe support us; some disagree. Many of our friends throughout the world support us and we rely on that support and our belief in the rightness of our actions. I must tease my noble friend a little because he fairly admitted when he asked what we would do if there was a Russo-Chinese attack on another country like Iraq, that it was impossible to find an equivalent of Iraq. My noble friend answered his own question.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, my noble friend teases me sufficiently to make me rise. That was not my point. It was not the obvious moral inferiority of Iraq in relation to any other imaginable country that preoccupied me, but the danger of making a comparison, for instance, with Burma, Malaysia or some real country which many people would feel to be quite different from Iraq and that would therefore invalidate my point.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I was listening to my noble friend's interjection. I cannot say that I quite follow it. I shall read Hansard tomorrow and if I think of anything new to say to him, I shall write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked questions about the Caspian Basin. I understand that the Foreign Secretary has already said that the Caspian Basin and access to it is a priority in British foreign policy and will be the subject of increased diplomatic effort on the part of Her Majesty's Government over the next couple of years.
I turn to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and the extremely moving remarks that she made in relation to the plight of the Iraqi people. We all know of her long dedication to the suffering of the wretched people, the Marsh Arabs, in the southern part of that country. It bears repeating in your Lordships' House that, while all that military activity yesterday and today has been going on, we have not forgotten that we are enforcing a no-fly zone in both north and south Iraq and, through that, doing what we can to reduce the burden of Saddam Hussein's rule of those wretched people. What the noble Baroness had to say about the cynicism of the Iraqi minister of health was extremely moving, as I am sure all your Lordships will agree.
1548
I was asked to say what will happen when the guns fall silent. I cannot do better than quote directly from the press notice that was circulated by the body with which the noble Baroness has a close acquaintance, the AMAR UNESCO Standing Conference:
"When the guns fall silent the suffering goes on and so does our work of rehabilitation".
That task will face the entire international community. As that press conference pointed out,
"the AMAR international charitable foundation has, day by day, sustained 100,000 refugees who have been forced to flee from Iraq to Iran".
We also have to think of those poor wretches who have not managed to escape from Iraq to Iran.
My noble friend Lord Hardy asked about the proportion of Iraq's gross national product devoted to defence. He rattled off at great speed an impressive number of statistics about the size of the armed forces in Iraq. The figures sounded roughly right to me, but if he wants a precise reply I shall have to check the figures. There is no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein could have fed his people better and could have provided them with more medicines had he not spent the money he obtained from the sale of his oil on palaces and armaments which threaten his neighbours and his own people.
I am sure that everybody in the House agrees with my noble friend that the children of Iraq should be encouraged to live in peace and have a better education. That is, of course, what we hope for all of them as soon as possible.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monro, for what he said about the standard of our pilots and the ground crews. It is our objective not just to minimise Iraqi casualties but also to minimise the casualties among the brave young men flying in Royal Air Force planes.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, referred to Ramadan and to whether or not the timing had anything to do with Ramadan. There may be some misunderstanding about Ramadan. As I understand it, Ramadan is not a fixed feast. It may be proclaimed on different days in different countries. So there is uncertainty at the moment as to when Ramadan will be proclaimed in any one of the countries in that part of the world.
The timing of this military operation was set simply by two things: first, the fact that Mr. Butler presented his report, saying that he had had absolutely no compliance and, in fact, had had obstruction, deceit and difficulties from the Iraqi Government who were clearly in breach of their responsibilities. The decision taken to engage in military operations obviously reposed on the need to get the UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq as safely and as soon as possible. I am delighted to say that that operation has been 100 per cent. successful. It was speedily arranged.
Secondly, there was a need, as far as possible, to preserve the element of surprise. That is one of the main reasons why no land-based aircraft were used last night. No British aircraft were used last night because we did not want anyone to see the planes being bombed up.

1549
The planes that took part in the attack were carrier-based aircraft so no one could see what was happening. There were no journalists aboard the American aircraft carrier. Nobody knew that the Tomahawks were going to be launched by the American forces.
Many other elements of guile were involved, not least the fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State went all the way to Brussels for dinner last night because he had that outstanding engagement. He did not want people to know that he was cancelling his appointments because that would have led to suspicion that things were about to start happening immediately. The element of surprise was of crucial importance in deciding the timing. I am glad to be able to report that our evidence is that at the very least we were partially successful, if not wholly successful, in gaining the advantage of surprise.
Perhaps I may say finally to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that we have constantly been discussing with our Arab friends whether they can see any other way of dealing with Saddam Hussein. However much, from time to time, they might deplore force and talk about the suffering of the Iraqi people—their feelings on that are understandable—I have yet to encounter a senior Arab leader who has come up with any other way of dealing with Saddam Hussein.
My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney referred to the need for the great power unanimity rule. I do not want to put words in my noble friend's mouth, but he seemed to imply that, in the absence of that rule, our actions were illegal. I refer him to the fact that the American-British actions in this case were based on previous United Nations Security Council resolutions which were not vetoed. The advice of Her Majesty's Government is that everything we are doing is fully in compliance with international law although my noble friend—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the situation is that the unanimity rule is in force and that is why their actions were illegal.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, my noble friend and I will have to part company on this one—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: It is admitted in their own Statement.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I repeat to my noble friend that the advice that we have is that we are fully in compliance with the requirements of international law. Our actions are based on former United Nations Security Council resolutions. Nobody attempted to veto those resolutions.
I was not quite clear what my noble friend had in mind when he referred to the possibility of the Russians and the Chinese going into Iraq to protect UNSCOM officials. I do not think that they have been physically under threat. The problem is that we have not succeeded in achieving compliance with UN resolutions.
1550
My noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney rightly referred to the importance of public opinion in this country and said that it could not be taken for granted. I hope very much that the message that goes out today from both this House and another place will make clear why the Government have taken the steps that they have and that in these circumstances the Government have the support of the overwhelming number of Members of both Houses of Parliament.
My noble friend is absolutely right: my ministerial colleagues and I, in both Houses, will be at pains to try to convey, through every element in the media that is open to us, our arguments for doing what we are doing. An opinion poll conducted today in the United States shows that something like 74 per cent. of the American people support this action, with between 14 and 15 per cent. against. I have yet to see any figures from an opinion poll taken in this country, but I should be surprised if the proportions here are very different.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely rightly drew our attention not only to our own forces' need for our support and prayers but also, as one would expect from him, to the fact that many innocent people will be caught up in this conflict. Although we shall be attacking military installations, there will, unfortunately, be civilian casualties. I should like to make a few brief comments on that. Some of the casualties, particularly in civilian areas, will be caused by the enormous amounts of armaments that the Iraqis fire up into the air and which eventually come down again, hitting people and houses and injuring people. That will certainly be one of the elements in central Baghdad which will cause injuries.
There is evidence to suggest that we have not been hitting civilian targets. I can do no better than to draw your Lordships' attention to the sights on our television screens of cars driving perfectly normally around the centre of Baghdad while the attack was going on. So it is perfectly clear that citizens in Iraq in the centre of Baghdad have been going about their business in a perfectly normal way, while the attacks have been taking place on military installations far away from the centre.
There is one further point that I should like to make clear relating to a comment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. He talked about the precision of American weapons. I believe that the noble and gallant Lord may not have realised quite how more precise our own weapons have become since the Gulf War in 1991. At that time we were relying, not exclusively but very largely, on what are known as dumb bombs without any sophistication or precision guiding systems available to them. On this occasion, I can tell your Lordships that Her Majesty's forces will be using exclusively precision guided weapons. They will be either Paveway 2 or Paveway 3, which are laser guided thermal imaging systems with a remarkable degree of accuracy. Those will be the only types of weapons which Royal Air Force planes will be dispensing in these circumstances.
I turn, finally, to the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, whose experience in these matters makes me highly diffident about coming to this Dispatch

1551
Box. As he reminded us, he was in fact in charge of Britain's defences at the time of the Gulf War. I listened very carefully to what the noble and gallant Lord had to say. I entirely agree that it is absolutely essential for us to convey not only to the British people but also to the British forces the precise nature of our military objectives. I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that we are sparing absolutely no effort in that direction.
The noble and gallant Lord also asked whether or not the objectives were understood between governments and armed forces. I am sure that he will accept my assurance that there is total clarity and agreement between the governments as to what needs to be done and as to what the objectives are. Again, I am sure that he will understand from his past experience that we have senior British officers talking daily to one another. The Chief of the Defence Staff is talking to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs almost every day; indeed, he must be talking to him every day now. The American general in Florida has a British two-star officer accredited to him and similar arrangements apply in the Gulf. So there is the most intimate collaboration and understanding between the armed forces and the governments of our two countries.
1552
The noble and gallant Lord thought that it would be wonderful if we had an Iraqi government set up in exile and suggested that it would be excellent if such a government could feed assistance through to an opposition resistance in Iraq. All I can say is Amen to all of that. Unfortunately, I am afraid, the world is not quite as simple as that. Not long ago, one of my right honourable friends at the Foreign Office entertained some Iraqi Opposition groups. I think that 15 or 16 of them came in, and they found it very difficult to come to an agreed message; they found it very difficult to accept that they could work closely together; and they found it rather difficult to agree on objectives. We will be working further in that direction, but these matters are, unfortunately, not wholly within our hands.
I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time but I wanted to be sure that I had addressed as many of the remarks as possible of each and every one of your Lordships who have spoken on this extremely solemn and sombre occasion. As we speak, I repeat that brave young men in Royal Air Force uniforms are in the air at this very moment over Baghdad. As the right reverend Prelate said, our prayers must go with them all.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at twenty minutes before six o'clock until Monday, 11th January next.