Lords Sitting of 26 March 1998

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

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Personal Statement
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a brief personal statement. Yesterday during Question Time, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, who asked me about a ministerial group on the millennium bug, I inadvertently replied about the meetings of a ministerial sub-group on the millennium bug. I have agreed with the noble Baroness that I will write to her to clarify the matter, and I shall place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

Treasury Building
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for the refurbishment of the Treasury building.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have to say, first, that there is no "do nothing" option for the Treasury building. There are serious problems with the electrical wiring and water penetration in the basement. The Treasury is looking at a range of options to improve the building's efficiency. Those options all take account of the fact that the building is listed Grade II*.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer to a question which has been rolling around this House for the past three years. Does the Minister accept that the Treasury's inability to distinguish between current expenditure and capital expenditure—in thinking about investment when this is the ministry responsible for PFI, and, indeed, for putting money back into public services—gives us considerable doubt as to whether the Treasury should not be rethinking some of its underlying ideas about funding and long-term investment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the wider issue, as the noble Lord knows, the Treasury is in the process of increasing the use of resource accounting rather than cash accounting. However, I do not think that the noble Lord's comments apply specifically to the question of the Treasury building, where proper economic, financial and, of course, managerial considerations are being taken into account.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that in the early 1960s there was a plan
1332
to demolish the whole of Whitehall and rebuild it in a modern style, and that it was only the advent of a Labour Government which stopped those horrendous plans going forward? Can my noble friend also confirm that the Foreign Office building next to the Treasury has in fact been modernised and is now a major national asset as a result of that investment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the history of London over probably 2,000, not just 1,000, years, has been full of grandiose plans for demolition and renewal. Some of them work, like those of John Nash, but some of them do not. As far as concerns the Foreign Office building, yes, as I occasionally work in the Foreign Office as well as in the Treasury, I can confirm that the physical condition of the interior of that building is very much better. The World Squares proposals actually involve a pedestrian route through both the Treasury building and the Foreign Office building. I believe that that would be extremely attractive to visitors to London.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as monetary policy is now to be the responsibility of the Bank of England and as I see that excise duty may soon become the responsibility of the European Court of Justice, do we need a Treasury building?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Secondly, when I passed the Treasury building on Tuesday it was surrounded by fire engines. Can the Minister say whether that is a sign that the economy is overheating?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the setting of short-term interest rates is not the same as setting the whole of monetary policy, and there is no truth in the noble Lord's allegation that excise duty is to become a matter for the European Court of Justice. There was indeed a small fire in the Treasury on Tuesday. However, it was well controlled by the fire brigade. The fire happened in a store-room in that part of the Treasury building which is occupied by the Cabinet Office—for which I also speak.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that any private individual who had the privilege to own a Grade II* listed building would find himself having to maintain it almost without regard to the financial burden imposed or the actual utility of the building, as, indeed, happens in some cases? Therefore, does the noble Lord consider the application of Treasury criteria to this situation to be somewhat of a privilege, if not inappropriate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Grade II* listing of the Treasury building does at the very least protect the façade and the site lines. Indeed, subject to the views of English Heritage, it may well protect other features of the Treasury. I do not believe that there is any conflict there.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the magnitude of the problem facing the Treasury due to many years of under-maintenance? If that is so, can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that that does not happen with other public buildings?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord is right about under-maintenance. As I understand it, the electrical wiring in the building is 50 years old. Therefore, on any normal planned maintenance basis, something ought to have been done about it some time before now. As regards the steps that the Government are taking—or rather the steps that the previous government took and with which we agree—they include giving greater responsibility to government departments for their own buildings. Clearly that is a safeguard against continued under-maintenance.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that I had occasion to visit the old Admiralty building this morning and that I was depressed at the legacy that we have inherited—presumably another one? Indeed, it really is in a shocking condition. Can my noble friend give me an assurance that refurbishment of the old Admiralty building will be placed well ahead of that for the Treasury, because that might encourage the Treasury to get on with it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says. I have no doubt that officials and Ministers will hear it too, coming from the source that it does. However, as my noble friend well knows, I am in no position to give him any assurance that one building will move ahead of another.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, the noble Lord chose to inform this House that the setting of short-term interest rates is not by any means the whole of monetary policy. Could he please inform the House which aspects of monetary policy are being reserved to the Treasury? That will be news to the House and, I suspect. news to the financial markets too.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is, of course, wide of the original Question. Having paid great attention to the passage of the Bank of England Bill, he will know that the circumstances in which the Bank of England sets short-term interest rates are themselves constrained by the objectives set by the Treasury for the Bank of England.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, do the Government exempt themselves from the payment of VAT on repairs to ancient buildings, as they refuse to exempt the Church?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the only consolation I can give to the right reverend Prelate is that the same rules apply to the Treasury as to the Church.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that when the plumbing and other fundamental infrastructure problems of the Treasury have been
1334
solved, it should be decorated in a manner consonant with the dignity of that building, as indeed was rightly done with the apartments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, which maintained the dignity of this great Pugin building in which we live?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful—as is the whole House—for the noble Lord's well justified remarks about the apartments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, the problems in the Treasury are greater than ones of decoration. The building itself is ill adapted for modern office use and almost certainly has room for far fewer people than could work efficiently in it in a redesigned and refurbished building. That is the object of the present investigations.

Adoption
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh Baroness Rendell of Babergh asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they would support the establishment of an independent and accountable adoption authority in the United Kingdom to oversee the practice of inter-country and domestic adoption.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government are always prepared to consider proposals to improve the quality and efficiency of the adoption service which, as my noble friend will be aware, is largely organised through local authorities and charitable agencies. My honourable friend Mr. Boateng who has departmental responsibility for adoption has recently organised a series of meetings and conferences designed to improve local authority practice in this important area. The Government's view is that a separate national adoption authority would not be in the best interests of the children involved. It is, of course, the interests of the children that must be paramount.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her reply. However, in the light of the European Parliament's statement that where a child has effectively been abandoned the child has a right to be adopted, does she agree that adoption should be considered for any child who has spent a specific amount of time in the care system; for instance, a period of 18 months?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, when a child has been abandoned it is the statutory duty of the local authority to care for that child until his or her future can be secured, which may be done either by locating the birth parent and returning the child in due course, or by arranging for the child to be placed with a suitable family who are able to meet the needs of that child. It may, of course, be the case that adoption is considered to be in the child's best interests. However, imposing an absolute timescale in dealing with such

1335
cases is widely regarded as not being in the best interests of the children because it simply does not allow many options to be considered.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, given the recent research by Miss Patricia Morgan showing that adopted children have a much better chance of success in their future, would she join Mr. Paul Boateng in deploring the constraints that currently exist upon adopters as compared with those being selected for local authority care?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid I am not absolutely sure to what statement of my honourable friend the noble Lord refers. However, it is, of course, right that all children who are suitable for and appropriately placed in adoption should be given that opportunity. I have an interesting statistic which the noble Lord may or may not be aware of. I was not aware of it myself until I asked for some figures in relation to this Question. There are only 2,500 children at the moment who are regarded as being available for adoption. It is interesting to note that only 140 of those are babies under the age of one. I think that is the normal age group which people would expect to be available for adoption. Many more are in a much older age group and they are often much more difficult to place.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, bearing in mind the alleged shortcomings of some of our social workers in the adoption of children in the past, can the Minister confirm the Government's laudable intentions to abolish the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work? Can she further confirm to the House that any replacement will concentrate on the practical aspects of training and will avoid the excesses of the gender, race and class brigade?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am aware that there has been considerable criticism of some of the methods and, indeed, the attitudes of people in some places who are responsible locally for adoption. I agree with the noble Lord that particular training for social workers and for those involved in this sensitive area is an important issue. It is certainly one which my honourable friend is addressing.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I welcome what the noble Baroness said about the value of adoption. Will the Minister look closely at the findings of Miss Patricia Morgan in this important area because they bear out what she said in answer to an earlier question when she suggested that relatively few children are available for adoption while a far greater number languish in local authority homes—and, I suspect, languish in far worse accommodation in other parts of the world—who would benefit from homes that could be provided by would-be British adopters?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am happy to agree with the noble Baroness's general remarks. The guidance from the Department of Health has been very strong on total elimination of undue delays in adoption. The recommendations in Miss Patricia Morgan's report on that issue have been carefully observed.
Lord Meston: My Lords, do the Government intend to proceed with the overall reform of adoption law which was apparently shelved by the last government, and which would include ratification of the Hague Convention on inter-country adoption?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Government have decided that they are unable to find legislative time in the immediate future for the comprehensive reform of adoption, which was indeed suggested in 1996. On the other hand, we have signed the 1993 Hague Convention on the protection of children and we intend to ratify that as soon as the necessary legislation is in place.
Baroness Gardener of Parkes: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to children languishing in council homes. Is it not a fact that in the domestic situation many of those children are fostered? I do not refer to the international situation. What proportion of children are fostered as opposed to adopted?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have those precise national figures with me but I can, of course, write to the noble Baroness. She is right that many children are being very adequately looked after in foster homes. One of the problems about the timing for those children ready for adoption is that they are sometimes well settled with foster parents and even though adoptive parents are available, the disruption which might be caused to them may not be in their best interests, even though adoptive parents are available. As I said in answer to the earlier question, the balance of interests is sensitive but I think we all agree that it should be in favour of the children.
Earl Howe: My Lords, when the Government allocate legislative time for the ratification of the Hague Convention, can the noble Baroness say what role the Scottish parliament will have in determining the oversight of inter-country adoptions north of the Border?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, no, I am afraid that I cannot, but I shall write to the noble Earl, or ask one of my colleagues with responsibility for Scotland to do so.

African-Caribbean Small Businesses
3.22 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux Lord Randall of St. Budeaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to encourage an increase in the number of small and medium-sized enterprises within the African-Caribbean community in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government seek to provide a stable economic environment in which small businesses can

1337
grow and prosper. Business support services are available to all and these are delivered through Business Links in England and similar networks in Scotland and Wales. Business Link in the London area is undertaking research into the causes hindering growth among African-Caribbean small businesses.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very informed Answer. However, is the Minister aware of the considerable benefits to both the British economy and the African-Caribbean business community if they were to move on from their traditional limited markets to the more lucrative mainstream markets? Is my noble friend also aware that such a change to mainstream markets would be difficult because of a number of bottlenecks and blockages? Will the Government therefore consider what role they may play in encouraging this important market development?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend on assuming or being elected to—I am not sure which—the chairmanship of the African-Caribbean Westminster Initiative. I wish him well, as I am sure the whole House will, in providing what I believe will be invaluable help to this sector.
In order to move into new and more lucrative markets, it is clear that individual skills and motivation are of prime importance. The Government will do their best to encourage the acquisition of such skills and motivation. Indeed, so far as concerns small businesses and exports, my noble friend will be aware that only yesterday I announced some new initiatives in order to encourage that purpose. I hope that businesses with an ethnic minority background will avail themselves of the opportunity to take advantage of those initiatives.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is still great difficulty in raising funds of up to £1 million for the start-up and expansion of small companies? Will the Government take action to resolve that problem?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, there is a difficulty. Last October, my honourable friend Mrs. Barbara Roche announced a number of new initiatives including Business Link in order to help small companies. This is a perennial problem which has afflicted more small enterprises. One can only hope that perhaps some of our venture capitalists in this country will take a broader and less short-term view in order to assist them. The same applies to conventional banks. It is not a matter as regards which the Government can directly intervene.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the value of worker co-operatives in relation to small businesses? Does his department take positive action to advise those who are in difficulties in starting small businesses to consider the possibility of a worker co-operative? It can be started with the minimum of capital.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am very much aware of my noble friend's interest in worker co-operatives. I have had an interest in this field over a number of years. I am sure that her prudent words in this regard are extremely important.
We cannot persuade or ensure that people take advantage of these opportunities, but we favour this particular prospect. I hope that my noble friend will recognise that we favour the whole panoply of measures that can be used to assist small and medium-sized enterprises, of which this is one; and we are making progress in this sector.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, did not the Minister put his finger on the issue when he referred to the need to acquire new skills? In that context, is not the Government's main responsibility the TECs which I believe have over £2 billion a year to spend? I was in Cambridge visiting a major company this week. Its representative said that the local TEC was more interested in hairdressers than engineers. Will the noble Lord ensure that TECs make a better contribution to upgrading people's skills in exactly the way that the Question envisages?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, just as with Business Link, the records of the TECs are variable. We try to encourage higher standards so that the TECs reach the levels of the best. That is what it is all about. However, there are human frailties which govern these factors. If the noble Lord cares to write to me about the specific matter, I shall examine the evidence.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in such an initiative it is essential to involve the associations concerned. Is consultation taking place with the Federation of Small Businesses, and the Institute of Directors? I am sure that they would be able to lend much expertise to the initiative.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we have carried out the most extensive consultations with all groups representing small and other enterprises. It was part and parcel of the remit of the export forum which has made some invaluable recommendations. I can assure my noble friend that we have had, and will continue to have, extended consultations to ensure that we get the best out of this vitally important sector of our economy.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I support strongly what he has said about the noble Lord, Lord Randall, taking the chair of this new initiative in which I, too, am involved? It is welcome to hear the Minister's support for small businesses. It contrasts greatly with the actions of previous Labour Governments, and some of the actions of the present Labour Government in connection, for example, with the minimum wage and the social chapter.

1339
Does the Minister agree that every help should be given to all small businesses, including in particular those of the African-Caribbean members of our community, both to enhance jobs and to spread enterprise in the interests of all?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for joining my noble friend in this important and spirited enterprise. I am glad that he is now seeking to compensate for the errors of his government in dealing with the appalling situation which beset small and medium-sized enterprises as a result of their inertia.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will the Minister agree that red tape and bureaucracy hit small and medium-sized enterprises much harder than they do larger businesses? Would he care to comment on the fact that, since my right honourable friend the then Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, set Tarzan free, in the shape of my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Heseltine, to cut through the jungle of red tape which besets small businesses, some 650 redundant regulations have been repealed and no less than 17,500 new ones have been imposed? Can the Government give the House any assurance as to how they may attack this problem of over-regulation?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have learnt over a period of time in this House to view the statistics referred to by the noble Lord with a degree of reserve. We made it clear when the deregulation Bill was before the House that we did not support unnecessary red tape and we welcomed its extirpation. I am surprised to hear the noble Lord of all people paying tribute to Mr. Michael Heseltine and referring to, "setting Tarzan free", bearing in mind the background from which he approaches the European Union.

London Underground: Funding
3.31 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the new arrangements for providing capital investment for the London Underground announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 20th March (HC Deb, cols. 1539–42) will result in long-term funding on an adequate and consistent basis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, The Government's proposals for a public-private partnership for London Underground will indeed secure the long-term funding that the Underground needs. Investment will not be constrained by annual public expenditure plans, so contractors will be able to manage their investment programme far more efficiently. The higher cost of borrowing within the private sector needs
1340
to be set against the substantial savings that will result from an efficiently funded long-term investment programme.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. I generally welcome the Government's proposals, but I wish to ask a couple of questions. First, does the noble Baroness feel that the sums now proposed—that is, the additional public funding together with private funding—will be adequate to meet what are described as the "steady state" requirements of the London Underground together with overcoming the backlog of £1.2 billion that is recorded as being the under-investment of the past? According to my estimates, a further £100 million a year is still required to meet those two requirements. Secondly, if the funding from the private sector turned out to be less than the Government estimate, will they ensure that the shortfall is made good from public funds?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome for the proposals. We believe that the combination of the £1 billion investment programme over the next two years, with the additional funds that were announced in the Chancellor's Budget, together with what we are confident will come in with the bids for the infrastructure concessions, will provide the £7 billion worth of investment which, we are informed by London Transport, will not only make up the backlog but ensure that the Underground system is brought up to a level at which it can function and serve the needs of Londoners adequately.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, will the Minister say why, in the Deputy Prime Minister's Statement on Friday, there was absolutely no mention of fare levels, which are of great concern to many Londoners? While one welcomes the investment programme over the next 15 years it will undoubtedly cost money and will have to be serviced. Will the noble Baroness therefore give the House an assurance that government support for investment will continue after the two-year period which has been announced in the Statement in addition to what was planned before? Will she give a further assurance that fare levels will rise no more than the rate of inflation, as was proposed in the previous government's plans?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords, I think I can give that assurance. It will be done on the basis of the proper investment in London Underground, which was certainly not assured by the previous government's plans and is the reason for the problems that we have inherited. We have no reason to expect that fare increases above those of recent years will come from the investment programme that we have announced. Our analysis does not assume that there will be such fare increases. We are confident that there will be great interest from potential contractors and that we shall see very competitive bids in response to the innovative process that we have announced. However, were the

1341
bids to be higher than expected, I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks—namely, that we would continue to give the subsidy that was necessary.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will the Government give the House an assurance that, alongside the new structure for the Underground, there will be a new management, so that never again will there be a disaster such as we have seen with the Jubilee Line? A signalling system has been chosen for that line that has never been used on a heavy railway system anywhere in the world, except between Hong Kong and Guangzhou, the result being a delay of over three years before the Jubilee Line is finally up and running effectively—I believe not until after the millennium.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I know of my noble friend's concerns over signalling. The signalling for the Underground will be an important element in the specifications which contractors, in relation to the concessions that we are offering, will be required to deliver. We need to learn the lessons that the Jubilee Line in particular provides regarding the future of signalling.
On management arrangements, the creation of a Greater London Authority with a subsidiary body, Transport for London, announced in the Statement made in both Houses yesterday, will be a great improvement on the current situation. The mayor and the assembly will have a mandate from Londoners to get to grips with all the capital's transport problems.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the total cost of the proposed arrangements will be greater or less than the cost of continuing public funding? Will it be easier or harder for London Transport to co-ordinate and control the arrangements?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we believe that London Transport will be able to co-ordinate the arrangements. We are not suggesting the sort of major fragmentation of services that occurred with the privatisation of British Rail. All the operating services will be provided by the public service operator. There will be a maximum of three concessions for the infrastructure. There may be, if it is best value for money, only one concession for the infrastructure. We believe that with the integrated approach of the stewardship of the Greater London Authority, which can also integrate with other forms of transport within the capital, we shall be able to ensure the right sort of co-ordination.
So far as expense is concerned, we are absolutely convinced that the stable funding regime that we propose will allow the most cost-effective way of ensuring the investment that is needed. There are very substantial savings to be made from having that stability of investment as against the year-on-year constraints of public expenditure. The advisers on this particular project suggest that savings in the order of 15 per cent. should be achievable.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the welfare reform Green Paper, A New Contract for Welfare.
School Standards and Framework Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
3.39 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 3 [Detention orders]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 3.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my amendment is to leave out Clause 3 and preserve on the statute book the power of internment. We have discussed the matter on a number of occasions, most recently at the Committee stage of the Bill. Although the debate was late at night, I do not think I need repeat too many of the arguments that were made. I can therefore be brief.
It is not our proposition that the powers of internment should be used now while talks are in progress. The problem is that unless the powers are on the statute book, they can never he implemented and achieve the element of surprise that is essential to success if internment is to take place. No terrorist will wait quietly at home while the necessary legislation is passed through Parliament so that he or, in a few cases, she can be picked up when it suits the authorities. So without this power on the statute book, the option to use internment at some stage is ruled out. We believe that the Government should keep that option open.
At an earlier stage, the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats—the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham—said that he supported the removal of internment from the statute book on a number of grounds. He also said, however, that if it was needed in the future, it could be put back on the statute book. I do not believe that that argument is sound. The terrorist would simply not wait while Parliament re-introduced the legislation if that course was then required. If we take the power off the statute book, we are ruling out the option.
We all recognise that the last time internment was tried in the 1970s, the intelligence on which the action was based proved faulty. The policy not only did not succeed; it exacerbated the situation. I believe there is general agreement about that. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, agrees with me. But there are earlier examples of internment in the Republic of Ireland where internment was an important factor in keeping the peace.

1343
The fact that it did not work last time should not necessarily mean that we should never envisage using it again in other circumstances. It emerged in Committee, as it has done elsewhere, that other people apart from myself do not find it at all difficult to envisage a situation in which internment might prove to be a necessary policy again.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, explained to me that he could not be here. But he put his view clearly in an article in The House magazine a couple of weeks ago. He said:
"I hope that some form of selective detention is kept in our armoury against the terrorists in Northern Ireland. Whatever the outcome from the Mitchell talks, the INLA, the Loyalist Volunteer Force and the Continuity IRA—the Provos by proxy—will not succumb to any peace overtures and they are still fully armed not having surrendered one gun, bullet or pound of semtex. This method of selective detention may well be needed".
That is the core of our case, expressed by one former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley.
But other arguments were put forward in Committee. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is taking part in the talks process today—and playing a distinguished part. He argued that internment had been on the statute book for 25 years without terrorists being deterred. I accept, as would everyone, that it has not solved the problems. Nothing has, although obviously we all hope that the talks will take a big step forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said—and I entirely accept—that the problem cannot be solved by security measures alone. It is a matter of hearts and minds, supported by security measures. I believe that that is the right way of putting it. I also believe that the existence of internment on the statute book could not be expected to solve the problem alone. Certainly no one is arguing that it does. But the removal of the internment power potentially weakens the chance of getting a peace deal to stick. In any case, I remain sure that the existence of the power, even though it has not been used in recent years, has at times inhibited and made more difficult terrorist operations for fear that it might be used.
As a number of noble Lords made clear in previous debates, there is also the very real issue of human rights. I fully accept that it is a valid argument, but it is not a "knock-down" simple argument which can prevail on the question merely by being stated. The human rights of everyone in Northern Ireland and, for that matter, elsewhere in the United Kingdom are battered by terrorism. The peace-loving public have human rights too. The use of many security measures, including internment but not internment alone, damages some people's human rights in order to secure the human rights of a vast majority of peace-loving citizens.
There is another practical argument which suggests that if we put aside internment now in the course of the Bill it will help to deliver agreement in the talks process. Frankly, I doubt that that is the case. But if it were to be the case, then the power should not be put aside until a settlement is agreed. By all means put it on the table as one thing that will happen as part of the settlement, but to give it away now is giving away one more card
1344
in exchange for nothing. Quite a number of cards have been given away in the course of the talks process already—for nothing so far.
Those are the underlying arguments for retaining the power. We are all familiar with the difficulty of obtaining the conviction of ruthless terrorists who can and do intimidate witnesses, sometimes without lifting a finger. Their reputation is enough to achieve that. The latest ghastly murder in the Maze prison apparently demonstrates, if we are to believe what we read about it, the lengths to which the terrorists and their organisations will go to silence or punish those who would stand witness against them or give information. That murder will no doubt have the effect of silencing others as well as the man who was murdered in the course of it. That is what I mean by being able to intimidate people without lifting a finger. Again, all kinds of people will have doubts about giving evidence or giving information reinforced by the murder.
The difficulties of conviction of any terrorist in those circumstances are compounded in the case of the godfathers who mastermind the terror without themselves risking handling bombs or guns. I believe that if the present talks succeed—and we all fervently hope they will—it is nevertheless unlikely in the extreme, as the quotation I gave from the noble Lord, Lord Mason, makes clear, that all terrorists will accept the settlement. Irish history tells us that that will not happen. In any case, this time there is the added factor of the financial rackets. There are far too many individuals whose standard of living depends on the continuation of terrorism and the rackets that terrorism supports. That will make it all the more difficult to bring total peace to the Province.
In Committee and earlier, and on other occasions, various noble Lords have outlined possible scenarios in which internment of the real hardliners might be beneficial. I do not wish to go over the ground again too much; I wish merely to say that peace may need a breathing space. I do not suggest it will definitely be required, only that it may be required. We should retain the power on the statute book just as the Republic of Ireland has done. The Republic knows from history that internment can be helpful and it would be rash of us to assume that it will never be helpful again in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 1. When your Lordships addressed this proposal to abolish the powers to introduce internment, we were debating against a background of what one might call a degree of uncertainty over the intentions of the IRA, its supporters and various so-called loyalist paramilitary organisations. Today, 21 days later, that uncertainty has largely disappeared because terrorist attacks have increased, both numerically and in their deadly efficiency.
Known terrorists have been the perpetrators and the excuse given is that, after a fashion, they have obtained leave of absence from their parent bodies. In the eyes of the Northern Ireland Office therefore those parent bodies appear to have clean hands and are admitted to the talks on the same basis as democratic parties.

1345
The same difficulty applies to weapons. When forensic tests prove that certain weapons were used by the main body in former months, but such weapons are no longer under the control of the IRA quartermasters, again it is said that such weapons are on temporary loan to the sub-contractors and I understand that the same farce now applies to Semtex. The terrorist seconded from the main contractor borrows the quantity necessary to devastate a shopping centre or police station. The main contractor—the parent body—says, "Tut, tut" just loudly enough to convince the Northern Ireland Office that its team at the talks qualifies for full membership of the so-called talks process.
This is not just a farce. It is a deliberate strategy to compel governments and democratic parties to yield to terrorist blackmail by means of what one might call the "hardball-softball" game in a most deadly form. One of these days this sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom must resolve to stop playing the terrorist game.
There is reason to believe that we would have the support of the Irish Republic. In the interval since your Lordships debated this topic, this aspect of the Bill, a reliable opinion poll was taken in the Irish Republic which proved that 40 per cent. of those interviewed favoured not just retaining the powers of detention, but implementing the powers to detain without delay. It is not just the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland therefore who find incomprehensible the decision of Her Majesty's Government to cast away the power to intern known terrorists; our neighbours in the south of Ireland are equally bewildered.
On 5th March when we last debated this serious issue, the general public at that time were conditioned to believe that there was some opposition to surrendering detention powers because it might damage the bright prospects in the current talks. At that time I warned against universal acceptance of that kind of artificial hype. As I have said over recent weeks, that hype was monstrously unfair to those engaged in the talks. At that time I simply could not understand how presidents, prime ministers, the press and the media arrived at that conclusion around the middle of March. Now I know the answer: it is contained in a paper which was issued to the participants and possibly also to the news industry—it was printed in one newspaper—from the office of the independent chairman of the talks.
In 11 paragraphs in that paper termed, "Heads of Agreement", each paragraph began with words such as, "There was broad agreement"; "general consensus"; "widespread agreement"; "general agreement"; "general recognition"; "widespread support" and "substantial support". Not only are those phrases at variance with the experience of the parties involved in the talks, but the general public have the sense to see that they could not possibly be accurate. As such, those phrases are doing hideous damage to the entire prospect of success in the talks. I am afraid that, as one shrewd observer currently participating in the talks remarked yesterday in the meeting at the prospect of reaching agreement before the end of May, the prospects of success are no more than 5 per cent.
1346
Your Lordships therefore need have no fear that what has been hyped as "success within two weeks" would be damaged by more realistic steps to contain terrorism. There is everything to be gained by Her Majesty's Government staying their hand (that is all we are asking) on this proposed surrender to terrorist propaganda and recognising, as did successive Irish Governments, that they have a duty to retain the capacity to protect the citizen.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I shall be brief because we rehearsed the arguments on this issue at earlier stages of the Bill. This afternoon on these Benches we are and shall be supporting the Government on the removal of Clause 3 for detention orders or, as they are commonly described, internment powers.
We need to be clear what it is about internment that is not basically acceptable except in special circumstances. It is that it does not conform either to the rule of law or to the maintenance of civil liberties and human rights as practised in civilised countries throughout the world. Therefore it can and should only be considered in exceptional circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, made as persuasive a case as can be made for the retention of detention orders in the Bill. I should like to make one or two further observations. It is said that civil liberties and human rights are not respected by the violent thugs, whether they call themselves republicans or loyalists. That is true; it is unarguable. But I am unclear that, by simply saying they do not respect human rights therefore let us not respect them either, that can be a tolerable argument in a democracy based on the rule of law such as our own. It implies the logic that eventually this awful conflict makes us become like the enemy—and the enemy is a serious and substantial one.
The question is whether there is any argument which is strong enough to make us want to overrule the rule of law and the maintenance of civil liberties. In that regard the issue must, first, be a pragmatic one: does internment work? It is impossible to say that it has never worked in any society of any kind. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, there probably are successful examples of internment bringing to a speedy end unacceptable levels of violence. But in Northern Ireland the truth is that it did not work. That is something that the noble Lord acknowledged and was acknowledged by both the Conservative and Unionist spokesmen in another place. It did not work because it made martyrs, and the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. It simply did not work. We are therefore left with the deterrent argument; that somehow, by being on the statute book, it deters people from bombing, maiming and killing. I do not think so. There have been 2,500 deaths since internment began; there have been bombings and mayhem since internment began; as a deterrent therefore it is not very good.
We are now faced with the question that the Government put in front of us—rightly, in my view—of whether we should withdraw detention orders. I believe that we should, while recognising that we are not precluding their reintroduction should there be a situation in the future which demands it. That involves

1347
a speculation that we are all making about, first, whether or not a peace settlement is possible in Northern Ireland on a new political dispensation; and, secondly, if there is, whether there will be those who will continue to oppose it violently.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that so far nothing has really happened in the peace process and the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, gloomily picked up the observation of one of his colleagues that there is a 5 per cent. chance of success. That would be said by many observers to be too pessimistic about what is currently going on. First, by any standards substantial progress has been made, not least because at long weary last the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP are talking to each other and are trying to get a better system of relations. That is progress by anyone's standards.
Secondly, it must be acknowledged that, if we get something that is put to a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland approve what comes out of it, there will be an entirely different situation. There will no longer be a question, as there has been, like a running sore on the face of Northern Ireland, of the respective legitimacy of the points of view of the two communities. There will be a new situation in which the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic have spoken. If then there are people who feel constrained—if one looks at Irish history, this may happen—to keep shooting when the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the republic have said, "This is the peaceful settlement we want", it may be that internment will have to be contemplated. But that would be a new situation, a special situation, in which the infringement of civil liberties might be tolerated because the alternative would so plainly fly in the face of the new start that people want north and south. In those circumstances, even from these Benches where we have been traditionally worried about infringements of civil liberties, we too would have to think quite hard. But that would be a new situation and a special situation. So standing here today I have to say that we shall be supporting the Government.
4 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I hesitate very much to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, whom I greatly respect, but I strongly support the amendment. It is the wrong moment to repeal powers of internment. It is a critical moment since it is only too likely that, whatever formula Sinn Fein produces, there is a strong chance that the IRA itself and its many surrogates will revert to more violence after the talks. They have said all along that they will give up not an ounce of Semtex even if there is a settlement. Their idea of decommissioning is only the decommissioning of the British Army and the removal of the RUC. It seems to me that they will wish to bring a lot of pressure to bear to destabilise an already rather volatile situation, and we ought not to give up—the Irish Government, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, certainly have not—any possible machinery which might cause the men of violence to think twice. They and the Loyalist terrorists
1348
should know that the power to intern still exists. There will be time to repeal it when we have achieved a settlement. But to do so now must surely send the wrong signal.
No less than a month ago Kofi Annan said that diplomacy backed by strength is the best diplomacy. We ought not to be giving up that strength at this moment. We are talking about the power to do something. We are not talking about doing it, but having the power, and being known to have the power. I feel strongly that, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, himself said, we have to think also of human rights. But we have to think of the human rights of the victims, to whom we have a duty. They need protection. This is one of the few ways in which, in a world where we are losing out a lot to terrorists, we can still do something. It seems to me that any repeal should only be part of a peace settlement that sticks.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I very much agree with one part of the speech of the noble Baroness in that if there is to be a settlement—I put that in inverted commas—the chances of breakaway groups from the various paramilitaries will be very real. It has happened before and it may well happen again. I hope that both the Irish Government and the British Government, in whatever hopes they have for the peace process, are planning what to do if that happens. When it happened before it led to a civil war in the south of Ireland. More people were killed in that civil war than ever were killed when the British were there. The violence was horrific. So there is always that danger which has to be taken into account. However, I support the Government in what they are doing and I shall try to explain why.
This is not the time for a great historical survey, but right through the last century legislation in the form of orders was brought before this House and another place by various governments to deal with the Irish situation. After the civil war of 1922 there was the emergency provisions Act in Northern Ireland and this Bill is a lineal descendant of it. That is where internment came in. However, internment was ended by the Conservative Government in 1972 after direct rule. There is no internment. I do not wish to be pedantic about it but it would be as well to use the word "detention" because it is more meaningful. It means a particular way of doing things and it is not internment. By using the word "internment" we are playing into the hands of the IRA and its various groups. They use the word "internment" because it is the old way of doing things, and that is what generates in their community strong feelings. What we have here is detention. Different forms of carrying out detention were introduced in 1972 and 1973.
Internment was badly carried out. That was not just down to weak intelligence. When I arrived there in 1974 it was my intention to end the use of detention. When I was walking around I asked various people who ought to have known the answer, "Who thought of the use of internment?". The police said, "It wasn't us". The Army said, "It wasn't us". The blame was then put on the devolved government of Northern Ireland. When I asked them, they said, "It wasn't us". It was badly done and it

1349
was badly conceived. It led to a great escalation of violence in Northern Ireland and it would happen again if it were used.
The noble Lord, Lord Orme, and I ended the use of detention. In the meantime, I must have locked up with my own fair hands the best part of 400 people. One sat with a policeman or with someone from the intelligence branch asking for the justification. I always asked the question, "Why not the police?". The plain fact was that the police were not in the Catholic areas. There was practically no use of detention in the Protestant areas because the police were there. So it was not enough for me to end the use of detention by this time; it was to play the part of a Secretary of State through the use of the resources of government to improve the police. The RUC, unlike then, is now one of the best police forces in the United Kingdom in arresting people and bringing them before the courts.
Internment is the least good way of dealing with violence. The use of the courts raises problems. I am the last one to plead that one has to have jury trial in Northern Ireland for the most serious cases because the lives of the jurymen and jury-women would be put at risk. It is easy enough for those in Northern Ireland with police protection to talk. In one form or another my family and I have had police protection for 20 years. But jurymen and jury-women and judges would be put at risk.
The argument we are having today is not whether internment should or should not be used; it is whether internment should remain on the statute book. I noticed that the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, announced yesterday that the recent bombs in Northern Ireland were not the work of the IRA. He would not have been able to do that in my day. He would not have had the information. But the chief constable said that they were not the work of the IRA. So the police must know far more than they knew 20 years ago. There is an extremely good Special Branch in Northern Ireland.
Let us look at the scenario. Let us suppose within the next few weeks, months or years—because this power is not going to be handed over to a devolved administration—the Secretary of State is informed by the chief constable and others that there is a danger of great violence breaking out. That is the time to come to both Houses of Parliament and justify detention. If the argument of the government of the day is that one has to return to detention, it would also include a complete change of policy. The three political parties in this country for the past 20 years have not played politics about Northern Ireland. It is much too serious. There are soldiers on the streets and, in the old days there were soldiers in one's own constituency, so one does not play about as so much politics is playing about. It is a different scene.
In those circumstances the Houses should be called together and told that there is an urgent need to have detention. At the same time there would have to be an indication of a fundamental change of policy. There will be no more playing around with peace processes and talking together. It will all be over. It would be a very
1350
serious matter and that would be the time to come to the House and ask for detention, but not leave it on the statute book. It has not been used since 1975. The IRA and the Protestant para-militaries know it is not going to be used. So there is no great change. What is at issue is whether detention should be on the statute book. I strongly believe that the government of the day would have to come to both Houses and say that there has been a great failure and a great change of policy, whatever that might be. Internment or detention would be part of it. For that reason I support the Government.
Lord Monson: My Lords, if internment was not already on the statute book, now would obviously not be the right time to introduce it. I believe that that partly answers the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. But to abandon the existing power to intern now after it has been in place for so many decades and at a time when terrorist organisations are acquiring more and more powerful weapons and explosives and are clearly willing and eager to use them would surely be the height of folly.
Thousands of bewildered Italian waiters from Soho and elsewhere, together with thousands of equally bewildered German-Jewish and Austrian-Jewish refugees, were interned by this country in the Second World War; so it is not strictly the case that internment denies many of the traditions which characterise this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, claimed on 5th March (Hansard; col. 1398). Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asserted on 12th January that internment,
"is fundamentally a process that is against the rule of law and undermines democratic principles".—[Official Report, 12/1/98; col. 909.]
If that is really the view of Her Majesty's Government, why are they and the Liberal Democrats not angrily demanding that the Republic of Ireland repeals its own internment laws which are still in place despite the fact that the Irish Republic has suffered less than 1 per cent. of the deaths and the destruction that the North has over the past three decades?
Of course, internment should only be used after the most scrupulous intelligence evaluation. That answers one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. Even then it should be used very sparingly and, ideally, never. But as in the Republic of Ireland it should be kept in reserve for circumstances of exceptional danger which may involve massive loss of life.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I have taken part in debates on internment over many years. I have very vivid memories of the effect that internment has. It was introduced on 9th August 1971. In its aftermath in 1972 came one of the most vicious years that we have had in Northern Ireland. Nearly 500 people were murdered in Northern Ireland. That atmosphere was created because of the way in which internment had been carried out. It was put into effect solely against the Catholic community. There were very few, if any, Loyalists interned at that

1351
time. They had not engaged with the same viciousness and force at that time, but they were still a part of the terrorist game in Northern Ireland.
In 1971 internment was flagged up. Everyone in Northern Ireland knew, particularly in Belfast, that internment was to be introduced. It was leaked all over the place. I remember speaking to an Irish Times reporter the day after internment on 10th August. He told me—and it was reported in the press—that he had spoken to an IRA man the previous week. He had said, "When are they going to introduce internment? We need it". The terrorists wanted internment because they realised that it would build up support for them in Northern Ireland.
Not only that, but when internment was introduced the terrorists left behind on the streets of Belfast the young people who were the car burners and the wreckers. They were young people driven by emotion. Those organising terrorism were all in the Republic. They had all left Northern Ireland and many of them are still in the Republic today.
If this measure is deleted today—and I agree with the Government in their attitude—but intelligence reports show that internment should be reintroduced, will the Government have a late sitting in this House or the other place? Because once that happens and internment is reintroduced by an Act of Parliament, the same people will again go over the border. At the present moment those .who escaped internment and detention are living in the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, many of them have been charged with terrorist offences. We had an edict from the High Court in Dublin saying that those offences were politically motivated and therefore those involved were not liable to extradition to Northern Ireland. But, to say the least, actions of that sort do not build up confidence in the Unionist or Protestant community in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, and my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees were quite right. If internment is reintroduced it will be in an entirely different atmosphere. A significant section of the Loyalists and Unionists in Northern Ireland are determined to wreck what may emerge from the peace process. In that situation we would have to be given a guarantee that no succour or support will be given to the people who have gone from Northern Ireland into the Republic. The Irish Government would have to act against those terrorists if they escape over the border.
Can that guarantee be given? I know that for security reasons the Minister cannot tell the House all the knowledge that he has at his disposal, but surely the RUC knows those engaged in terrorism at the moment. They cannot arrest them because they do not have the evidence against them which would enable them to be brought before the courts.
As regards the Republican breakaway groups in East Tyrone and South Armagh, they have said that they will totally reject any success emerging from the peace process. So should we keep on the statute book the means for detention?
1352
I have one little doubt in my mind, which I have been seriously concerned about over the past year. We hear the new phrase, "a confidence-building measure". Is it the Government's intention to do away with internment or detention because they realise it does not work, or is it a sop and a confidence-building measure? That is what the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland believe it to be. That is why Unionist spokesmen are totally opposed to the deletion of this power. They believe that it is yet another in the long line of confidence-building measures that we have had to live through over the past year. That is the doubt that I have. I hope that I am wrong and that the Government are acting in this way because they realise the ineffectiveness of internment.
I urge the Government to reconsider this matter before there is any terrorist activity. Indeed, we may not have to wait too long before we see a vicious tirade against the peace process. If the bomb in County Louth had gone off last week or if the mortar shells that were fired in County Armagh the other day had succeeded in killing any policemen, there would be no peace process. Any such actions by the terrorists would effectively kill any peace process which is now taking place at Stormont.
I believe that the present Chief Constable in Northern Ireland is the best that we have had—certainly in my lifetime. I urge him to be very wary of those whom he may suspect, without evidence, of taking part in terrorist activity, and to keep a very close eye on them in the run up to any agreement that may be found.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment—not to support the direct use of those provisions, but to support their continued presence on the statute hook. I echo the reasons for their continued presence which have already been given by many noble Lords. I support what the noble Lords, Lord Holme of Cheltenham and Lord Merlyn-Rees, said about accepting that in exceptional circumstances we might have to have internment whether or not such provisions were reintroduced. I find just one flaw in that—and that is the flaw exposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
By all means the peace process may have broken down and the Government may have had to come back to explain to both Houses of Parliament why we are in an entirely different situation, but the only way in which internment has worked in any country is when it has happened extremely quickly and without warning. It is not that we want to use internment, but when we talk about "exceptional circumstances", I am afraid that many Members of your Lordships' House will agree with me that, sadly, Northern Ireland has been full of "exceptional circumstances". The one thing none of us can do is to predict what will happen next. If those exceptional circumstances do not exist, we do not have to worry about them, but if they do exist, it would be ridiculous and futile to come back to the House purely to ask for internment.
Therefore, I plead with the House to leave the provisions on the statute book. As was said at earlier stages, leaving something on the statute book which has

1353
been there for so long will most certainly not mean that there will be fewer or more terrorist attacks in the meantime. I support the amendment.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, on previous occasions, I have put forward my arguments in favour of the amendment and I do not therefore intend to weary your Lordships by repeating them again. I want simply to say that I strongly support the amendment.
However, why at this stage, after so many years, is this proposition suddenly being brought forward? Confidence-building measures have been suggested. I might be tempted to say "appeasement to terrorists". Is this yet another item by which we attempt to curry favour with them, who always give nothing in return? I refer, for instance, to all the talk we heard about disarmament. As far as I know, not a single gun has been turned over, and the Government quietly forget the undertakings that were given in the past.
It has been suggested that internment could be reintroduced if necessary. I am afraid that I would label that "naive" because, as has been pointed out, success in a detention operation depends on surprise and on the fact that the terrorists do not realise that the police are coming to bring them in. However, if legislation were brought forward, we would be giving them a month's or even a couple of months' notice to get across the Border and thus escape any detention that may be coming. It is not sensible to say that that is feasible.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said that he had not heard of any country in which detention had been successful. I recommend him—
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. In fact, I said exactly the reverse. I said that it may well be that there are countries in which it has been successful.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says, but one should look at the history of Eamon De Valera who established order in the Irish Free State by widespread use of internment or detention—or whatever one likes to call it. There have certainly been examples of it working.
One of the advantages of internment or detention is that it enables the police to get the godfathers who sit back in comfort and safety, organising the atrocities and sending out other, more gullible men to carry out the murders and the bombings. It is hard to break them in a court of law, but the police know exactly who they are and all about them. If there were internment or detention, they could quickly be put out of circulation.
I must emphasise that I am not recommending the introduction of detention. I do not think this is the time for it or that the current situation warrants it. What I am saying is that it seems foolish and weak for it to be removed from the statute book.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I find it interesting that, as the noble Viscount,
1354
Lord Brookeborough, pointed out, the best cases for leaving the provisions on the statute book have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord Fitt. Both suggested that we may well have a completely new situation when the talks are finished whether or not agreement is reached and that urgent action may be needed. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that if such action is needed, it is essential that it be carried out quickly and without warning. If we take these provisions off the statute book, how can we introduce such action without giving warning and thus making it quite useless? That point has been clearly made.
A lot of trouble is caused by the use of the word "internment"; I much prefer the phrase "selective detention". It is, I believe, a precision instrument which should be used carefully for particular purposes. Unfortunately, it was completely wrongly used in 1971 and caused all the damage which the noble Lord. Lord Fitt, outlined. In other places where it has been used properly, it has been successful. I refer particularly to its use in the Republic of Ireland which understood how it should be used and the benefit that can come from it.
I fear that noble Lords are almost certainly correct in saying that we have a lot of trouble coming to us in the next few months, whatever the outcome of the talks. We must also take into account something that Mr. Adams said recently in his own area:
"you cannot have a lasting peace while Britain maintains a hold over this part of our island".
He did not say what he meant by "lasting". Did he mean a week or a year?
I wish to ask the Minister whether the Government understand that they have a first duty of care for the protection of all citizens against terrorism from whatever cause and, following from that, that they have the duty to provide whatever powers may be of use in the continuing battle against terrorism.
4.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, this issue has been the subject of much lively discussion in the course of the passage of the Bill. Both sides of the argument have been rehearsed again this afternoon. I have listened carefully. The case for retaining the provision as a last resort has been forcefully put. To summarise the views of those who wish to retain the provision, the Government are urged to think again because it might be needed as a last resort, when of course it would have to be used selectively and with appropriate planning and attention to detail; the Republic of Ireland retains the power; so should we; we should keep our options open; it is a high-risk strategy to do otherwise; it is effective as a deterrent because it is feared by terrorist groups and now is not the time to remove it, given the cautious hopes and expectations that a negotiated political settlement is imminent.
These arguments have been made by a number of noble Lords this afternoon and previously. Many who have spoken do so from positions of considerable

1355
knowledge and experience of Northern Ireland. In urging the House to support the retention of Clause 3, I wish to make it clear that the Government acknowledge and do not seek to diminish the concerns of those who argue for internment to be kept on the statute book. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what internment means. It means a knock on doors at five o'clock in the morning; it means entering people's private homes, identifying individuals, whisking them away and locking them up. That will have to be done across a fairly large part of Northern Ireland. I suggest that no matter how secret the process, inevitably, people will be alerted to it and we will have the same outcry as that which arose when internment was last introduced. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand how internment can be introduced in the way suggested by many noble Lords.
I believe that it is a question of balancing objectively the arguments and counter-arguments. The Government's very clear view is that the case for retaining internment is not made. I have described the Government's position on previous occasions; and it is worth repeating. The internment powers have not been used since 1975. They involve a decision by Government to deprive individuals of their liberty without trial and the normal safeguards which the law provides for the protection of the accused. Their use raises human rights issues. The ability to detain people without trial has never been seen as a means of achieving stability within the community. The effect of using the powers would be quite the reverse. It would increase community tension and cause serious damage to respect for the rule of law. It would strengthen the terrorist organisations. Ultimately, it would prolong the very violence which it was intended to prevent or lessen, as several noble Lords have said.
I refer briefly to some of the comments made this afternoon. The Government accept that there is a number of terrorist organisations, both republican and loyalist, operating in Northern Ireland that do not subscribe to the ceasefire; indeed, at the moment they are pursuing a policy of trying to undermine it. I do not believe that their actions would be changed one iota by keeping the internment provisions on the statute book. Several noble Lords who support the amendment have said that the removal of these powers would weaken the chance of achieving peace and give in to terrorist blackmail and that these powers make the terrorist think twice. The Government do not believe that those arguments have sufficient substance to make them change their policy. We do not believe that the organisations currently engaged in terrorism would be influenced by the retention of internment on the statute book.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that there was a need to secure the human rights of the vast majority. Of course, the Government agree with that. However, we do not believe that to keep internment on the statute book will in any way improve the human rights of the vast majority. We have to use other means to achieve that. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, made a rather pessimistic assessment of the prospects of success in the peace process. Even if nothing is certain, I reject his assessment of success. I believe that he referred to
1356
5 per cent. I feel that the chances of success are very much higher. Nothing is certain; there are many difficult steps in the peace process still to be taken, but I hope that that pessimistic view is not shared by other noble Lords.
The Government are certainly not playing the terrorists' game. The Government reject that suggestion absolutely. We are trying to ensure that we move towards peace through a process of negotiation by which all parties have subscribed to the Mitchell principles of peace and the rejection of terrorism.
I am grateful for the supportive comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. I very much hope that the House will accept his assessment. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, said that this was the wrong moment to remove the powers, and she spoke about the need to decommission. Certainly, we want to see progress towards decommissioning, and as yet there has been no progress. Frankly, I cannot make the connection between that proposition and the suggestion that internment should be retained on the statute book. I do not believe that there is a connection between the two. I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Merlyn-Rees, for his very informed comments based upon his experience as Secretary of State. His contribution was helpful and I welcome it.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to internment during World War II. I am not sure that that is particularly relevant to today's discussion. As I understand it, many of the people interned during World War II were the most fervent opponents of Nazism. I am not sure that history judges that particular exercise as having been successful. We locked up people who were our closest allies. They had fled from Hitler because of persecution and we locked them up in the Isle of Man.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I simply pointed out that there were precedents for internment carried out by the United Kingdom.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not deny that there are precedents but there are not many successful ones.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, asked why it was intended to do this now. The Bill is before us. The Government made this commitment when in opposition. We do not see it as a confidence-building measure but a commitment made some time ago when in opposition having assessed the situation in Northern Ireland and decided that this was not an appropriate measure to keep on the statute book. I am grateful for the comments made by my noble friend Lord Fitt, and I thank him for the general support that he has given the Government on this particular proposition.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, believed that this should be referred to as "selective detention". I do not argue about terminology, but "internment" has been its description up to now. The Government fully accept that they have a responsibility to protect all citizens. In the circumstances of Northern Ireland, which have been difficult for many years, governments of both parties

1357
have done their best. The Government are determined to protect all citizens in Northern Ireland and elsewhere but we do not believe that the connection between that proposition and support for this amendment has been made out.
I hope that noble Lords will not divide the House on this amendment. Our intention to seek to remove the internment provisions was clearly signalled before the election. If noble Lords were successful in deleting the clause it would leave the Government with no option but to seek to overturn the amendment in another place. It is the Government's view that the arguments for repealing the internment provisions are overwhelming. They far outweigh the arguments for retention. The Government cannot see any circumstances in which they could defend the use of the power. It is outdated and draconian. The Government consider that its use would play into the hands of terrorists who would revel in its longer term effect both on the Government and in terms of recruiting to and strengthening the terrorist organisations. Internment would inadvertently but in large measure operate against the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, and therefore against the interests of us all.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, hanging over the debate has, of course, been the experience of the 1970s. That is not surprising. It has hung over every debate on detention. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, told us that he had been unable to discover the Secretary of State whose idea it had been to introduce internment in the 1970s. In doing so, I fear that he demonstrated proof of the old saying that success has many parents but failure is an orphan.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, told us that the problem arose because of the way in which internment was carried out; that, in particular, it was carried out against Catholics only, and that it did not apply in the Republic simultaneously which made it too easy to avoid.
The scenarios we have suggested at earlier stages of the Bill when debating this subject did not envisage the detention of Catholics only. On the contrary, we have constantly made it clear—I did in my earlier remarks—that it is terrorists of both persuasions, if that is the phrase, who did not accept the peace process for whom we thought it might be necessary.
We have also made clear on previous occasions that the co-operation of the Republic of Ireland would be essential to success if internment were to be introduced. I think there has been agreement from every speaker, except the Minister, that it is possible that after a settlement—if a settlement is not accepted—it might be necessary to revert to this policy, with all its difficulties; that it would have to be supported in the Republic of Ireland; and that it would have to be done in as fair a way as possible, and so forth. It would need the best possible intelligence, and we are agreed that the intelligence is much better now.
If it may be necessary to use the power after a settlement, it is important to retain it on the statute book because of the difficulties of giving a warning by
1358
introducing a Bill into this House or another place and ensuring its passage through Parliament before taking action. I believe therefore that we should keep powers of detention on the statute book. I seek to press the amendment.
4.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

McConnell, L.

Abinger, L.

Milverton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Molyneaux of Killead. L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Monckton of Brenchley. V.

Berners, B.

Monson, L.

Blatch, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Brabazon of Tara,L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Napier of Magdâla, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Carnock,L.

Newall, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Northesk, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Onslow, E.

Cope of Berkeley L

Park of Monmouth, B.

Davidson, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Prior, L.

Denham, L.

Rees, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Romney, E.

Elton, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Erne, E.

Seccombe, B.

Erroll, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Strafford, E.

Strathcarron,L

Gladwyn, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harrowby, E.

Sudeley, L.

Holderness, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Jopling, L.

Westbury. L.

Kintore, E.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Leigh, L.

Wise, L.

Lyell, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Addington, L.

Chorley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe.L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

David. B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Berkeley, L.

Dholakia, L.

Blackstone, B.

Diamond, L.

Borrie, L.

Dormand of Easington. L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dubs, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ezra,L.

Burlison, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Falkland, V.

Calverley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Carlisle, E.

Fitt L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

1359

Geraint, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gilbert, L.

Newby, L.

Gladwin of Clee.L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B

Goodhart, L.

Nicol. B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Orme,L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hanworth, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hardie. L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hardy of Wath.L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Haskel, L.

Rea,L.

Hayman, B.

Rendell of Babergh,B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rochester, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Roll of Ipsden,L.

Hoyle, L.

Russell, E.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hughes of Woodside. L.

Sandberg, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sandwich, E.

Ilchester, E.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Simon, V.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jeger, B.

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Judd, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean. B.

Kilbracken, L.

Taverne, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Levy, L.

Tenby, V.

Longford, E.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Ludford, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Tope, L.

McNair, L.

Tordoff, L.

McNally, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Maddock, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Whitty,L.

Meston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Elvel.L.

Mishcon. L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Monkswell, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE
(". In subsection (4) of section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"(bb) an offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 including a scheduled offence within the meaning of section 1 of that Act;".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter has been discussed a number of times in this House and in another place. The question before us is whether evidence obtained from tapping telephones should be allowed to be used in court. At present, such evidence cannot be used in court. General bugging evidence can be used, but evidence obtained from telephone tapping cannot.
In Committee the Government made clear that they are considering the matter. In fact, it has been under consideration since 1976 when it was first recommended to the then government. It has been considered since May by the present Government. Six months ago, we were told to expect a decision before long. Three months ago, we were told that the Government were still thinking about it. The purpose of tabling the amendment is to discover how the Government are getting on with their consideration.
I shall not rehearse the arguments which were made at length in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the clinching argument in favour of the amendment is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in his report, stated that he could find no other jurisdiction in which evidence obtained by telephone tapping could not be used. Presumably, that is no other jurisdiction in the civilised world. Surely, that is telling.
Of course, there are cases when we are right and every other country is wrong, but I do not believe that this is one of them. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, speaking in Committee, took the opposite view; that every other country was out of step. I believe that in this case we are out of step and that this valuable power should not be denied to the forces of justice.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, following the example of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I shall speak briefly. I have become increasingly sympathetic to the amendment. I wait with the same eagerness to hear how the Minister's consideration is developing.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, for the same reason, and bearing in mind the fact that the Government have given us a slice of prime time, I wish formally to support the amendment.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. When the proposal was put forward previously, it was argued that the measure would not stop terrorists communicating between each other and that they would find a way around the difficulty. There is a whole raft of measures within the EPA which restrict terrorists from doing certain things and which permit the security forces to counter certain of their actions. For instance, there is a right to stop and search people for illegal items. Certain items, on their own, may not be used as weapons but put together with other items they may be used for munitions. That means that terrorists cannot so easily carry around broken down weapons.
The security forces are also allowed to search houses. That restricts people from keeping illegal items at home, making it more difficult to safeguard them. They must be kept outside. The security forces are also allowed to stop and search cars, making it more difficult for people to transport illegal items. A few years ago legislation was passed giving a right to search documents for communications, information on possible terrorist targets, car numbers and so forth. Although it allowed

1361
for legal and religious confidentiality, the measures were introduced in order to restrict communication between terrorists.
At present the security forces are allowed to use evidence gained from eavesdropping. That means that terrorists must be careful whom they meet and when they meet. They must check that the room is not bugged. Low and behold and despite all that, we allow them to telephone each other and to have what might be teleconferencing from different locations without meeting.
The proposal, if enacted, would restrict the activities of terrorists. As one sees from incidents which have taken place in Northern Ireland, the more difficult it is to commit acts of terrorism the more likely it is that a terrorist will make a mistake. Terrorists are very sophisticated and therefore the security forces need them to make mistakes. The proposed measure does not infringe human rights. It is used in every other country. People are monitored and it is known who they meet, where they go, what they do and what they carry. Yet we allow them to sit back in their homes and to talk away, no doubt with modern facilities. With video conferencing they can plan their activities and we can do nothing.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said that there was no evidence that information gained from such legislation would be helpful. I am sure that the security forces in this country and in other countries would find it useful. I also believe that the measure should be introduced ahead of other legislation because it is vital to have it in place now, not only to counter acts of terrorism but in order to support the peace process.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the new clause, if enacted, would have the effect of allowing evidence from intercepted material acquired by virtue of a warrant under the Interception of Communications Act to be adduced in court if it is related to an offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, including any scheduled offence within the terms of the 1996 Act.
Questions about the use of intercept material in evidence were raised in another place in October last year following an announcement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary about the Government's plans for permanent counter-terrorism laws. In response, the Home Secretary said:
"There is much to be said on both sides of the argument about whether intercept evidence should be adducible in court".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/10/97; col. 1033.]
On the one hand, considerable difficulties exist in obtaining evidence on which to charge and convict terrorists, and many other countries use intercept material to prove guilt and to secure convictions otherwise unobtainable. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, evesdropping evidence is admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings and this sits awkwardly against the fact that intercept material is not.
On the other hand, if intercept material were used in court, the interception capability would become exposed and as a result criminals—in this case terrorist
1362
criminals—would find ways to circumvent the interception methods. In this respect, it is relevant to refer to the report in 1957 of the Birkett Committee which states:
"With regard to the use to be made of information discovered, we feel that that should be confined to the authority empowered by the warrant to discover it, and it should not be disclosed to private persons or to private bodies … We are told that in practice the Home Office insists that the power should be exercised for the purpose of detection only, primarily on the ground that the use of the information so obtained, if used in court, would make the practice widely known and destroy its efficacy in some degree."
At paragraph 121, the report states:
"We are strongly of the opinion that it would be wrong for figures [of numbers of interceptions] to be disclosed by the Secretary of State at regular or irregular intervals in the future. It would greatly aid the operation of agencies hostile to the state if they were able to estimate even approximately the extent of the interceptions of communications for security purposes."
Also, the use of intercept material would result in pressure for increased disclosure by the prosecution.
Concluding his remarks in another place on 30th October last year, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said at col. 1033:
"I continue to consider the matter carefully and will be happy to take advice from hon Members, particularly those who have experience of the matter."
The Bill has provided the House with further opportunity to debate the issue. Noble Lords have spoken eloquently and persuasively in favour of the change which the new clause would bring about.
In his place, on 5th March, during the Bill's Committee stage, I reassured the House that the matter of the interception of communication, as it applies in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole, remained under active consideration by the Government. Given that, and given the complex nature of the considerations, which it would be very unwise to rush to a conclusion, I explained that it would be premature to proceed with an amendment to the Emergency Provisions Bill. On that basis, at that time the noble Lord, Lord Cope, graciously withdrew the amendment previously tabled. Clearly, as he said in his very brief speech, he is anxious to see evidence of my assurances. That is to be expected.
I have gone into this matter in considerable detail since the Committee stage. I can advise the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is fully seized of the importance of the matter and is taking a close and personal interest in it. He continues to consider actively the wider issues and, as part of those wider issues, the question of the use of intercept material in evidence.
It is important to underline that this amendment would have consequences not only for Northern Ireland but for the United Kingdom as a whole. That is why it must be considered in that context. One consequence of material gained from interception being used in Northern Ireland would be that interception capabilities within the United Kingdom would be exposed to some degree and ways of avoiding interception would become more obvious. That knowledge of ways to counter interception would be available not only to terrorists but also to others, including major criminals such as drug traffickers. That would have a direct effect on anyone

1363
making use of intercept material elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Police and Customs would still be unable to make use of the material in evidence, yet obtaining intelligence from interception would become more difficult. Those consequences can be put into perspective by what I say next. On 1st April 1980 the then Home Secretary, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, in a Statement on the interception of communications, said:
"It is estimated that in 1978 about 62 per cent. of the seizures of heroin and about 56 per cent. of the seizures of cocaine were due to interceptions, and there are results of a similar nature for 1979. I do not think that anyone can afford to neglect the importance of such seizures to the whole life of the nation".
Your Lordships will understand why the Government do not wish the matter of interception to be dealt with piecemeal. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, argues that we should proceed but, as I have explained, the Government are not yet ready to draw a conclusion in respect of Section 9. In the circumstances, I prevail upon the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I did briefly think of making a long speech setting out all the reasons why I remain in favour of the amendment. However, as the Minister has said that the matter is under active consideration by the Home Secretary and, I hope, by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and her colleagues on that side of the water, if I can so express the matter, I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and I shall have to contain ourselves for a little longer while the consideration proceeds. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Welfare: Green Paper
5.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government's Green Paper, New Ambitions for our Country: A New Contract for Welfare. The Green Paper sets out the principles of reform based on the twin pillars of work and security: work for those who can; security for those who cannot.
"Today we set before the House a comprehensive review of the welfare system, an argument about why it has to change, the eight principles on which change will be based, and success measures against which progress should be judged over the next 10–20 years and areas where legislation will be required in the short, medium and long term. The Green Paper offers the prospect for pensioners of a decent income in retirement. It offers a fresh start for disabled people—
1364
civil rights, help getting into work for those who want to, and a better system for making sure money goes to those in need. To all those of working age it offers greater help into work. It promises children and families greater support. It does this within a system radically reformed to make it more efficient, clearer, fairer and dedicated to rooting out fraud and abuse.
"The Green Paper considers how social advance for this country is best achieved and how, at the same time, we can also lift people from poverty and dependence to dignity and independence.
"For me"—
that is, my right honourable friend Frank Field—
"today's statement marks a milestone in a journey that has so far lasted 30 years. This Green Paper draws on my experience at the Low Pay Unit, the Child Poverty Action Group, on the Social Security Select Committee. But above all it draws on what I have learned from listening to my constituents in Birkenhead about the need for welfare reform. Those who rely on benefits for their everyday existence are the real experts here.
"It is a particular honour, then, to play a part in translating ideas into practice. I have, however, learnt a few home truths over the last few decades. The first is that changes to the benefit system affect the lives of people in ways which many of us can only half imagine. The second is that the need for change is overwhelming. The system as it stands promotes fraud and deception, not honesty and hard work. It has led to growing poverty and dependence, not independence. It has fuelled social division and exclusion, not helped in the creation of a decent society.
"The economy and society of today are profoundly different from the era when William Beveridge laid the foundation stones of today's welfare state. The world of work, the shape of families, the chances of a long life, the attitude of people to government: all these have altered in fundamental ways.
"At the heart of this Green Paper is a new welfare contract between government and citizen. Together, we must break the cycle of dependency and insecurity and empower all our citizens to lead a dignified and fulfilling life.
"Our changes are driven by the need for reform. What is more, the money that we spend must be spent in the best and fairest way possible. And for any system to be durable and fair, it must have costs that are manageable and under control. We want to spend more in some areas—such as health and education, and on help for severely disabled people with the greatest needs. But we want to spend less in others: to get the bills for social and economic failure down by cutting unemployment, tackling low pay and raising skills, rooting out fraud and abuse and encouraging greater self-provision where it is appropriate.
"So, our reforms are driven by principle. I now wish to turn to the eight principles in the Green Paper, the key clauses of the new contract.

1365
"First: the new welfare state should help to encourage people of working age to work where they are capable of doing so. Work offers the best escape route from poverty and dependence, a platform on which to save, and a sense of individual purpose. Already we have the new deals that are the biggest attack on structural unemployment for decades; a Budget that will make work pay; and a minimum wage to end poverty pay. In addition, today's Green Paper shows how the Government will: extend the new deal to partners of the unemployed under the age of 25, based on the principle of responsibilities and rights going together; extend the new deal to all lone parents with school age children, giving them the opportunity for an interview and help with job search and childcare; end the 16-hour limit on the amount of unpaid work that disabled people on benefit can do; extend the period, from eight weeks to a year, during which disabled people can have a job and come back onto benefit at the old rate if their health fails; increase the number of personal advisers available to claimants providing individually-tailored help; and introduce a single work-focused gateway into the benefits system for people of working age, sweeping away the duplication, waste and bureaucracy of today. We will modernise government to achieve closer collaboration between the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service, making clear that the first objective of the system is to get people back into work.
"Now I wish to turn to pensions. Principle 2 is that the public and private sectors should work in partnership to ensure that, wherever possible, people are insured against foreseeable risks and make provision for their retirement.
"In our manifesto we said the basic state pension will remain the foundation of pensions provision, and will be uprated at least in line with prices. That commitment remains, of course. We do, however, need to get greater help to the poorest pensioners. The Green Paper shows how this will be done.
"However, with an ageing population, over time, more will need to be saved for pensions, but the share borne by taxpayers cannot go up, otherwise the costs of the system will be unsustainable. We want everyone to benefit from a second pension, on top of the state pension. This is what our proposals for stakeholder pensions are all about. It is quite clear that, unless there is more saving towards retirement, we will continue to see into the next century far too many of our pensioners retiring on incomes which do not properly reflect the rising prosperity of the nation.
"The Government have launched a review of pensions. We have received many submissions as part of this review, recommending an extension of compulsory second pensions to those who are currently not covered and an increase in the minimum compulsory savings rate. We are considering these proposals seriously.
"Later in the year we will publish the Green Paper on pensions. I can say today that the Government plan to bring forward legislation later in this Parliament.
1366
"There is one additional change proposed in the Green Paper. Today, people can lose benefit if they have taken out insurance to pay off loans on their car or credit card and then lose their job. When we want to see more people helping themselves, this is simply absurd. We will change the benefit rules to ensure that people who insure themselves will no longer be penalised for it.
"Principle 3: the new welfare state should provide public services of high quality to the whole community, as well as cash benefits. We have already set out in detail our proposals for education reform, for changing the NHS and for improving the housing stock. I do not need to repeat them here. However, in addition, we are proposing a major reform and expansion of the current system of childcare in this country, on the basis that help with looking after children can be as important as any cash benefit. From next month we will start the expansion of our network of childcare clubs—providing a further 20,000 places across the country—and laying the foundation for Britain's first national childcare strategy. Our comprehensive programme will be set out in a Green Paper that we will be publishing after Easter.
"Principle 4: disabled people should get the support that they need to lead a fulfilling life with dignity. In our country, everyone has a contribution to make—and that includes, of course, disabled people. Today I wish to announce a substantial programme of reform in this area, based on the following key changes. Better rights for disabled people. We will bring forward legislation, at the earliest possible time, to establish a disability rights commission to protect, enforce and promote the rights of disabled people. There will also be more help into work for those who can and want to work. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of disabled people do want the chance to work. There will also be extra help for those severely disabled people with the greatest need; and a pledge that those benefits covering the additional costs faced by disabled people—disability living allowance and attendance allowance—will remain universal, national benefits.
"At the same time, we will be looking at ways to ensure help goes to the right people. The recent report of the DLA Advisory Board presented worrying information: that in two-thirds of cases there was not enough evidence to support the claim and that one-third of awards made for life were made to people whose condition might have been expected to improve. Meanwhile, evidence from the forthcoming disability survey suggests that only around half of those entitled may be taking up their DLA entitlement. So the current gateways clearly are not working and need reform. We propose, after consultation with disability groups and others, to legislate for new gateways which are clearer, fairer and easier for people to use.
"I now turn to incapacity benefit. We all know that the last government used it to disguise the real level of unemployment. Since 1979, the numbers on incapacity benefit have trebled, pushing the cost of

1367
the benefit up to almost £8 billion, more than we spend on the whole of the police in England and Wales. We accept that those currently on IB have built a standard of living around it. But for future claimants we must fundamentally reform the benefit.
"The all-work test for entry onto the benefit writes off all too many people. We want to move from the current focus simply on what people cannot do, to focus on what, with the right help, they can do. So we need reform. In place of the current test, we are looking instead to assess the scale of people's employability, and then give them the opportunity to get the help that they need to return to work. Taken together with changes already made, the effect of this will be to reduce significantly the numbers in the future who come onto the benefit, and thereby produce increasing savings over time.
"This will be a major reform. Savings will be found, which will allow us to give more help for severely disabled people with the greatest needs. I emphasise, as with all these proposals, that we will be consulting at every stage with disabled people and organisations representing them.
"As a result of the reforms we are making, disabled people will get a better deal, with proper rights, opportunities to work and a benefits system that better reflects their needs.
"Principle 5: the system should support families and children as well as tackling the scourge of child poverty. It is simply unacceptable that nearly 3 million children are growing up in households without a wage. Child poverty shames our nation. The Green Paper outlines a comprehensive package of help for families and children. This will build on our existing measures to help children: a childcare tax credit, covering up to 70 per cent. of eligible childcare costs; £2.50 extra on both child benefit and to rates for younger children on income-related benefits; and parental leave.
"In an ideal world families would always stay together. But in real life parents split up and the children suffer in more ways than one. The Child Support Agency was intended to help children. But when proper maintenance is only secured in a third of cases it is clearly failing. We are spending £200 million a year simply to run the CSA and securing only £500 million maintenance as a result. Today I can announce that we will be bringing forward proposals for fundamental reform of the agency. This will make it administratively more simple and fairer to get rid of a situation in which often it is the parents who keep in closest touch with their children who get hit the most.
"Principle 6: there should be specific action to attack social exclusion and help those in poverty. Our attack on social exclusion will include a new deal for communities, offering targeted help to areas worst hit by economic change. For those areas which have multiple problems—crime, drugs, poor housing, educational underperformance—there will be an integrated programme of support and renewal. Action zones for education, health and employment will
1368
pioneer the innovation and co-ordination necessary to tackle this national problem. In addition, in the next few weeks the Social Exclusion Unit will present its first plans to tackle two of the root causes of social exclusion: truancy and exclusion from school and sleeping rough on the streets.
"Principle 7: the system should encourage openness and honesty and the gateways to benefit should be clear and enforceable. I have spent a good part of my parliamentary life urging concerted action to tackle benefit fraud, which erodes the whole basis of the welfare contract. Every pound in the pocket of a fraudster is a pound less in the pocket of someone in need. It gives me then great pleasure to announce the Government's crackdown on fraud.
"Today's report from the Public Accounts Committee shows the scale of the problem we face in just one area—housing benefit fraud. Almost £1 billion is lost in fraud, with suspected fraudsters having a 99 per cent. chance of getting off scot-free. This underlines the importance of the action we are now taking to tackle housing benefit fraud. We have radically altered the focus of the Benefits Fraud Inspectorate to inspect our own agencies as well as local authorities and ensure that they are working together to crack down on fraud. We are strengthening the link between the Benefits Agency and local authorities to make sure that information on possible fraudulent claimants gets passed across more quickly.
"There will be a new framework of guidance for local authorities to check claims for housing benefit properly to prevent and root out fraud. The Government will use new powers to set targets for local authorities for improvements in tackling fraud and penalise them if they fail to take sufficient action. We are giving local authorities new powers to stop housing benefit getting paid directly to landlords who have committed fraud.
"Some of these measures may seem draconian, but I have no doubt that they are right. The measures we are taking to root out housing benefit fraud are part of the comprehensive strategy set out in the Green Paper, based on earlier prevention, more effective deterrence, better detection. Our measures include improving the effectiveness of gateways onto benefit to make them less vulnerable to fraud; a thorough validation of the entire system of national insurance numbers to stop people using false or falsely acquired NI numbers to claim benefit; and improved sanctions, including, for the first time, powers for the DSS to fine those defrauding the system.
"Principle 8: the system of delivering modern welfare should be flexible, efficient and easy for people to use. Our aim is a revolution in the delivery of front-line services with the creation of an active modern service which is built around the customer, makes best use of IT and fits new services to new need and demands. In a world of 24-hour shopping, free helplines and computer banking, people are entitled to a far better service than many of our public services are currently able to provide.

1369
"As a result of our drive to get the Employment Service and Benefits Agency working more closely together, we aim to provide a seamless service, with personal advisers for everyone trying to return to work. The modern office should include touch-screens with information on benefits, jobs, training and childcare, as well as telephone information lines for claimants and claim forms which are tailored to the individual.
"At the same time, for those who are not able to work or the retired, we need an efficient and friendly service that is easy for everyone to understand and use and provides benefits accurately, promptly and with minimum hassle. Our aim must be to make sure that the services we provide match the standards of the best companies in the country.
"In all, the application of the principles in the Green Paper will break the traditional welfare mould in three crucial respects. It moves from a focus on simply paying benefits to enabling people to move into work. It moves from dispensing cash to also providing services. It moves from merely alleviating poverty to ensuring that each and every one of us has opportunities to develop our talents to the full.
"Behind our principles and core values lies the idea of the good society which has not only motivated British radicals for centuries but has drawn support from all sections of society. This appeal to create a better world to hand on to future generations is one which this Government, through an open and inclusive approach to reform, will strive not merely to sustain but also strengthen. I invite everyone, wherever they are seated, to join constructively in this debate.
"The Green Paper also sets out a vision of welfare in the year 2020, restructured around the new contract between the Government, on the one hand, and individuals and families, on the other. The new contract is essentially about duty. Duties on the part of government are matched by duties for the individual. So, for example, it is the Government's duty to provide a proactive, work focused service, ensuring the easiest possible return to the labour market. But it is similarly the duty of each individual to seek work or training where they are able to do so.
"It is the duty of government to help parents meet the costs of raising their children; it is the duty of individuals to support their children, and other family members, financially and emotionally. It is the duty of government to relieve poverty in old age and regulate pension provision; it is the duty of individuals to save where possible for old age.
"There are, however, two no-go areas for this Government. Our commitment to the vulnerable is not negotiable. Our commitment to reform is not negotiable. What is negotiable is how we can achieve our aims.
"There are some people on the Right of politics who want to dismantle the welfare state altogether. There are others who baulk at any change. The Green Paper is the third way: not the end of the welfare
1370
state, or defence of the status quo, but a welfare state to meet modern needs, which supports a decent and fair society founded on social justice.
"The Green Paper sets a clear framework for a principled programme of reform. All of us have a stake in the debate. But I pledge to this House, and the country, that we will not depart from the principles I have outlined, and that in the years to come, as the new welfare contract is established, we will have a new welfare state fitting a modern nation in the new millennium.
"I commend this Green Paper to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister for her stamina in reading out that extremely long Statement which was made appropriately in another place by the Minister for Welfare Reform. The Statement has been long awaited. If patience is a virtue, those of us interested in this area have shown it. What we do not yet know is to what extent that patience has been rewarded. Not only is the Statement extremely long but the Green Paper is substantial.
It is fascinating to try to work out to what extent the document reflects the views of the Minister for Welfare Reform. His views on a number of issues are well known. For example, has the view of the Minister for Welfare Reform on the one hand, or that of the rather unholy alliance between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State on the other, prevailed on means testing or—dare one say it?—affluence testing, a term which seems to have disappeared from the political vocabulary after a short shelf life? Which view is taken on compulsion in the welfare to work programme rather than persuasion in the welfare to work programme? Should there be compulsory payment for second pensions? What is the position on SERPS? There are many other issues. It is tempting to tick off in the Green Paper which view has prevailed on a specific issue.
However, despite the fact that the Green Paper has finally arrived—it was originally promised last year—it is still to a large extent a review of reviews. Although it seeks to take credit, for example, on proposals on pensions, we must await a further review on the substance of them.
It is extraordinary that on many of these issues we have had the White Paper in the form of the Budget ahead of the Green Paper. The Chancellor took the opportunity to pre-empt the Minister for Welfare Reform on a number of issues. But what is of great fascination is the extent to which the way ahead now plotted is largely inconsistent with the actions the Government have taken since they came into office. If they had worked out their principles in advance, they would not have done many of the things which they have done in the past few months. I shall say a few more words on that in a moment.
We have before us eight principles. I do not think that anyone would have difficulty in agreeing to them. But that does not get us much further forward in terms of

1371
practical politics. There are many factors in the review with which one can agree and welcome—for example, the proposals on the disabled, and so on. I understand that next Wednesday we shall have an opportunity to debate those issues, so I shall not pursue them further at this moment.
I welcome the fact that one of the many reviews will be on the Child Support Agency. In his Statement, the Minister for Welfare Reform appealed to personal experience. Since I still bear the scars of many constituency cases dealing with the Child Support Agency—I note the view is shared by a number of noble Lords on both sides of the House—we shall look forward and welcome that review. But as of yet we know no more about it.
In the leak that appeared before the publication of the Green Paper great stress was put on the so-called success measures. I believe that there were 25, or something of that order. They are said to be measures, but they are ordinal rather than cardinal. They tell us that by the year 2020 everything that is good will be better, and everything that is bad will be not as bad. But there is no quantification of those measures. I had intended to ask what sanctions would be imposed if the success measures were not met. However, that is pointless because, frankly, the measures are so vague as to have no meaningful way of being assessed, other than whether the figures are up or down, on whether or not there has been success.
I wish to comment on two areas. The first is pensions. If one spoke to anyone in the lobbies outside the House today, or indeed from experience, the greatest concern has always been the position on the basic national insurance pensions. The Minister has repeated, rightly, the assurance given previously; namely, that pensions would be at least uprated in line with prices. There is no mention as to whether it might be means tested. The Green Paper is silent on that issue.
The second matter which gives cause for concern is that when the Minister for Welfare Reform appeared before the Select Committee he seemed to indicate that an assurance on the maintenance of the basic national insurance pension was an assurance which had been given only for this Parliament. That has caused much concern among many pensioners. If the noble Baroness looks at the evidence on that occasion I think that she will take the same view that I have just expressed. Will she therefore give a categoric assurance in the context of this Green Paper that the Government see the basic national insurance pension, uprated at least in line with prices and not means tested, as a permanent feature of pensions policy?
Perhaps I may say a further word on pensions. I cannot agree more with the views expressed in the Green Paper that at present few people retire on an adequate pension. Although one has the basic national insurance pension, there are many other schemes. But it is not clear how the Government propose to go forward on this. We are told that we shall have a pensions review. However, as it is mentioned in the Green Paper, it is worthwhile pursuing the point.
1372
Page 33 of the Green Paper contains a remarkable sentence. It states:
"Occupational pensions are the clearest example"—
of a way of providing second pensions—
"and are arguably the biggest welfare success story of the century".
That is a rather glowing expression by the Government. I should declare an interest. I am a chairman of an occupational pension scheme. But having declared that, what did the Chancellor do in his first Budget on coming into office? He clobbered occupational pensions very seriously. Since it is accepted in the Green Paper that people need a second pension to top up their basic provision, why are the Government pursuing a policy in their financial Budget arrangements which is inconsistent with the principles and views expressed, even ahead of the pensions review? One must hope that that point is clarified. Indeed, perhaps I might ask the noble Baroness now: what exactly is the Government's position so far as concerns SERPS? The consequence of the way the ACT decisions have been made has been to push people out of defined contribution schemes and back into SERPS. As I understand it, that is inconsistent with the Government's proposals.
As regards the stakeholder pension, is it the Government's intention that, in future, all state pensions should be fully funded; and if that is so, how will they get round the problem set out by the Conservative Party in its election manifesto, of a possible solution for ensuring that some groups of pensioners do not pay twice over?
Perhaps I may turn, secondly, to a matter that has arisen a number of times during the past week at Question Time, and in particular in response to two Questions tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on the Cross-Benches. I recognise, as the noble Baroness said from the Front Bench yesterday, that there are many stable relationships between two people who are not married. Nonetheless, the question as to whether people are married or not has always been recognised by government as important, in regard to both the legal situation and to taxation.
I was rather astonished that another noble Baroness, replying to a question that I put to her earlier in the week, seemed to be under the impression that restricting the married couple's allowance—which has been done in the Budget and which will eventually save the Exchequer over £1 billion a year—had no effect on married, as against unmarried, couples. As this issue is not referred to at all—in fact, it was raised yesterday from these Back-Benches by the noble Baroness, Lady Young,—we need to be clear as to whether the Government are altering their attitude towards the question of marriage, with regard to both the legal framework and taxation. If that is so, it is a very substantial change. It seems to have been implicit in a great many recent statements by Ministers.
I am conscious of going on even longer than the noble Baroness—which would be rather remarkable. Perhaps I may therefore turn rapidly to the question of housing

1373
benefit, which is generally recognised as a major deterrent in relation to those people whom the Government are trying to move from welfare to work. The noble Baroness spoke at great length about fraud. In the light of the report of the Public Accounts Committee published today, we can all be concerned about that and welcome the Government's proposals. However, the Government give no indication at all as to their intentions on the crucial issue of housing benefit. We are told yet again that there is to be another review. Can the noble Baroness give the House any idea at all as to what the Government are going to do as regards the effect that the present system of housing benefit has on their welfare to work programme?
Overall, it has been very difficult up to now to avoid the conclusion that the whole of the welfare to work programme has to a significant extent been driven by the Treasury, and that the ideals put forward by the Minister for welfare reform have been largely overtaken in that respect. We have had a widespread advertisement for the "welfare roadshows" that have been going on. It became increasingly apparent that these were not in fact open to the general public; they were to be roadshows involving only those who were likely to be Government supporters. That roadshow has now finally arrived at Westminster.
We very much look forward to examining in greater detail, when we have the opportunity of doing so, the proposals in the Green Paper. I give the noble Baroness and the Government the assurance that we shall look at it in a very constructive way. It is undoubtedly the case that the welfare system needs reform, but these are highly technical issues which ought to be debated in detail in this House and in another place. If we do that, we shall make progress. However, I fear that there is far too much by way of generalities in the Green Paper, and not enough to provide a firm basis for further discussion.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is a military maxim that no plan ever survives contact with the enemy. The social security system is rather like a crossword puzzle. If you change one letter, you change all the other clues across the crossword—you shift the whole pattern. This Statement and, so far as I have been able to read it so far, the Green Paper, are much more complex, and therefore a good deal better, than the statement that was trailed in this morning's press. I have so often reproved governments for not heeding the maxim, "Legislate at haste, repent at leisure", that I cannot blame the Government for taking time to make up their mind, especially since I have seen in the document a good many improvements compared with what we expected a short while ago.
On examining the Statement, I find first a series of principles. The only comment I will make on those principles is that I have no objection to them. I then find many small improvements. There are a good many of them, especially in the area of disability, where I believe I can detect the fingerprints of the Minister herself—and I am very glad to see a number of those fingerprints. I can detect several mistaken diagnoses and, finally,
1374
what might be described as a sermon on duty. While I was reading that sermon, there came into my mind Wordsworth's description of duty:
"Stern daughter of the voice of God".
From now on, when I think of the Minister of State, that will be the nickname under which I think of her.
I want to turn first to the sermon, since I suspect it will cover quite a lot of the publicity that this matter will receive. There are two potentially conflicting principles here. There is the statement, which I am very glad to see:
"Our commitment to the vulnerable is not negotiable".
But it is quite important to understand exactly whom the Government mean when they talk of the vulnerable. There are those who are still totally ignored by the benefits system-16 and 17 year-olds for one—who would appear to me to be vulnerable. When I talk of "vulnerable", I mean anybody who would not otherwise be able to eat.
That potentially conflicts with the principle, with which I do not disagree, that it is the duty of every individual to seek work. There is nothing surprising about principles, both of them good, being capable of conflicting with each other. But I should like, first, to know that the Government recognise the conflict; and secondly, I should like some indication as to how, piecemeal, they might intend to deal with it. All the skill is going to reside in reconciling those two potentially divergent principles.
In this context, the Minister may know a lecture on welfare to work by her noble friend Lord Plant, who develops two concepts of citizenship, one resting on the concept of entitlement, where the state has to recognise the right of everybody to subsistence, and the other resting, much as the sermon does, on a very stern contractual concept of duty.
My own reconciliation of that, for which I shall not hold the noble Lord, Lord Plant, responsible, is that the state should act on the entitlement concept of citizenship, and the individual should act on the duty concept of citizenship, each acting on the concept more favourable to the other party. That is my reconciliation. I do not know what the Government's is. My judgment will depend very heavily on how that works out in detail.
There are other potential areas of conflict: whether the Government wish to make it first and foremost easier for people to work or whether they wish to make the system cheaper. The Minister herself understands how rapidly those two principles may diverge in practice. There is the conflict of whether they wish the system to give claimants more dignity or to prevent fraud. Those two equally may diverge in practice.
I turn now to the pleasanter task of listing some of the good things in the Statement. I am pleased by the terms on which welfare-to-work is being extended to people with disabilities, to those who want to work. I shall watch with great care how that is executed in practice and whether the use, for example, of performance indicators may tend to create pressure on people to try to cause them to want to work.

1375
I am pleased by the ending of the 16-hour rule for disabled people who are taking unpaid work. I am extremely pleased by the extension of the linking rules to a year. It may make a lot of difference. I am pleased by what is being done about people who have claims from their insurance policies against unemployment and who find they lose benefit as a result. I welcome that. In that context, I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lady Ludford. She took that up extremely quickly and was about to make it the subject of her first Parliamentary Question, until she was persuaded—largely by the Minister's doing—that the department had the issue well in hand. That was quick thinking, well rewarded by success.
I am pleased, too, about what is being done as regards the partners of the unemployed. I remember many speeches here that the Minister made in opposition. I am glad to see them coming to fruition. I am very pleased indeed to hear about the action being taken on civil rights for people with disabilities. Perhaps the best thing of all in the Statement is the guarantee of the continued universal availability of disability living allowance. I am pleased by what the Statement said about take-up and very pleased indeed by the rejection of the local authority route, which has been canvassed. In that context, I wish to extend congratulations also to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, who has been so tireless and shrewd in the matter. We owe him a great deal.
I am pleased by what is being done about childcare. That is necessary and overdue. There are, of course, practical questions about such things as the skill of those who are providing the childcare, the facilities, and transport. We can return to them later.
I have one small digression. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made a great point about marriage versus cohabitation. I should perhaps declare an interest, having two sisters-in-law each of whom cohabits. So far as I can see, they are quite as married as I am. What I really want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is that I think he is on to a vote-loser. Canvassing in perfectly respectable areas such as Richmond, Christchurch and Folkestone, I found that it is true, as Social Trends says, that some 20 per cent. of couples in the electorate are cohabiters rather than married. I do not think they particularly like being called second-class citizens. But if the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and his party wish to lose votes, maybe I should not stand in their way.
As regards pensions, it is not yet possible to judge exactly what the Government will do. I have two points to make. First, if we are to expect people to invest more in personal pensions, as obviously in some way we must, we will need greater security that the money will be properly handled. The Government need to look again at the Goode Report and consider whether we need even more safeguards than the Goode Report offered.
Secondly, I wish to take up the suggestion in the Statement that the burden of pensions might become unsustainable. I have been looking again at the words of
1376
the Government Actuary in his "Politeia Lecture" of 27th January. He says on the subject of the cost of pensions:
"The fact that future costs of social security in the UK look much more manageable than in most other countries reflects relatively low benefits which can be expected from the public system".
The word "unsustainable" was perhaps a little imprudent.
I am extremely pleased to hear that the Government will do something about the all-work test for incapacity benefits. But until I see exactly what, the welcome will remain cautious. I look forward to further discussion of it.
Similarly, I am delighted to hear that there is a real change in the CSA coming forward. That has not worked. I do not yet understand what the Government will put in its place. I would welcome the chance to discuss it inside the Chamber or outside. I do not think we will reach full agreement on it, but we might very much reduce the area of disagreement which I would welcome.
I am interested that attention is being turned by the social exclusion unit to people who are sleeping rough. But I wait with interest to see whether the Government will do anything about benefits for 16 and 17 year-olds. As the CHAR inquiry found, that is an important part of homelessness. Without attention to that, not much will be done.
On fraud, obviously something needed to be done, but we on these Benches, remembering that fraud is a crime, will judge the measures by how far they promote the interests of justice which are identical neither with those of the claimant nor with those of the Treasury.
There are some points in the Statement which I think are still a little out of focus; for example, the insistence that the Government can lower unemployment by measures to change the welfare state. Peripherally, yes, I think they can make some difference. But the Government would do much more to reduce unemployment by bringing down the excessively high level of the pound rather than by making any changes to the welfare state. The Chancellor might have achieved more in that direction if he had spent more time doing his own job and less doing that of the Secretary of State for Social Security.
I am not at all sure that it is a particularly exact statement to say that the social security system promotes fraud. It is true in the sense in which money promotes theft or life promotes murder. It contains a certain element of truth, but not a particularly profound one. Overall, what I welcome most about this paper is its greenness. I look forward to further discussion.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords for their contributions before we go into the wider debate. If I miss any of the points raised, we shall write to noble Lords. The first point the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised, was to complain that, I think his phrase was, this was a "review of reviews". We have made it clear that this is a framework Green Paper, to be followed by Green Papers on pensions, child support,

1377
which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the national childcare strategy, together with a White Paper on social services and the report of the Royal Commission on care.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked that such highly technical issues be debated in this House. Of course, that is the point of having the Green Papers, but it seemed to me that the noble Lord was criticising us at both ends. On the one hand, he was criticising us for not having the detail here and, on the other hand, for not having Green Papers in front of us which are yet to come and which will follow the framework document that the Green Paper represents. That is our policy. The Green Paper is a framework Green Paper, to be followed by detailed Green Papers which will be the subject of wide consultation, discussion and debate, exactly as the noble Lord would wish us to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said further that the document was welcome in its principles but short on practical policies. That is not true because each chapter offers measures of success. The noble Lord admitted that, but then he said that they were not quantitative. Yes, but I draw his attention, for example, to page 51 of the Green Paper. He moved from the Statement to the Green Paper, not surprisingly, given the hour-and-a-half which he had to explore them. Page 51, Principle 4, gives the assurance that there will be measures of success to introduce effective civil rights for disabled people. How would one put a figure to that? How many rights? How many disabled people? That is a statement, a guarantee, a commitment that we will honour. We will remove the barriers to work; give active help to disabled people. What will count as a quantitative measure of a fundamentally reforming capacity benefit? Does the noble Lord wish a quantitative measure to be placed before this House before we have even had the technical paper for which he called later in his speech?
In relation to ensuring that the welfare system recognises the extra costs placed on disabled people, the noble Lord welcomes the consultation with disabled people. But does he wish us to bring forward a quantitative measure before that consultation has taken place? The noble Lord was perhaps unwise to call for quantitative measures in relation to things that either do not lend themselves to quantitative assessments—like civil rights—or to things that must properly follow detailed discussion and consultation, to which we have committed ourselves.
The noble Lord went on to ask a series of questions in relation to pensions. He asked whether the basic state pension will be means tested; whether its uprating will be a permanent feature. We are pledged to retain the basic state retirement pension as the foundation of pension provision and to uprate it at least in line with prices. Our major concern is the weaknesses in the second tier of public/private partnership on which depends a decent prosperous retirement in old age. I am sure that we do not disagree about that. We want better value second-tier pensions which will give low paid workers the chance to save. A Green Paper later this year will set out our proposals to that effect. For the noble Lord to ask me to bind a Chancellor of the
1378
Exchequer in perpetuity comes oddly from somebody who was a distinguished Minister of State and Treasury chief who would have allowed no such commitment to be made when he was in post.
The noble Lord also went on to talk about occupational pensions being the biggest welfare success of the century. Indeed, that is so. He asked why we have therefore "clobbered" them with ACT. As we have already made clear, the measures in the previous Budget, reinforced by those set out in this month's Budget, create the right conditions for long-term investment and growth. We believe that strong pensions rest not on deformities in the tax system, but rest instead on the strong investment policy that can follow a strong economy. By providing that strong economy—if the noble Lord looks around he will see it—we will follow the strong investment and performance in equities on which the long-term health of pensions will rest.
The noble Lord asked also about families and taxation and said that over £1 billion in the longer term will be withdrawn from married men through a reduction in the married man's tax allowance. Rather like the noble Earl, I doubt that that is what determines whether or not a cohabiting couple decide to marry. In any case, the point we were trying to make in Question Time earlier this week—I should like to repeat it—is that marriage or cohabitation is a personal choice for the couples concerned. What matters to us as a government and as a society is that children are brought up in a family in which they thrive, whether their parents are married or are cohabiting. In either situation the children can thrive. What concerns us is a situation in which children are in families which do not thrive because they are fractured. The children may be abused, they may be poor; the father may not be providing the child support and maintenance that he should. That is the area of policy that we will be seeking to strengthen to ensure that all children have a chance to a decent head start in life irrespective of their family formation.
Finally, the noble Lord talked of housing benefit and what effect it would have on welfare to work. It is a difficult issue. We are considering ways of easing the transition into work. We know that worries about housing costs are crucial to people when they are thinking about that move and we are looking to ways to improve the work incentives in housing benefit. We believe that the working families tax credit will help that situation. But the noble Lord is right to identify the problem of tapers allied with the problem of other tapers, which is a major difficulty. We share that difficulty and I am hoping to receive the benefit of the noble Lord's expertise when we come to discuss this in greater detail as we proceed.
Perhaps I may turn to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I was glad to receive his welcome for so much in the Green Paper, in particular our proposals for disabled people which we believe will reassure them, given some of their previous fears. The noble Earl suggested that our commitment to the vulnerable not being negotiable, our commitment to welfare to work could be in conflict.

1379
We do not believe that is so. We believe—the Statement and the Green Paper reaffirm this—that those who can, should work, and that those who cannot should enjoy security. We also recognise that each of us may become vulnerable or suffer insecurity during our lives. That is why, in the foreword to the Green Paper, the Prime Minister makes it very clear that the welfare state belongs to us all; it is not just a receiver of taxes and a giver of benefits. It belongs to us all because at different points in our lives we may all be threatened with insecurity and need support. The welfare state is the common wealth of us all.
The noble Earl went on to comment on pensions being unsustainable. Were the basic state pension to be the main source of income and support for the elderly, the costs would be unsustainable. That is why we are anxious, in partnership with the private sector, to ensure that all elderly folk and people going through now will enjoy a good second-tier pension. But I must say—I am sure your Lordships have heard this before—that what matters about a pension is not so much what we can now do as a government in this year or in this Parliament, but that young people in their 20s and 30s are in jobs and saving for a pension so that in the years to come they will enjoy prosperity in their old age. That is what matters most in the future of pension provision.
Finally, the noble Earl asked about the social exclusion unit, JSA and benefits for 16 and 17 year-olds. He particularly identified the issue of rough sleepers. It is clear that a large number of rough sleepers are young people. But, from my experience, when those young people come on to the streets they are already to some degree damaged. They have come out of abusive family situations; they have often come out of care when they have been abused themselves. Therefore they need more than just hardship payments; they need the support of us all as well as pathways into work. We want to ensure that that is done with generosity and decency. I hope that I have answered the questions that were asked of me.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a black cloud of fear has been lifted from many disabled people. There is now an opportunity for constructive dialogue between them and the Government.
Disabled people have been worried about the possibility of cuts in the level of disability benefits, about the disability living allowance being means tested and about inadequate local authority care being substituted for cash benefits. But those have now been ruled out because the Government listened to disabled people and responded positively. I should like to congratulate my noble friend and the Government on a forward looking Green Paper; it is great.
My noble friend may be aware that we still have some reservations about certain aspects of the Green Paper, on which I should like clarification. For example, my noble friend mentioned incapacity benefit and the amount of money in that respect being reduced. That may well be, as disabled people become employed.
1380
That would be welcome and help given to disabled people to obtain jobs is forward looking and constructive. But we do not want disabled people to lose incapacity benefit because of restrictive criteria.
The Minister mentioned severely disabled people possibly getting more money. That is to be warmly welcomed. It is another constructive step. However, we do not want it to be at the expense of the least disabled people. We want that money to come from people in jobs and those who are working. But those are small reservations which we will explore in the weeks ahead.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend, who has led the campaign not just over this past year, but over many years for disabled people, feels able to welcome this chapter in the Green Paper.
My noble friend is right to say that the Green Paper tries to suggest to disabled people that they can have every confidence as we move forward together in consultation, in partnership with disabled people, to decide how best to adapt, modify and reform disability benefits. Where my noble friend is absolutely right is that disability living allowance will in future remain a national benefit. In other words, it will not be localised—that is, sent over to local authorities. My noble friend is also right to say that DLA will remain a national, universal benefit. In other words, it will not be means tested.
My noble friend referred to incapacity benefit and asked what was meant by "the money will he reduced". If we reduce the money spent on incapacity benefit, that will be a sign of success and not failure. It will mean that our strategy to help disabled people to remain in jobs, which is the best strategy possible, and our strategy to help disabled people to move back into work have succeeded. It will be a test of success and not failure. All existing claimants on incapacity benefit will be protected should and when the all work test be replaced by an employability test.
At the moment, incapacity benefit is an all-or-nothing situation. With 15 points you get your benefit; with 14 points you get nothing at all. It is a cliff edge. People with experience of disability know that disability is a continuum and a fluctuating experience. We need something far more sensitive to the real lives of disabled people, as they move in and out of work—voluntary work, part-time work or full-time work. Because of that we wish to develop those principles and those topics in conjunction with disability organisations and with the all-party disability group which my noble friend chairs in such a distinguished way. Along with civil rights for disabled people, we have promised a commitment, a contract and a new deal about which, together, we can rejoice.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Green Paper and the Statement appear to be strong on sweet words but that there is not too much evidence of parsnips, let alone butter? Can she turn her attention to look not merely to the right, as Ministers do these days—that is, at page 51 from which she quoted—but at page 50 where she will notice a series of success

1381
measures which could well be quantified numerically? Secondly, did she notice that she was able to give an assurance on behalf of the Chancellor—a long-term assurance, as I read it—that DLA will not be taxed or means tested? Why was she not able to give a similar reassurance that the old-age pension will not be so treated?
Thirdly, on the subject of disability, the Green Paper seems not to recognise that disability affects not only the individual but the family in which the individual lives. Does she not regard it as quite extraordinary that, while a travelling salesman is allowed the cost of his transport as an essential business expense, the spouse of a disabled person, who could not go to work unless there was a carer at home, is not allowed the cost of that carer as an essential expense in being able to get to his or her work? Will she have a word with this extraordinarily generous Chancellor about that matter?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord asked about DLA and said that I appeared to give an assurance on behalf of the Chancellor that it will neither be taxed nor means tested. What I said was that it will not be means tested. As I am sure he would recognise if he consulted his noble friend Lord Higgins, who is a former Minister of State in the Treasury, the Chancellor must always reserve to himself the position on taxation. There are no proposals to tax it, but that position must be reserved. The commitment in the Green Paper is to DLA not being means tested.
The noble Lord referred to disability and the tax changes. Like the noble Lord, I think that the position of carers is a crucial, sensitive and vital one in supporting disabled people within the family and within the community, and it is one that has too often been neglected. That is why I am sure he will join with me in welcoming the changes in the Budget introduced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in which he allowed the same tax credit that married men currently enjoy for a disabled wife and dependent children to apply to a working wife with a disabled husband and dependent children. Certainly the Carers National Association has warmly welcomed the change and I am sure I can expect the noble Lord to do so as well. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley is the chief executive of the Carers National Association and has been active in promoting its concerns. We will be looking at some of the wider issues affecting carers as the summer progresses. The noble Lord was quite right to draw those points to our attention. They will be looked at.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government. This is an important Statement and it is very helpful to all of us to have a restatement of the general principles of the welfare state and indeed of some of the main policies which are already in train or being adopted.
However, I have one reserve to express and one question to ask. The reserve is really about the effects of the welfare-to-work measures, of which I accept there are quite a number, on the reduction of unemployment. I think the effects will be quite small. The main effects
1382
in reducing unemployment will be achieved, if they are achieved, by successful macro-economic policies, of which the exchange rate is one, but by no means the only one. The lack of mention of demand management as being one of the keys to the whole economic situation is to me a matter of profound regret.
The question I want to ask is quite a short one and it is about the options for a second pension. I wholly accept that we must have a second pension; I wholly accept that savings have to be increased; and I wholly accept that it has to be compulsory. But I should like an assurance from my noble friend that, in considering what kind of pension this should be, we will keep in play the possibility of amending and improving SERPS as the basis for the second pension rather than shooting off into the stratosphere with the ill-defined stakeholder pension which may or may not be of equal merit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend raises two points. The first concerned the welfare-to-work measures and a reduction in unemployment. He is worried that the effects may be quite small and that unemployment will better respond to macro-economic policies such as demand management. I am sure that, to a degree, that is true but our experience over the past 20 or so years has been that whenever unemployment has receded—when the economy has picked up through good and effective demand management—certain groups of people have been left stranded on the beach. In other words, when employment improves, some of those who previously were left unemployed do not come back into the labour market. From our experience they have disproportionately been disabled people; they have been men in their fifties from areas of former heavy manual work; they may sometimes be young people from ethnic minority backgrounds; they may be people with low skills and low literacy qualifications.
Our experience has been that demand management, while of course an important part of economic management, is not enough to refloat those people who have been left beached back into the labour market. That is why we need the targeted effects of the new deal for young people, for the long-term unemployed, for disabled people and for lone parents.
My noble friend asked about SERPS and the stakeholder pension. We will be bringing forward a Green Paper and we expect to see major legislation in this Parliament. Within that context, we will welcome the contribution of my noble friend.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I have glanced briefly at the document, but I hope that any comment that I make will not be just a glance comment. What has struck me very forcibly is that throughout this century welfare and social security have been advanced by one party or the other more or less equally, be they the Liberals of 1905, Chamberlain in 1925, the 1935 Act and so on. The only thing that has become absolutely clear is that every single cash forecast has been quite horrendously wrong. It is stated that old age pensions in 1905 were expected to cost £2.5 million, but in four

1383
years they cost £5 million. I know that the cost of the disability allowance was way in excess of what we thought it was going to be. Nobody, least of all myself, would complain about the extra cost because it is obviously necessary. But when the numbers are done, can the Government do basically what President Kennedy did as regards going to the moon? The estimate of the cost was put at x million dollars and he simply added a nought to the end of it. The project then came within budget. Whatever we do about welfare will cost a great deal more than was envisaged at the time. Can we always bear that in mind?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I should like to say how impressed I am by this Green Paper. It is imaginative and visionary. If we can go ahead with it we shall have a better society, which is something that most of us in this Chamber would wish to see.
When one looks at the costs of welfare and extrapolates them, one must conclude that it is inconceivable that we can continue spending at the present rate and with the huge growth rates in the future. Something has to be done. Again, I compliment the Government on taking action.
I have a question for my noble friend. The change is very comprehensive and it will affect many people. I believe, generally, people are not keen on change. I believe that there will be a big reaction. I noted in the Statement that Mr. Field said that reform is non-negotiable. I welcome that. However, does my noble friend agree that we must proceed with this programme although it will be politically very difficult at times? The reason is that what the Government are doing is absolutely right.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that contribution. He said that it is inconceivable that the costs of welfare should continue to rise if one extrapolates them. I believe that he is right. I had some calculations done as to what would happen if £10 per week was added to every benefit. It would not make people hugely wealthy or prosperous, but it would be useful. People will not be able to afford a holiday on an extra £10 per head in benefit. They would be unable to have an extravagant lifestyle. Yet the cost of increasing every benefit by £10 per week is £20 billion. That confirms the point made by my noble friend. Increasing benefits will not get people out of poverty. That is why we have been emphasising work for those who can and, with the available resources, security for those who cannot.
My noble friend said that reform was non-negotiable. That is right. My right honourable friend said in the other place that how we do it is indeed for discussion on the basis of Green Papers. As has been made clear in our earlier discussions on disability benefits, we seek to do that by consent. My noble friend is also absolutely right in that we are committed to a better society.
1384
The welfare state was one of the proudest and finest achievements of the post-war Labour Government. We seek to strengthen and to renew our commitment to it.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I gather that the Child Support Agency is to be reformed and not abolished, as we thought at one time. Can the noble Baroness say what precisely will happen in practical terms? As we discovered before, the devil is in the detail. What is the detail now?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the detail will be the subject of a Green Paper, as I made clear at the beginning. It is a highly technical subject. It is true that the method of child support will be reformed rather than the CSA. In the process I hope that we shall he able to change the culture so that non-resident fathers recognise their responsibilities to their children both in financial and emotional terms. We want to see reformed child support, making sure that maintenance, for example, does not subvert contact. We want fathers to both pay maintenance for their children and to have contact with them. We shall be bringing forward a Green Paper in due course which seeks to ensure that as a result of these measures, the children enjoy the emotional and financial support of both parents, whether they live together or not. That Green Paper will be produced over the next year.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in fact, the Green Paper was better than some of us anticipated. Nevertheless, is the noble Baroness aware that it will disappoint many, particularly pensioners, who had nothing out of the Budget and who have certainly got nothing out of this Green Paper? My first question is this. Can I have her absolute assurance that the basic state pension, increased by the cost of living every year, will continue not only for this Parliament, but beyond it?
My second question refers to the Child Support Agency. We understand that it is to be reformed. Will it be reformed in such a way that males in particular will have proper access to their children provided that they make a proper contribution to their upkeep?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend said that he was disappointed at the lack of mention of pensioners. I am grateful and appreciative that he responds warmly to the Green Paper, but I am sorry that he does not feel that we have given pensioners the due that he believes that they should have. He will recall that it was the Labour Party that ensured that VAT on fuel was not increased, but reduced, for pensioners. As a government we have introduced the winter fuel payment. We are about to start a £15 million pilot scheme for pensioners to ensure, through data-matching, that they take up the income support that they should. Perhaps I may give the pledge that my noble friend is asking for. This Green Paper reiterates and restates our commitment to the basic state pension rising at least in line with inflation as the foundation of our pension provision.
My noble friend asked about the Child Support Agency and the position of males and access to children. We shall be seeking to ensure that fathers recognise,

1385
want and welcome their responsibilities to their children through maintenance and contact. I very much doubt that we shall make it a legal commitment that one goes with the other because of issues in the past involving violence and the like. Some of the changes being introduced by my right honourable friend in other areas of government policy—for example, in the Lord Chancellor's Department—are seeking to encourage non-resident fathers or co-habitee fathers to put their names on the birth certificate and, as a consultation paper will discuss, whether that will also give them the parental rights of access that married fathers take for granted. If the consultation paper suggests that it is a wise and proper way to go forward, then it may address many of the concerns raised by my noble friend.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
6.29 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Resumed debate on Clause 1: Amendment No. 5.
Lord Whitty: With the leave of the Committee, proceedings today are starting rather later than had been agreed, but I assure the Committee that discussions through the usual channels are proceeding to make more time available for the Bill after Easter although I regret that I cannot at present say how much or exactly when. Nevertheless, I hope that we can make substantial progress tonight.
Lord Shore of Stepney: This is a resumption of our debate on Amendment No. 5 which was interrupted at close of play on Tuesday. It is also a debate on a cluster of amendments dealing with the whole question of a single foreign policy and the associated arrangements for defence. It is, therefore, a matter of profound importance to the future security of this country and of our partners in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
It is also timely that we should be debating this matter today because, as I understand it, an important event is taking place in Moscow where President Yeltsin is meeting President Chirac and Chancellor Kohl to discuss many matters relating to foreign policy in the European continent. Rather to my surprise, the British Prime Minister is not there, but is in his proper place, if you like, here at home at No. 10. However, we are members of the European Union and, as I understand it, we happen to hold the presidency at present. The noble Baroness who spoke for the Liberal Party on Tuesday and pointed out that there was a very long way to go
1386
before anything like a single foreign policy emerged in Europe made a very good point which was also, as it were, in anticipation of the remarkable development in Moscow today. However, we did not need today's event to remind us of the profound differences that exist between member states of the European Union in their approach to foreign affairs and the obligations they have undertaken in the past and to which they still hold today.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the events that led recently to the near-confrontation with Iraq. There was, indeed, a serious threat to the continued effectiveness of the United Nations inspectorate in that country. The issue was of major importance: the detection of weapons of mass destruction which are currently in the hands of a known aggressor and a known—I was going to say "madman", but I am not sure whether that is an appropriate word—but, at any rate, a very dangerous ruler. In pursuit of earlier Security Council resolutions, the United States and the United Kingdom—properly, in my view—rallied together and brought the threat of force to the Gulf in the very visible presence of aircraft carriers with strike aircraft.
What to me was extraordinary was the lack of public utterance by our fellow members of the European Union. My noble friend Lady Symons, who is to reply to this debate, answered a Question on this a week or so ago. The Question had been tabled by my noble friend Lord Hardy and related to the extent to which European Union countries had rallied. My noble friend Lady Symons said that some of them had offered what I can only describe as a "minuscule" contribution. There was a frigate from the Dutch; a frigate from the Belgians; and airport facilities from Germany, Italy and Spain. There was total silence—conspicuous absence from even those endeavours—from France. As we all know, the government of France were actively operating against the Anglo-American and Security Council mobilisation against the government of Iraq.
One might say, "So much for a common foreign policy", but I want to go a bit further into it than that and to put to the Committee the fact that there are deep differences of approach to international affairs between the different countries which are members of the European Union and, indeed, countries outside it. In this debate I want to test the whole reality—or, rather, the lack of reality—of the efforts to achieve a common foreign policy within the framework of the European treaties. I refer to the Treaty of Maastricht in particular and now to the Treaty of Amsterdam which enlarged the provisions in the Treaty of Maastricht relating to foreign policy, security policy and defence.
Nobody has any doubts about the unanimous wish for more effective co-operation in dealing with global security and political problems. I am not merely very much in favour of the efforts being made in different areas to increase security, but I welcome the fact that there are forums in which such matters can be discussed. Like other Members of the Committee, I think the greatest forum of all is the Security Council of the United Nations and, in terms of effective action in

1387
the light of what the Security Council decides, NATO, which has the will, effectiveness, command and control system to enforce the will of its political council.
So, I am very much in favour of international action and I have no objection at all to having a consultative mechanism with our friends and partners in the European Union. Indeed, I welcome that. Co-operation in foreign policy is to be welcomed. I have no doubt that following today's meeting in Moscow there will be reports back and that we can think about what has been said and consider it. That seems not unreasonable. I understand, again from my noble friend Lady Symons, and her previous Answer to a Question, that there were a number of consultations about what to do about Iraq, although they did not lead to any action on the part of the European Union. Let us be quite clear: we all want consultation, effective co-operation and action in the various forums which are effective.
The single foreign policy commitment in general terms comes in the Treaty of Maastricht and is slightly updated in the Treaty of Amsterdam. However, anyone who considers the language, or rather the strength of the language, in those treaties really has to scratch their head because we are apparently committed to the following under the provisions on a common foreign and security policy. It is stated:
"The Union … shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy … covering all areas of foreign and security policy".
The objectives are spelt out including, rather surprisingly, support for the United Nations. However, we shall put that on one side. The document goes on to say:
"The member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity".
Am I dreaming? Is this the real world? Clearly, it is not. However, that has the force of a treaty commitment, and not just one but two treaties. The section dealing with common foreign policy concludes with the words:
"The Council shall ensure that these principles are complied with".
That is strong stuff; it is a pretty strong commitment.
Clearly, there is a will on the part of many fellow members of the European Union to establish a common foreign policy. That will is expressed very strongly in the language of the treaty. Why is that not something that we can unambiguously welcome? We all know the answer. The reason is that on many important matters of national and international security the majority opinion on the Continent in the European Union is not our own and clashes with our obligations. The Gulf is an excellent example. Suppose that the members of the European Union had got together and had had a proper political discussion with a vote and public declaration at the end. Suppose that that public declaration was that the Union would not use or threaten to use force in the Gulf. Would we have been bound by it? Is that the thought behind this single foreign policy document? That would be absurd. Clearly, we could not allow it, not simply because it would be wrong but because our obligations go far beyond the European Union.
1388
The European Union is Euro-centric about policy; it has no concept of global responsibility and international problems. We have. That is something we should retain and be proud of. We have obligations and commitments to a range of Commonwealth countries across the world. We have had a special obligation and commitment since the end of the war when we became not merely a founder member of the United Nations hut a permanent member of the Security Council. That is a position which we share with four other nations. Because we are a member of the Security Council we have obligations which, frankly, the European Union is not necessarily concerned with and may seek to overrule.
There is a specific reference in the treaty. Article J.9(2) makes the following statement about the Security Council of the United Nations:
"Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep the other member States fully informed".
We now come to a more important point:
"Member States which are permanent members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, ensure the defence of the positions and the interests of the Union".
I am glad that the following words, which at least place a question mark on the whole matter, are added:
"without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter".
I do not know whether I have understood it correctly. If my noble friend is able to interpret this very interesting provision and tell me what it really means in terms of our obligations to the Security Council and the European Union I shall be greatly indebted to him.
I noted another provision in the treaty referring to other fora and relations with countries worldwide and international organisations. I quote from Article J.10:
"shall co-operate in ensuring that the common positions and joint actions adopted by the Council are complied with and implemented".
We know that there is a European Union presence now in virtually every important country. The European Union is expanding a diplomatic service. It now claims that other member states who have similar diplomatic representation should not do anything until they have concerted with and discussed it with the lead diplomatic representation, which is the office of the Commission in the countries concerned. I understand why some people are enthusiastic about a single foreign policy. They look forward to the possibility of achieving a great saving in expenditure and the phasing out of British diplomatic representation in favour of collective representation on our behalf by the European Commission office. Undoubtedly, that will have support in some parts of the Treasury but I hope that it will be firmly resisted by the Foreign Office.
I must now turn to defence. Whatever may be said about a common foreign and security policy, defence is probably even more important except that inevitably it is in tow to foreign policy. The Treaty of Amsterdam has a good deal to say about defence. I suggest that a proper reading of the provisions in the treaty referring to defence, in particular Article J.7, which is a large provision with many paragraphs, is that what is envisaged is the takeover of the Western European

1389
Union by the European Union and the equipment of the European Union with a very serious defence capability. That is the aim at any rate. If one does not recognise that, one is very foolish.
The amendment in the treaty itself makes the position pretty clear:
"RESOLVED to implement a common foreign and security policy including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence in accordance with the provisions of Article J/".
That features among the major stated purposes in Article 1 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, as in the Treaty of Maastricht.
The relevant article here is Article J.7. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for quoting a number of passages from the treaty, but these words of the treaty must be weighed and considered. To some extent—I do not say in this area—they are possibly subject to judicial interpretation. But certainly we are committed to wording to which we did not object at the time. This is what the treaty says about the question of defence:
"The Western European Union … is an integral part of the development of the Union providing the Union with access to an operational capability notably in the context of paragraph 2".
Paragraph 2 reads:
"Questions referred to in this Article shall include humanitarian and rescue tasks"—
the so-called Petersburg tasks with which we are familiar, but they are not confined to them.
It goes on to say that it,
"shall include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking".
That is a very strong commitment for the use of force through the WEU at the beckoning of the EU Council. Indeed, it says so in so many words. I take that seriously.
The UK has—I have no doubt that my noble friend will refer to it—some wording that says, "Well, whatever happens with the WEU and the development of a common defence policy, our obligations to NATO, our arrangements with NATO will remain". In so far as it goes, that is a welcome reassurance. But of course it does not go all that far. The truth is that the arrangements made in the WEU and the EU could affect greatly the coherence of NATO as a whole because there is, in that, a clear threat of the separating out of the WEU from NATO, the WEU being under the command of the EU, and NATO being under the general direction of the NATO Council. There is a clear danger of a serious division of viewpoints and of policies.
It is the intention of members of the EU not merely to rest where they are now but to go ahead as far as they can. Again, to quote Article J.7(4), the provisions I have just mentioned:
"shall not prevent the development of closer co-operating between two or more Member States on a bilateral level, in the framework of the WEU".
I believe that that had in mind the formation of the Franco-German brigade and probably the German-Dutch brigade which is being or has been formed.
1390
We know that in other parts of the treaty there are half chapters about closer co-operation and the mechanisms for bringing that about under which, if a majority of EU states wish to go ahead, using the institutions, the resources and the finance of the Community, it can do so provided that certain conditions are met.
I want to know whether that closer co-operation, or flexibility clause, as we used to call it, applies also to the defence arrangements. If it does, it clearly opens the way for a majority of the EU states to formalise a defence treaty and to take over the WEU in the process.
That is something about which we should be worried. In addition, it is an indication of what lies ahead. There is a tiny little clause referring to Article N of the treaty at the end of the section on defence. Article N allows for the calling of a further IGC with specific reference to furthering and developing that defence and foreign policy commitment.
I wish to refer lastly to the protocol. Protocol A provides:
"The European Union shall draw up, together with the Western European Union, arrangements for enhanced cooperation between them, within a year from the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam".
So we know: they can call another IGC. They have to work out arrangements within the next 12 months. It is a serious forward commitment of which we need to be conscious.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I appreciate that the noble Lord is just coming up to 25 minutes. I have been reading my Companion which states:
"The House has resolved 'That speeches in this House should be shorter'. Long speeches engender tedium and tend to kill debate.".
I checked on the origins of that provision in the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of 1987–88 which states:
"That there should he no mandatory time limits, but other measures to discourage long speeches, including recommended maxima of twenty minutes for Lords opening or winding up debates from either side and fifteen minutes for other speakers: Lords being encouraged to protest against breaches".
I merely wish to draw the noble Lord's attention to that as politely as I can.
Lord Whitty: Fascinated as I was by my noble friend's speech, I did notice the time. I fear that I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Speakers are expected to keep within 15 minutes, and therefore it would be appropriate for my noble friend to draw his remarks to a close.
Lord Shore of Stepney: I have no objection to that at all, and of course I apologise to the Committee. I have not kept my eye on the Clock. I had rather kept it on what to me is the fundamental importance of the commitment that my country is entering into, which has not been properly debated either in the other Chamber or yet in this Chamber.
I shall conclude now by merely saying that the commitments that I have read out which have been made in the body of the treaty are reciprocated by the

1391
WEU in a series of declarations that it has made, which are again to be found in the Amsterdam Treaty, to go along, as it were, equally with the EU in its defence endeavours. I conclude. I very much hope that short speeches will not necessarily preclude Members of this Committee from reaching the truth in these complex matters.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: It appears to me that the force of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, has evidently been too much for noble Lords on the Liberal Benches.
Lord Tebbit: Before I commence my remarks, I think that I might observe that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was not in his place during the somewhat lengthy Statement, and, if I may say so, the extraordinarily lengthy questions which were asked by the Front Benches after the Statement. He might have a look at that and question whether he was a little over the top in what he said in relation to speeches which concern this country's foreign and defence policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, may not like to hear these things; he may be bored by these things. But it is important that in at least one Chamber in this Parliament we discuss these things. I am sorry if the noble Lord is bored.
Earl Russell: It is generally recognised that ministerial Statements, especially if covering a wide range of material, cannot be as restricted as ordinary speeches. It is also generally recognised in this place that if one has a point to make one should be able to make it in 15 minutes.
Lord Tebbit: I accept, of course, what the noble Earl says. That is no doubt why he sat down after about 12 minutes when asking a question on the Statement.
I take the points which the noble Lord, Lord Shore, made. Some of them of course had been made, to some extent, during our discussions on the Maastricht Treaty. In particular, I raised the issue of the extent to which it would be binding upon our delegation in the Security Council to uphold a common position which had been reached within the EU. I did not receive an adequate answer from the last government on that matter. Perhaps, having had some time to reflect upon it, Ministers may try again, Ministers of this Government, to see whether they can say whether the British delegate in the Security Council would be in breach of our treaty commitments if he took a line which was not compatible with that of the common foreign policy of the European Union.
Let us be clear about this matter. It is all very well to think that this will be an unchanging world. At some stage, a common foreign policy view may be achieved within the Council of Ministers. However, events then move on and, indeed, governments move on. It might mean that a government would be elected here who would take a precisely different view on that policy. We have been near to it at times in the past. Had a Labour Government been elected at one time they would have pursued a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament. That
1392
is interesting. Of course, they have learned better now and one welcomes all sinners who have come to repentance. But how would an incoming government change the European Union's foreign policy?
If they could not change that foreign policy, would they be condemned to the utter absurdity of having our delegation at the United Nations upholding a view which was not the view of the Administration of this country?
Indeed, we see from the treaty that,
"The Presidency shall represent the Union in matters coming within the common foreign and security policy".
What are the restraints upon that? On what occasions will the presidency not represent the Union? Where will it not represent the Union? With such words in this treaty, how long will it be before other members of the United Nations question just how many representatives the European Union should have at the United Nations? If there is but one policy and if we are to be in a quasi-state, and certainly the European Union is a quasi-state already, why should the European Union have so many delegates at the UN, let alone having two in the Security Council?
There are other countries which are not so represented, countries far larger than the European Union; for example, India. I believe that were I speaking for the Indian people I would question why India, a nation of 1 billion people, should have but one delegate at the United Nations and the European Union, which is committing itself to having a common foreign policy, should have 15 or so? Why? We are surely making a fundamental error in going down that road.
I turn to page 14, Article J.9, about which the noble Lord, Lord Shore, spoke. It is quite clear, as one reads it. Paragraph I of Article J.9 states:
"In international organisations and at international conferences where not all the Member States participate, those which do take part shall uphold the common positions".
Does that apply to NATO? Is the position which the British Government take at NATO to be influenced by the views of countries which are not members of NATO? It may not be that many years before there is a qualified majority within the European Union of countries which are not members of NATO. Are we then to be bound to put forward in NATO the views of the European Union?
7 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I am sorry to challenge that but the noble Lord was talking about the need to establish the truth. Of the 15 member states of the European Union, 11 are currently members of NATO. Of those which are at present negotiating membership three are also about to join NATO. When precisely does the noble Lord expect there to be a majority of states which are not members of NATO?
Lord Tebbit: The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, seems to regard the European Union as being a very short-term affair. These treaties are intended to be permanent. Who can know those things? We can say what is the position

1393
today and what is likely to be the position in a year's time or five or 10 years' time. But those are matters for the permanent treaty of the Community.
I notice that Article J.5 on page 12 refers to the requirement that,
"The Council shall adopt common positions".
And then,
"Common positions shall define the approach of the Union to a particular matter of a geographical or thematic nature".
That is fairly wide in its scope. What would not be a matter which was either geographical or thematic in its nature? After that it states:
"Member States shall ensure that their national policies conform to the common positions".
Again, it is not inconceivable that there should be a change of government not only in this Kingdom but among other member states. Are we to be saddled then with the spectacle of countries forming their foreign policy in relation to a common position with which they do not agree? How does a country escape from that position?
I shall not incur the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, by speaking too long. But I leave him with that challenge. Will he describe how it would be open to an incoming British Government who do not agree with the policy which had been formed by the European Union—indeed, a government who may have been elected having campaigned on the fact that they did not agree with that policy—to reverse the European Union's policy? I beg the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, not to say that it can be done by powerful argument. We know that it is not always powerful argument but is very often self-interest which prevails in the European Union. How would that be reversed?
If it could not be reversed, what sanctions would be brought against a sovereign government of a sovereign state embarking upon a foreign policy which had been endorsed by the electorate but which was not the policy of the European Union? How would it be changed?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I have two very short questions to put to the Minister. To some degree, they are associated with the remarks which have fallen already from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
Under the Treaty of Amsterdam, which we are invited to ratify, Article J.5 says that the Council shall adopt common positions. The Council, of course, means the Council of Ministers. In that paragraph, there are six mentions of the European Council which was formed originally under Article D. All the remaining references to the Council refer to the European Council of Ministers. The European Council meets, in accordance with the terms of the treaty, only twice a year, or thereabouts, and the Council of Ministers meets at very short intervals. There are several Council of Ministers' meetings every month. In fact, most of our representatives on the Council of Ministers spend a sizeable portion of their time on aeroplanes to and from Strasbourg, Luxembourg, Brussels or wherever it may be.
1394
Article J.5 states that the Council shall adopt common positions. Matters of note have covered the period of the British presidency, in particular the situation in Iraq. That has already been mentioned by several noble Lords. Your Lordships will agree that it has presented great problems for the whole of humanity and for practically every country in the world. Among those countries I generously include the members of the European Community. They have been concerned—or should have been concerned—too.
When did the Council of Ministers meet to determine a common position? If a common position is to be determined, who is responsible for bringing forward proposals for consideration by the Council of Ministers under the terms of the original treaty, which is all pervasive covering all the treaties which have since been concluded? The Commission is required to produce proposals; the Council of Ministers can initiate nothing. That is implicit and explicit in the Treaty of Rome.
When was a common position determined? What proposals did the Commission put forward during the Iraq crisis for a common position to be determined? I am in the recollection of the House as indicating a long time ago—and I am quite sure that your Lordships realise it—that the attitude of the Commission during the recent crisis was one of deafening silence. It had no recommendations or proposals to put before anyone.
I now invite your Lordships to consider the position of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who throughout the period occupies the presidency. Let us consider Article J.8 of the Amsterdam Treaty which states:
"1. The Presidency shall represent the Union in matters coming in the common foreign and security policy.
2. The Presidency shall be responsible for the implementation of decisions taken under this Title; in that capacity it shall in principle express the position of the Union in international organisations and international conferences.
3. The Presidency shall he assisted by the Secretary-General of the Council who shall exercise the function of High Representative for the common foreign and security policy.
4. The Commission shall he fully associated in the tasks referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. The Presidency shall he assisted in those tasks if need he by the next Member State to hold the Presidency.
5. The Council [of Ministers] may, whenever it deems it necessary, appoint a special representative with a mandate in relation to particular policy issues".
What happened during the crisis fortnight in regard to the presidency? What kind of mandate has my right honourable friend the Prime Minister been given? What kind of assistance has he been offered by any member state? I have already referred to the position of France. That needs no further elaboration because it was dealt with by my noble friend Lord Shore. However, I will call to mind the position of Belgium, which may have been forgotten. During the Falklands War, despite the fact that it was a member of the Community, as were we, it declined even to supply us with ammunition for the war.
Those matters must be faced and I am sorry that they must be discussed with a Labour Government in office. It takes Ministers a considerable amount of time to read through all the documents which must be read by someone or other during the course of their duties. It is a duty of civil servants—the English bureaucracy let alone

1395
European Community bureaucrats—to ensure that Ministers are properly and fully informed. If they read through all the documents which are issued an enormous amount of time would be taken from that available to them daily. Surely the Government—and in particular a new government—are entitled to the support of those who protest that Britain is not at the heart of Europe. They should propose to help a new government, but they have not done so. They have not accorded the new government any more loyalty than they did to the one which preceded them.
Lord Monson: I do not see how we can seriously contemplate a common security policy when the interests of each EU nation are so divergent. The other EU countries, in particular the Mediterranean countries, are positively Palmerstonian in taking the view that the interests of their countries are eternal. But they are more ruthless than Palmerston ever was. The Spanish, for example, seriously threatened to block the accession of Sweden, Finland and Austria unless they were granted fishery and other concessions. Yet for some reason the Europe enthusiasts never accuse the Spanish of being bad Europeans. That accusation is reserved permanently for Britain alone.
Recently we have seen how France leans over backwards to placate Saddam Hussein; partly in the hope of gaining valuable trade concessions and partly, no doubt, to keep the skies over Paris unpolluted by anthrax spores.
In an interesting article published last autumn, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, asked how there can be a common defence between countries some of which are wholly within NATO, some of which are precluded from defence obligations and one of which—Franceis a semi-detached member of NATO. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, went on to ask:
"What is the point of suggesting that there can be a common foreign policy between countries who wish to see the United States fully engaged in Europe and countries whose foreign policy is directed towards diminishing that engagement to vanishing point?".
I never fail to be astonished by the hatred—at any rate, dislike—for the United States manifested by the French political classes: not by the ordinary French people who are reasonably pro-American, but les énarques. If there is one country they dislike more than the United States it is Japan—although how Paris would survive without Japanese tourism I do not know! But the attitude is curious, particularly given the part played by the American forces in liberating France in 1944. It is totally alien to our own view and the view of most other EU nations. Therefore, there can be no co-operation on that aspect.
The thought of closer co-operation with Greece is somewhat worrying. I well remember when the late Lord Gladwyn, a passionate Euro-enthusiast, as noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches will agree, sadly stated from the Liberal Benches more than 10 years ago that in retrospect it had been a mistake to admit Greece to the Community, at least as early as it was admitted, so troublesome had that country been. Although I have come to know Turkey well over the years and have many friends in that country, I do not
1396
automatically subscribe to the view that Turkey is invariably right and that Greece and the Greek sector of Cyprus are invariably wrong in their manifold disputes. However, undoubtedly Turkey is more sinned against than sinning in the western media coverage it receives. Unfortunately for them, the Turks, like the Ulster unionists, are not nearly as adept at public relations, spin doctoring and switching on the charm as are their opponents. That gives rise to anxiety that the dexterity of Greece in its special pleading might drag us and possibly other western European nations into a conflict which could break out between Greece and Turkey at some time during the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years if the common security policy were to become a reality.
The Earl of Onslow: I was interested to see when we considered the disputes that are actually going on between members of the European Community that there is a row between the English and the Irish over the border; there is a row between the British and the Spanish over Gibraltar; and that there is a permanent row going on between the Greeks and the Turks. I suspect that the Spaniards would take a very different view over the Falkland Islands than we take. That is just within Europe. It also seems to me that it is impossible to expect the Finns to have the same sort of attitude to foreign policy that the Greeks or the Spaniards would take.
When the capital of Germany moves from Bonn to Berlin the psychology of German politics will change from what I suggest would be a Rhine palatinate, almost a Hapsburg view of Europe—or certainly a Burgundian view of Europe—to that of a Hohenzollern or Eastern-Prussian view of Europe. I am not casting any moral judgments here, I am just suggesting that when that capital moves, with the Polish border 80 miles away, that is psychologically bound to happen.
For no other reason than the fact that we have 22 miles of what Black Adder would call "wet, blue wobbly stuff" between us and the rest of the Continent, psychologically we have a different view on foreign affairs. Indeed, we have a different outlook to history and to trade. It is rumoured in newspaper reports that, under the next defence review, the present Labour Government are thinking of producing two fleet carriers with the capability of 40 aircraft. That reflects the attitude of a maritime global policy, but it does not stop us co-operating with Finland on something, with Greece on something else or, indeed, with France on other matters. But to suggest that Mr. Poos should have any control over HMS "Illustrious", the "Indefatigable", the "Ark Royal", or whatever she will be called, strikes me as being a rather dangerous idea; and I put it no higher than that.
We have had the farce of a concerted European policy over Bosnia, which fell between two stools: it meddled, but did not impose; or it just did not let the whole gang of Balkan thugs slit each other's throats, which would have been a Bismarckian approach to such affairs. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' memories back a little to a splendid remark by Bismarck that the whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier. So, for five years, we got our

1397
Balkan policy completely wrong until some leadership was imposed by the Americans and, I believe, by British and French troops on the ground outside Sarajevo, acting together rather than under the aegis of something in Brussels.
We are a grown-up country. We are much too settled to have a sort of committed foreign policy, with all the inherent dangers it brings, set in tablets of stone and which becomes the law of the Medes and the Persians in an unrepealable treaty. For heaven's sake, let us co-operate and let us be friends and, on occasions if we have to, go to war alongside German soldiers, if that is in the interests both of Germany and of England—or, indeed, French soldiers. Let us not tie the hands of Her Britannic Majesty's Foreign Secretaries for generations to come.
Lord Renton: I wish to draw attention to the strange evolution which has taken place within the European Union on the question of co-operation with regard to foreign affairs. The Rome Treaty put forward no arrangements, except perhaps by implication. However, if the integration which is envisaged as the long-term aim of that treaty were to be fully implemented, there would have to be some such co-operation. It was not until the Single European Act that we had anything written into any treaty about it. That legislation put the emphasis this way:
"The Member States shall endeavour jointly to formulate and implement a common European foreign policy".
But the Maastricht Treaty carried evolution a stage further. Instead of just referring to member states, it referred to,
"the Union and the Member States".
It said that they were to,
"define and implement a common policy to cover all areas of foreign and security policy".
Now we have Amsterdam which does not refer to member states at all; it refers simply to "the Union" and says:
"The Union will define and implement the policy".
What we have to be careful to consider is how it will do so: who will take the responsibility? We get the answer from paragraph (1) of Article J.8, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has already referred, which says:
"The Presidency shall represent the Union in matters coming within the common foreign and security policy".
It refers to the "Presidency". That is not a description of an individual; it is a description of a condition, a state, in which an individual may be involved. We know now that the individual will only hold that position for six months and that it will change every six months. Paragraph (3) of Article J.8 says that the "Presidency shall be assisted". One would have hoped that would be by the Foreign Ministers in the Council of Ministers; but no, it is not so:
"The Presidency shall he assisted by the Secretary-General of the Council who shall exercise the function of High Representative for the common foreign and security policy".
1398
So, instead of having member states being consulted, getting together and co-operating, the Amsterdam Treaty requires that we delegate the whole of that responsibility to whoever occupies the presidency for a period of six months. Admittedly, the Secretary-General will provide a bit of continuity because he holds the job for some years, but is that a satisfactory situation?
When introducing the debate today the noble Lord, Lord Shore, referred to "consultancy". That is what we need. There is no evidence in Article J.8 to show that there will be any prior consultation. Indeed, there seems to be a complete delegation to whoever happens to hold the presidency for six months. That is not a satisfactory situation. It could lead to extremely difficult consequences, and I believe that we should he very wary of it.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: This is an important part of the treaty and I am glad that we are devoting attention to it. Of course, much of it is not entirely new. It represents in part an evolution of what we have been engaged in since we joined the European Community some 27 years ago—indeed, Britain began to take part in European political co-operation in mid-1972, well before we joined the Community proper—and part of what the current treaty represents is a regularisation of activities which are already under way.
I have sympathy with part of the purpose of the amendments which we are discussing. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurance on my next point. Much of what has happened has not been reported to national parliaments. All that is covered under the second pillar is that which is least subject to national scrutiny. I note that the European Communities Committee of this Chamber now has a sub-committee—of which I am proud to be the chair—which covers the third pillar but does not cover all the activities which come under what is now called CFSP.
I am old enough to remember Jim Callaghan—now the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—when he was Foreign Secretary telling us how useful he found foreign policy consultations when he first occupied that office in 1974. The great achievement of European political co-operation at that time was the Helsinki process, the conference on security and co-operation in Europe. It was one of the ways in which the west Europeans, as a group, managed to persuade the Soviet Union that pan-European consultations on security issues and on human rights and civil liberties were part of an East/West process. It was a time when the United States was not actively interested in European affairs.
I remember the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he was Foreign Secretary pressing, under British presidency, for a report to strengthen foreign policy consultations, which was of course the London report of 1980. I remember Michael Heseltine when he was defence Minister introducing a particularly useful initiative for the strengthening of the Western European Union because of the desirability—as it seemed to him—of strengthening European defence consultations and in particular of feeding through European defence

1399
consultations into a more common view about what kind of weapons we wished to procure. So there is nothing immensely new in this. I did not recognise the rather Churchillian picture of Britain as a world power surrounded by countries that did not look beyond their boundaries that the noble Lord. Lord Shore, presented to us. That is a very "East of Suez" depiction of the world. One of the questions we shall discuss when the strategic defence review is produced is where Britain's defence stands—
Lord Shore of Stepney: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, particularly after our earlier exchange. Is not the Gulf east of Suez?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The Gulf is indeed east of Suez. There are those who would say that we should be in the straits of Malacca and, if necessary, in the South China Sea, if the Americans want us to be there. When we discuss the strategic defence of Europe we shall discuss how far Britain needs, in the next 20 years, to be in the Gulf following the Americans. I have many questions about how far we should follow American Middle East policy.
I must apologise that I was absent from the Committee discussions on Tuesday. I am embarrassed to admit that I was in Brussels. There are, of course, a number of international organisations in Brussels. The one I was involved with on Tuesday was NATO. We discussed the formulation of NATO's new strategic concept which is to be presented next April for agreement among Ministers at which point—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is well aware—three new members will be accepted into NATO: the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. The NATO study on enlargement—announced some 18 months ago—included in its proposals that in the long run membership of NATO in Europe and of the European Union should ideally consist of the same number of countries. Part of the process of double enlargement on which we are after all engaged concerns countries which wish to join both the European Union and NATO. The suggestion which I think I inferred from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is that NATO is somehow more permanent than the European Union. That is something we could debate endlessly. That ties us up with the large question of the whole US/European relationship.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Not for the first time he precisely misunderstands what I said. NATO could disintegrate at any time. There was a proposal from one major political party here not that long ago that the United Kingdom should withdraw from it. It is possible that one day the Americans will be sufficiently irritated by the nonsenses which come from Brussels to leave NATO.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I remind the noble Lord that the Americans are in Brussels in strength. They have two large delegations there. I think the larger one is the American delegation to the European Union. The Americans are present in a great many of our discussions.
1400
The NATO strategic concept, which is under discussion, has—under pressure from our American allies—concentrated greatly on the European security and defence identity, and on strengthening co-operation among the European allies because that is what our American partners want of us. That is the link between the NATO discussions and the European Union discussions and what we have in these parts of the Treaty of Amsterdam. We are, after all, already deeply involved and engaged—I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, is now with us—in European defence co-operation. In 1998 we shall celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Dutch/British marine amphibious force. The British command the NATO rapid reaction force in Germany and are engaged in the multinational division. There is now a Franco/British air wing. I was interested to visit the British. Dutch and German naval staff involved in the standing force, eastern Atlantic some months ago.
Our defence is intimately integrated with our European allies. If we were to be involved in other conflicts, we would expect to be engaged with many of our European allies. The whole concept of combined joint task forces—the sort of things which are being discussed within NATO and within the European Union—concerns coalitions of the willing to take part in the kind of conflicts which we may see around the edge of Europe.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: The noble Lord has kindly given way. I take the point entirely that we have co-operation. It is co-operation for which he is calling. However, Article J.4 is prescriptive and states that we shall co-operate.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The noble Earl wishes to make language stretch beyond where we have currently stretched our obligations. I point to the experience of Bosnia where the Europeans are providing the hulk of the forces. The Europeans are also providing the bulk of the money. The Americans are still providing the policy leadership but are demanding—I was reading a couple of Madeleine Albright's recent speeches only yesterday—that the Europeans (the majority of EU member states have troops in Bosnia) should take a larger share of the burden. Much of the pressure for greater European defence co-operation comes from our American allies.
The Earl of Onslow: No one denies that it is a good idea to have defence co-operation, help and all the things which the noble Lord has described both in Brussels and in Bosnia. Bosnia was a mess-up to start with. However, it is not necessary to have the articles in the Treaty of Amsterdam to give us what we have already. We have that without the Treaty of Amsterdam.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I put it simply to the noble Lord. NATO has an escape hatch. The Treaty of Rome has no escape hatch whatever.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I note that the Treaty of Rome is regarded as something particularly pernicious. Over the past 30 or 40 years we have become more integrated with our neighbours and allies as regards defence. We are now discussing the reorganisation of the European defence industry in which British Aerospace, GEC and others are talking of mergers with their German and French partners. We are not quite in the position we were in 50 or 100 years ago. The kind of political and policy framework we need is therefore something we have to discuss.
Under CFSP, in the Treaty of Amsterdam we are talking about a High Representative who will be the Secretary-General of the Council, and a policy planning unit attached to the new High Representative which will comprise of diplomats seconded from national foreign ministries. The idea is that the High Representative should be someone of similar stature and standing to the Secretary-General of NATO. Again, that is not entirely foreign to what we are used to. It responds to the repeated American desire to have a more coherent dialogue with their European allies.
That is the way we are moving. Some Members of this House may not like the distance we have already moved. But let us recognise that that is what British defence and foreign policies are now about. I hope that the Government will explain to a largely uneducated British electorate our multilateral consultations, how the common foreign and security policy operates, how the Western European Union relates to the European Union and to NATO, and, in the context of the strategic defence review, the link between the Treaty of Amsterdam, the NATO discussions on the future of NATO and European defence, and the future of British foreign policy.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: Does the noble Lord agree with Article J.4, as regards co-operation, whether or not we like it?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The idea that we can stand alone on foreign policy is a wonderfully Churchillian idea. If a British defence and foreign policy is concerned with the defence of Europe as a whole, we are most likely to find ourselves co-operating with our partners and allies in responding to those threats, as in Bosnia. That seems to me to be what Article J.4 is about.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that further consideration on Amendment No. 5 be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that the House be now resumed until 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Armed Forces: Policy Changes
7.43 p.m.
Lord Inge Lord Inge rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the key new legal and personnel issues facing the fighting services, and, in particular, whether there are any which will affect their ethos and operational effectiveness.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I want to emphasise that I am not making any political points because some of the issues which I shall raise were in place before the present Government came to power.
I became increasingly aware during my time in Whitehall that we were battling on two fronts. The more obvious and public one was against the Treasury. The second was more difficult to define. It concerned the gradual and pervasive, but not necessarily intentional, undermining of the ethos and effectiveness of our three fighting services. This was in part due to legal regulation, quasi-moral attitudes, management speak, an apparent fixation on individual rights rather than individual responsibilities, and I think a lack of understanding about the realities of operational service. We should never forget that the raison d'être of our Armed Forces is to be prepared to go to war at short notice. People sign up to this as a statement, but they do not analyse what it means in reality.
The stark reality is that what is demanded of the military is unique because to be successful in war demands at times the total unconditional subordination of the interests of the individual to those of the group, if the needs or interests of the group demand it. This can of course lead to the surrender of life itself.
To be prepared for this reality, the Armed Forces need a disciplinary code that is tougher in certain respects than found in normal civilian life, but at the same time encourages self discipline. They also need hard, demanding, imaginative training with a degree of risk and an ethos and esprit de corps that stresses the importance of the group and not the individual, although great care is given to looking after the individual. I believe that it would be a mistake if the Armed Forces continue to introduce a management culture that seems to me to be one of deals and contracts rather than of community and commitment. They seem to be substituting peacetime market efficiency for operational military effectiveness and diluting the military culture through increasing civilianisation. Of course many civilian practices are admirable, but I know that the Armed Forces feel that they are costed but that their value, in particular their human value, is not understood.
So much for general points, my Lords. Let me highlight some specific issues, starting with military law and military discipline—key aspects of military effectiveness. The Armed Forces need a clear military chain of command which gives certain military commanders summary powers of punishment and is clearly understood by all ranks. Of course the Armed Forces must continue to be subject to the European Convention on Human Rights. But I am still not clear what the effect of its introduction into English law will have on the services system of summary jurisdiction and complaints

1403
procedure. If either of those change significantly, this will affect the relationship between the commander and those he or she commands.
I would add that enforcing military discipline and exercising military law makes heavy demands on commanders and, as General Hackett said, only a person of liberal mind is entitled to exercise coercion over others in a society of free men and free women.
The mention of law brings me to litigation. The first major indication of the problem posed by litigation was the large sums of compensation awarded to those servicewomen who became pregnant while still serving and who under the rules then in place were required to leave the service. Whatever the rights or wrongs of those particular cases, I know that they caused a great deal of resentment within the services.
I sense that there will be an increased use of litigation for accidents on training, given the loss of the Crown immunity. The problem is that we in the services do not want to develop cautious leaders. We need effective operational commanders. As I mentioned, training needs to be testing, and to contain a degree of risk. Only then will we give our fighting services the confidence and self-discipline necessary to prepare them for the shock and stress of battle. If we curb our commanders' initiative because of fear of litigation, the lives of our servicemen and servicewomen will be at greater risk. People are of course our most priceless asset, but in all I say please remember also the importance of the group.
Let me say a word about women in the services. This is inevitably a minefield because it is so easy to be misunderstood and misrepresented. I have the greatest respect for the quality, capability, intellect and mental strength of the women who are joining our Armed Forces. Their quality may well be higher on average than those of the men. But operations and the training necessary in peacetime mean that careful thought has to be given to the tasks given to women in war, for the cohesion of the group is all important.
Some years ago the Royal Navy, for manning reasons and because it seemed the right thing to do, decided to send women to sea other than in submarines. This policy is proving more difficult to implement than many expected. I am not saying that it will be changed or withdrawn, but we have to recognise the strains and stresses which this can mean not only for the women but for the commanders at the sharp end, and particularly if it means treating a small group with special care and differently. This will affect the cohesion of the team. We cannot ignore this as an issue, and certainly if it is necessary frequently to resort to punishment to make it work we have a problem. Before long, a decision will have to be made about whether women should be deployed at the front end of land battle; that is, in the Royal Armoured Corps and the Infantry. I have to say I wonder if that is sensible.
In addition, an increasing number of service personnel marry a fellow serviceman or woman and both remain in the service. Although that gives rise to some posting difficulties in peacetime, it is manageable. But what about the impact in war, particularly for those with children? Is it really responsible to deploy both
1404
parents on operations when one or both might be killed? The Americans had some difficulty with that during the Gulf War. There is also the problem, for example, of deploying to a Moslem country, where women sometimes cannot be deployed; that means that the team that has been built in peacetime has to be changed and split up at short notice. Men, on the same terms of service, have to move at short notice, perhaps at the expense of career courses.
The next personnel issue I wish to highlight is the need for the Armed Forces, like many other organisations, to attract more recruits from the ethnic minorities. Undoubtedly, there is a considerable pool of talent. The initiatives being mounted by the services are warmly to be welcomed and encouraged. The services must reflect the society of which they are a part. Of course, there are still some isolated pockets of prejudice to be overcome, but the service chiefs are to be commended on the positive and firm leadership that they have shown in this sensitive area. I would add that I wrote these remarks before I saw today's press. But we should not underestimate the challenge. Patience, understanding and time are required. In judging the success of this recruiting campaign, statistics alone will not be enough. It will be important not only to welcome the recruits from ethnic minorities, but at the same time make sure that they are not made to feel different or special. They have to be treated the same as everyone else. If they are treated with kid gloves for fear of litigation, media pressure or statistics, there will be resentment and, again, unit cohesion will suffer.
I turn now to the issue of homosexuals. Like so many personnel issues, this is highly sensitive and there are great pressures involved. I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals; I have no doubts about their loyalty to their country or their physical or moral courage. The key question we must ask is: what effect, because of their sexual orientation, will they have on the chain of command, and particularly on unit cohesion? I am afraid my sense is that it is likely to be a distorting and negative impact. The barrack room, tanks, ships and submarines are very different from the normal workplace.
I turn finally to European legislation and its effect on people. I am glad that common sense has prevailed and that the Armed Forces will not be subjected to the Working Time Directive in relation to working hours and rest hours. However, what about the Young Workers Directive and, under the social chapter, the Parental Leave Directive, which, if applied to the Armed Forces, would allow both husband and wife to take three months' unpaid leave up to eight years after the birth of a child. That will undoubtedly affect operational effectiveness.
I hope that I have given your Lordships a flavour of just some of the issues that are in danger of undermining the ethos of our fighting services. If taken together, they could have a seriously detrimental impact. These major issues are being addressed at a time of considerable overstretch and increased operational commitments. It would be a great step forward if the Strategic Defence Review, about which I hear very good reports, helped

1405
the Armed Forces to rediscover some of their deep self-confidence so that they can stand up for those differences on which they so much depend.
In this context, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that it would be wonderful if the Strategic Defence Review started with a chapter explaining the central issues: the role of the Armed Forces; the reality of combat; the critical importance of ethos and morale; and why the Armed Forces need in some areas to be different. Those issues are as important as, if not more important than, the number of ships, guns, tanks and aircraft in our inventory, and they seem to be under greater threat.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, perhaps I may start my remarks by saying that I completely agree with, and strongly support, what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, so wisely said in opening the debate. He has a lifetime of military experience, and we are most fortunate to have his counsel. I can confirm that he has brought to your Lordships' attention the very matters that concern and worry officers and non-commissioned officers at all levels in the Navy, Army and Air Force. I hope that some of my comments will give greater emphasis to the issues that the noble and gallant Lord has already addressed. First, I wish to touch on the Human Rights Bill and comment on a few of the articles of the Convention.
Article 2 states that everyone's right to life shall be protected. Does that mean that when troops are on operations, servicemen and women could refuse to remain at their place of duty because their life may be at risk? Will the Minister clarify the situation; and will he confirm that Article 5—on the right to liberty and security—will not impinge on military discipline; that Article 6—on the right to a fair trial—will not affect the lowest end of the military discipline rules for summary trial by a commanding officer; and will he also confirm that Article 10—on freedom of expression—will not be allowed to undermine loyalty and the high standards of conduct and self-discipline so essential to our Armed Forces.
I should now like to turn to some other matters. A draft United Nations optional protocol could prevent young people from joining the Armed Forces if they were under the age of 18. This would destroy the Army Foundation College and the school-leavers scheme. Her Majesty's Government should resist that at all costs, because, if this draft proposal should become law, it would not allow the Army to enlist young people as a first choice career on leaving school at the age of 16, but at 18 as a second career. That would inevitably affect recruiting, with the result that the Army would not be fully recruited in 2002, but some considerable time later.
Nothing should be imposed to slow down the current excellent recruiting effort if we are to ensure that servicemen and women and their families are happy individuals; are enjoying their role and the military way of life; are taking part in sport and adventure training; have more time with their families and time to learn
1406
more military skills, attend more courses and obtain civil qualifications. Fully recruited Armed Forces will provide retention and, in any event, those who do leave will do so as satisfied sailors, soldiers and airmen, who should draw others into the services.
Overstretch is at a critical level, and the Army is 5,000 personnel under strength. There are currently 4,000 established posts which cannot be filled. In addition, a further 2,000 posts have been identified over and above the existing establishment, and if the Army is to be run efficiently in the future, it needs to expand.
Finally, I welcome women in the services. The Army has 70 per cent. of its posts open to women, and let us see how they respond to those careers before we put them in armoured and infantry units.
The Strategic Defence Review will be not only of great importance to the United Kingdom, but of critical importance to the Armed Forces themselves. Countless officers, non-commissioned officers, men and women, have been staying in the services to evaluate how the Strategic Defence Review will affect them. There will be a great exodus, like a tidal wave, if the Strategic Defence Review results do not bring significant improvements and show positive proposals, or if it is presented in a poor and unimaginative way.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have listened with very great respect to the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge. My respect is increased by the fact that the highest rank I attained in the Armed Forces was that of a lieutenant in the Territorial Army. I do not want to deal, since I am not qualified to do so, with the personnel matters that he discussed. However, I do wish to deal briefly with the legal matters.
The noble and gallant Lord referred to the Human Rights Bill, as did, rather more specifically, the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. The alarm at the effect of the Human Rights Bill on the morale and efficiency of the Armed Services is, I believe, wholly unjustified. I should like to make four brief points on this matter.
First, the European Convention on Human Rights was drawn up 50 years ago, in the immediate aftermath of World War II and in the shadow of the Cold War. It is, therefore, extremely unlikely that its founding fathers would have wished to create a convention which would have sabotaged military discipline; nor, indeed, did they do so. Restrictions on the grounds of national security are permissible under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life; Article 10. the right to freedom of expression; and Article 11, the right to freedom of assembly and association. Those restrictions must naturally be limited to what is necessary in a democratic society. There is, of course, the power to derogate from most articles of the Convention in time of war or public emergency.
Secondly, the European Convention has applied to the Armed Forces for years without any kind of disaster. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights itself gave an important decision in the Findlay case which held that the provisions for courts martial under the Army Act 1955 did not satisfy the requirements of

1407
Article 6 of the Convention for trial by an independent and impartial tribunal. That was so clearly the case that the previous government changed the procedure of the courts martial in all the services before the appeal was heard and decided. They did so by the Armed Forces Act 1996. We now have a fairer courts martial system and I have heard no recent evidence that it has damaged discipline.
The European Court has recognised that the rights of members of the forces are not necessarily the same as the rights of civilians. In the crucial case of Engel v. Netherlands 1976, it held, for example, that an order for confinement of a soldier to barracks was not a deprivation of liberty in breach of Article 5. It held that proceedings for breach of military discipline carrying a maximum sentence of two to three weeks of military detention was not criminal proceedings for the purposes of Article 6.
Thirdly, the effect of the Human Rights Bill is to make the Convention rights applicable in the United Kingdom. The questions will be triable by British judges. The noble and gallant Lord speaking in the debate will know the noble and learned Lords who are current or retired Lords of Appeal. Many may know judges at lower levels. Do they seriously think that those people are likely to interpret Convention rights in ways which will destroy discipline? There may be some barrack room lawyers who will try their luck in the first few months of the Human Rights Act being in force, but they will not succeed.
Finally, it is not right that recruits should be deprived of the rights enjoyed by the rest of society, save to the extent inherent in military life. I do not believe, for example, that the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment is likely to damage morale. What this country needs are forces made up of highly skilled, well-educated volunteers. I do not believe that the proposed legal changes will have any detrimental effect on the morale of the forces.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, few noble Lords would contest that the primary requirement of the Armed Forces is to be so organised, disciplined, trained and motivated that they can carry out effectively their duty to protect this country's interests and uphold and support its foreign policy, albeit often in conjunction with others.
Of course, the Armed Forces cannot be, nor should they ever consider themselves to be, above the law of the land or what has come to be accepted as international law and conventions. But it would be rather absurd to pretend that some of the more minor and peripheral articles in the European Convention on Human Rights and other social trends already mentioned by my noble and gallant friend should apply quite to the same extent to the Armed Forces whose whole professional ethos is and must be based on discipline, instant obedience and total commitment as they do to those in civilian occupations largely free from the same obligations.
1408
Of course, any good commanding officer concerned about achieving the highest morale would take a keen interest in the stresses and strains imposed on their command and would do all they could to alleviate them. But in a disciplined, totally committed force, such things as hours of work and separation from families must be controlled by the exigencies of the service rather than by articles of a convention. One of the first qualities of a soldier is fortitude in enduring fatigue and hardship, and that implies a fairly exacting way of life.
Even freedom of speech—a much more basic and essential human right which no one would contest—must, in the interests of loyalty, security and consistent policies, have some restraints imposed on it. That applies not only, of course, to the Armed Forces, but to other public servants as well. Woe betide any member of the Armed Forces or public servant who openly criticise the way government Ministers might be mishandling a particular defence issue. I remember well the last Labour government—when the late Lord Mulley was in charge and the noble Lord. Lord Gilbert, was one of his Ministers—coming to the firm conclusion that trade unions had no part to play in the everyday life of our Armed Forces. So adjustments in personal freedoms and human rights have been made in the past—and rightly so—and, I suggest, should continue to be made if the ethos of military service is not to be diminished and operational effectiveness weakened.
Nor can one "kick the problem into touch"—and here I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhartmerely by saying that those articles would be of no consequence in peacetime and in war there would be the machinery, temporarily, to suspend them. Make no mistake, a conflict of interest between the chain of command and certain legal issues, as well as other "in vogue" social issues such as those already mentioned, could well exist at all times. The war criterion really has no meaning. Fighting men have to train realistically for war and in the last 50 years, although technically at peace, the Armed Forces have experienced a more or less continuous period of active operations which have required the same qualities of total commitment as all-out war demands.
Finally, noble Lords should remember that we are not talking about the Armed Forces at the end of a period of military defeats and disasters. For 50 years they have scarcely put a foot wrong, as so many military operations around the world have illustrated. They also have a reputation, certainly in comparison with other countries, for having positive and intelligent leadership, humane discipline and a sense of compassion for those swept up in conflict. So the way they have been professionally prepared must be largely on the right lines.
Moreover, as the Falklands, the Gulf and Bosnia have shown, the right ethos and motivation, and the willingness to take risks, to face danger and put their lives on the line, are often required from a standing start and cannot be created overnight. The sad thing is that the Ministry of Defence and the whole chain of command now seem to be spending more time and

1409
energy fretting about whether everyone is exactly in line with the latest management theories and social trends—undoubtedly desirable though some of those are in a wider context—than on creating the right conditions for high morale.
I too therefore ask the Government to bear in mind the unique military ethos so essential for Armed Forces before taking on board new articles or trends—many of them emanating from Europe—which would inevitably slightly dilute and weaken that ethos.
8.7 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, for introducing this Unstarred Question. I agree with him, but one phrase leaves me with uncertainty. He mentioned the total and unconditional surrender of rights. Death in action is that surrender, the final surrender. I remind noble Lords, if they need reminding, that we are free-born Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen, Northern Irishmen or United Kingdom citizens. I should like to extend and see extended all the rights that every single citizen in the United Kingdom enjoys and receives.
I, for one, was proud to take part in the votes in favour of the Human Rights Bill, which was piloted through your Lordships' House by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, supported by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill and others from these Benches. I listened with interest to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who said that the Bill would be damaging to the Armed Forces. I do not recall seeing in the newspapers or hearing through the grapevine the current chiefs of staff making any recommendations or serious objections to the Ministers in charge. Perhaps when he comes to wind up, the Minister will let us know whether that was the case. Did the chiefs of staff take up their right to see the Prime Minister? If not, why not? I assume, therefore, that the Human Rights Bill has, and will have, no deleterious effect on the ethos of the Armed Forces.
I was privileged to be a sub-unit commander and I dealt with cases summarily. I was advised by the NCOs in my command and listened to the soldiers state their case. I was the prosecuting counsel, obviously, the defending counsel and the jury. If the soldier was not satisfied he took his case up a chain of command and that chain of command worked. It always has and always will work. If it does not work, it could result in the disgraceful and unfortunate event of a mutiny.
There are two aspects that destroy the ethos of the Armed Forces—bullying and drugs. I look forward with interest to hear from the Minister how those can be totally eradicated from the Armed Forces. If we do not eradicate them, we are in trouble. I believe that every United Kingdom citizen has the right, whatever be his or her race, gender, creed or sexual orientation, to be treated fairly and honourably.
Finally, I was privileged to be part of the parliamentary all-party defence group. We travelled to British Forces, Germany. I was, as always, vastly impressed by the leadership and command from
1410
lieutenant-general down to trooper or private. I did not once hear any worries or concerns and assume, therefore, that the ethos and the good order of the Armed Forces is in splendid hands. I look forward to a strategic defence review and to answers to the questions I posed tonight to the Minister.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I rise to make a few observations of a philosophical kind on the line taken by my noble and gallant friend in asking his Question this evening. I realise that a philosophical discourse in three minutes is probably a rash endeavour, but I shall take a point of departure like his; that is, that service in the Armed Forces is a unique profession. It is unique in the precise sense of that word—there is literally no other occupation like it, if only for one reason, which has already been mentioned.
It carries with it what has been described by one of our more distinguished wartime generals as "unlimited liability". That is not a phrase used in the grand strategy sense that Liddell Hart might have used it, but meaning that it is only in the profession of arms that the individual undertakes to give his life if it becomes necessary to do so. Rather surprisingly, Clausewitz once wrote that war is like a game in which competitors stake their lives instead of their money. Whether or not one accepts that somewhat unfeeling analogy, it is from this acceptance of the unlimited liability that the whole ethos of the military profession is derived.
It calls for certain qualities, conventions and practices which are not required—or required to a lesser extent—in any other walk of life. One of those, perhaps the most important as my noble and gallant friend said, is a clearly defined command structure—not a management structure—linking the highest commander to the private soldier, sailor and airman; and within that command structure the morale, discipline and effectiveness of the Armed Forces requires an assumption, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall said, of prompt and unquestioning obedience to lawful commands—and that may be at any time of day or night, not just during the hours of business.
It is not immediately obvious to me how one applies some of the quite proper and valid standards and regulations of civilian life to a highly specialised and closely-knit organisation of that kind. Perfectly respectable concepts, like the minimum wage, the working week and equal opportunities, may not always be conducive to the efficient administration of the Armed Forces. It is certainly true that the practices and procedures of business management are often totally irrelevant to the exercise of command.
With that as a background I should have liked to pick up on some of the detailed points made so far during the course of the debate. But time is against me and against all of us this evening in this important exchange of views. Instead, perhaps I may say that I look forward with some confidence and a degree of optimism to the results of the Strategic Defence Review. If what one has heard from various sources is to be believed, we have reason to be confident about the results.

1411
However, I should like to offer the Minister a quotation from Professor Cyril Falls, the great military historian and analyst, from his book The Art of War—an indispensable work for anyone who seeks to understand the unique ethos of the military profession. He said,
"the leader is concerned with a vital element, as sensitive as a violin string and as likely to snap from wear, climate or mishandling, the morale of the men who fight under his orders".
We mishandle that element at our peril. As my noble and gallant friend Lord Inge said, one of the essential qualities of leadership in the Armed Forces is boldness and resolution. If, by misunderstanding the nature of the military ethos, we breed a race of cautious leaders, constantly looking over their shoulders in fear of pursuit by barrack-room lawyers, we shall be in serious danger of demoralising the men and women upon whom we depend for our national security.
8.16 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to speak on a defence matter because in the many years I have been in this House I have never done so before. But I intend to follow closely on what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, and to speak entirely philosophically. I intend to mention one or two matters about which my late father thought. That may be considered decidedly improper, but as he was widely considered to be a distinguished military leader, I felt that some of his military philosophy might be appropriate. I have no way of knowing—I hope the good Lord will spare me a little longer before we meet in the afterlife—whether my father would disapprove entirely of what I am about to say. But, having grown up in his shadow, studied his philosophy and both lectured and written on it, I felt that two points might be made.
First, Monty—it is easy to refer to him as such because that is how he was universally known—was thought by his critics to be cautious. But that so-called caution stemmed from his experiences in World War I where he experienced and saw the appalling and totally unnecessary carnage that took place. That shocked him. Indeed, he was badly wounded at the time and almost buried. I am always grateful for the fact that he was not put into the grave that was dug for him, and perhaps other people may feel likewise.
What he learnt from that was that the individual frequently had to be sacrificed for the good of the group. His philosophy was based on the fact that casualties were inevitable, but if he planned the battle and dictated its terms as he wanted them, they could be minimised to achieve the victory. It was that confidence-building measure that was a major plank of his strategy and his philosophy about war, which he took great trouble to explain to all his soldiers. Of course, he was not without critics, but they were generally among his superiors and other generals.
I now turn to morale, which was mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, and other Members of your Lordships' House. Monty considered that morale was the single most important battle-winning factor. "You do not have to tell the soldiers all the truth, but everything you tell them must be the truth". It was
1412
that confidence-building measure that was very much at the heart of his philosophy and was vital to the success of his campaigns. If he had been here he might have taken as his text a favourite and much-quoted verse from the Corinthians:
"If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle".
It is against that background that I ask the Government to think carefully and be cautious in all matters which affect the morale and operational efficiency of our Armed Forces.
8.19 p.m.
The Earl of Effingham: My Lords, there are a number of areas of concern in the Human Rights Bill but I will deal with the most crucial, Article 6. It states that anyone charged with a criminal offence,
"is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal".
As your Lordships know only too well, the services, by necessity, have their own judicial and disciplinary system to deal with offences fairly, openly and speedily. Whether it is on a warship at sea, or an army or air force unit on active service abroad, there is not the luxury of being able to send people home, or suspend them on pay, while disciplinary offences are dealt with. It means matters can be dealt with in a timely fashion and, most importantly, justice is seen to be done by all concerned, thereby reinforcing discipline and avoiding, in many cases, individuals having to be removed from their duties.
Summary disciplinary proceedings in the Royal Navy, the service I know best, mirror as closely as possible the procedures in our magistrates' courts, but with one crucial exception. The person hearing the case is the accused's commanding officer. While those of us who have served in Her Majesty's forces know only too well how every commanding officer in each service approaches his disciplinary duties both impartially and with an independent mind, some may have a very different perception, as we have already heard. How can it be said, they would argue, that a person's line manager is an independent tribunal? Allied with this is the right, to be enshrined in the Bill, for an accused,
"to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require".
Are the services to fly lawyers out to ships at sea and units abroad? Are they to delay trials, or fly personnel back to the United Kingdom? All are equally unpalatable. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was very clear on the subject in the case of Fraser and Mudge in 1975 when he said:
"It seems to me that disciplinary cases fall into a very different category. We all know that when a man is brought up before his commanding officer for a breach of discipline, whether in the armed forces or in ships at sea, it has never been the practice to allow legal representation. It is of the first importance that the cases should he decided quickly. If legal representation were allowed, it would mean considerable delay … They must he heard and decided speedily".
I am not suggesting we deny our servicemen the right to have recourse to that European law. What I believe we must do is to tackle these issues now, openly and

1413
honestly, before the Bill undermines the military discipline and, ultimately, the operational effectiveness of our services.
If our officers and NCOs serving in the Gulf, Bosnia or Belfast have to look over their shoulders for lawyers in order to maintain discipline at each juncture, they will soon become no match for tyrants like Saddam Hussein, who cares little for the rights of his own soldiers, let alone our own legal niceties. That is what the Bill could mean.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I wish to make only two points: the first is rather philosophical and the second relates to the question of ethnic minorities in the services. First, I have been a little concerned about the question of NATO enlargement. I am conscious that one of the conditions NATO is attaching to enlargement is that the Armed Forces of applicant states should be clearly under civilian control and should, as far as possible, reflect the democratic values of the societies which they wish to defend. That is a principle which all Armed Forces should observe.
We have had problems within the past few years; with the Spanish Armed Forces until after the death of Franco; with the Greek Armed Forces with members of NATO in the 1970s, and to some extent—one has to say it sadly and delicately—with the Turkish Armed Forces still today. There is an unavoidable tension. When one talks about the need for military discipline for the cohesion of the group, one nevertheless needs to make sure as far as possible that Armed Forces should be rooted in the societies which they defend and should as far as possible reflect the values of the societies which they defend. That is not entirely easy when what we need now in a post-Cold War world is small, highly trained, mobile forces willing to operate in foreign countries, if necessary for extended periods of time. It is much easier to do that with civilian citizen armies recruited en masse, of the kind we had 50 to 100 years ago.
The Territorial Army remains as one of the most useful links between our small regulars and our larger society. That is one of the things which we need to note in the Strategic Defence Review. It is precisely the territorial links which the British armed services have had that has helped to make sure that our armed services have continued to reflect the values of our society. As the values of our society change, so necessarily the values of our Armed Forces have somewhat to change with them. I doubt whether social change, in particular changes between the sexes—as people get married and hope to have two careers—will permit continuing dependence on such long-term recruitment of servicemen. I suspect we will need to move back towards a larger proportion of our armed services who are young people, not yet married, and not yet encumbered with children. Armed services with wives and children are costlier.
1414
Every time I walk along the Royal Gallery I see the picture of HMS "Victory" at Trafalgar, and I notice two things. First, it had women on board; and, secondly, the sailor who is pointing to the marine who shot Nelson is black. They do not seem to have had too many problems in reflecting some odd bits of their society while still maintaining discipline.
I was glad to receive today a copy of the Armed Forces agreement with the Commissioner for Racial Equality under which it establishes a five year partnership with the Armed Forces to promote racial equality practices across all of the services. If there were a proportion of our Armed Forces which reflected accurately the proportion of ethnic minorities in British society, the short-fall of 5,000 recruits which we have would be much less than it is today. If the regulars reflected the composition of the cadet forces, the short-fall would be much less than it is today.
I welcome that agreement. This is one of the ways in which the Armed Forces have to change and are changing. The nature of the military ethos, the cohesion of the group, has to be blended in civil values. I hope the Minister will confirm that the agreement with the Commission for Racial Equality takes us a useful step further forward in that direction.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, a number of the speakers in the debate have naturally found that the expression of their gratitude to the noble and gallant Lord for introducing this debate must be truncated because of the shortage of time. I have undertaken to do it for them. It is an extremely important subject and we must hope that the Strategic Defence Review, which is being signed this week, will be put together in the context of keeping the men and women of the Armed Forces happy and confident about their future.
The successful manipulation of legal and personnel issues plays a large part in the maintenance of the fighting spirit and morale of the Armed Forces. At present, this is still remarkably high even after the events of the past 10 years. In 1990 the Berlin wall came down. Since then we have had the Gulf War with problems alleged to have been caused by chemical agents. We have had Options for Change, the Defence Costs Studies and now the Strategic Defence Review. We shall be talking about the Territorial Army in three weeks' time. Therefore, I shall leave that on one side.
Noble Lords have tonight touched on all the obvious issues. Courts martial and military discipline generally; ethnic matters; homosexuality; women in combat and particularly at sea, have all raised problems which were unknown as recently as the time when the wall came down. Regarding women at sea, the problem has largely gone away, in spite of what the papers say. Of course there are still bad eggs of both sexes, but they are few. Even the equally serious matter of the morale of wives left at home is now much less evident than it was a year or so ago.
On the coloured question, I understand that recently a corporal in the Corps of Drums in the Coldstream Guards in Germany refused to come home to appear in

1415
the group of coloured men in the Services who were displayed to the press. He is alleged to have said, "If the whole Corps of Drums comes over, I will do so; but I am not going to be singled out". Another drummer, when offered a post as a drummer, said that his great-grandfather, who had fought at Rorke's Drift, would be turning in his grave to see him. The British have a number of coloured men and women in their Forces. Those two are certainly very happy where they are.
Morale is remarkably high even though the Services are so over-pressed. There is a feeling that training is being sidelined due to the almost continuous tours of duty. Nevertheless, much remains to be done and a lot of it is easy and cheap. For instance, the takeover of NAAFI by SPAR has led to a poor selection of British food in Germany and higher prices. This could easily he cured.
But the main cause of complaint is the lack of toys to play with. The Army Air Corps, with new equipment, is all right, but the artillery cannot fire their guns and there are no tanks to drive—at least until Challenger 2 is fully operational. The number of tanks is a major issue in SDR. but this is rather different. In Northern Ireland the men are not out on the streets. They must be in the Province, but they are bored—not only the infantry but other arms which are filling an infantry role.
In the late 1990s the separation of men and women from their families is not so easily accepted as it was 50 years ago. HMS "Invincible" has just come back from the Gulf. She was due back before Christmas until the Iraq crisis intervened. The Royal Navy took many of the families out to the more salubrious areas to join the servicemen. That did something to keep them happy, but such duties as 90-day submarine trips do not make the wives happy, and great pressure is put on the older and more experienced men to come out of the Service. But the Services themselves and the Government which control the men's lives must make every effort to see that they are happy; that they have a career structure and that when they come out they will get good employment. Without that, the present position, where the three Services are punching well above their weight in the league table of the world's armies, will cease to exist.
In conclusion, I say one thing to the Minister and his colleague, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In terms of morale remember Guardsmen Wright and Fisher.
8.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, for giving us the opportunity for this debate, which is very welcome to Her Majesty's Government. Normally, I would begin my remarks in your Lordships' House by going through the various speeches made in the debate, but I thought that on this particular occasion I would like to start with a couple of points that I particularly want to get on the record. If I do not have time to refer to the speeches of all noble Lords in detail,
1416
I am sure that they will accept my assurance that I shall be writing to them about any points that I have not dealt with.
I begin with reference to a subject touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire; namely, the agreement that has just been announced between the CRE and the Army and their five-year partnership agreement. That is extremely good news. There are one or two quotations from Sir Herman Ouseley, the chairman of the Commission, which I believe your Lordships will welcome. He said that the Commission fully recognised the leadership being shown at the top of the Armed Forces was a,
"model of leadership in action".
He described the Army's outreach work as exemplary and leadership on promoting racial equality policies at the top of each Service was seen by the CRE as an "example to all". Needless to say, Her Majesty's Government are absolutely delighted that the CRE felt able to make remarks like that. My colleague, the Minister for Armed Forces in the other place, has described the five-year partnership as an indication of the Services' determination to build on the progress that has been made and to ensure that any old habits do not return.
In that context, I should also like to inform your Lordships that we are improving the amount of racial awareness training being given to officers in all three Services. The current position is that all staff at brigadier level or the equivalent and who have responsibility for managing civil servants, must attend Civil Service-run equal opportunities awareness courses. As from 1st July this year, when the new Service Equal Opportunities Training facility at Shrivenham comes into operation, every service officer—I repeat, every service officer—of Brigadier rank or equivalent and above will be required to take equal opportunities training there. We place extreme importance on that. As noble Lords may have seen from recent press reports, the lead is going to be taken by the Chief of the Defence Staff himself who has expressed his own personal intention of attending one of these courses.
It is not often that Defence Ministers have been able to come to the Dispatch Box in this House and bring good news about recruitment to your Lordships. I am glad to say, although we by no means believe that we are out of the tunnel yet, that the Army is set to declare its best recruiting results since 1991. We have a predicted achievement rate of 97 per cent. of targets for officers and 88 per cent. for soldiers. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that that is an extraordinary achievement, particularly when it is set against the continuing pattern at the moment of improvement in the United Kingdom economy and falls in unemployment still being reported every month.
I now turn to some of the points made by noble Lords in this debate. Of course, Her Majesty's Government accept the need for a clear chain of command and for the power of summary punishment. as the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Inge and Lord Bramall, mentioned. He said that he was not clear as to the effects of the Human Rights Bill on the complaints procedure and on

1417
summary jurisdiction within Her Majesty's Forces. I believe that there is a lot of confusion about this. It is not only the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, who, quite understandably, has difficulties with it.
As I understand the effect of this Bill, it does nothing more than say that rights that have existed ever since the United Kingdom signed up to the Convention on Human Rights many years ago will now be accessible in the first instance through the courts in this country without people having to go to Europe to get enforcement of those rights. In other words, there is absolutely no change whatever as a result of this Bill in the rights of servicemen or in disciplinary procedures.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, for giving me detailed notice of what he was going to say today. Perhaps he will permit me to read out to your Lordships passages from a letter that my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces wrote to him a few days ago. It might make the situation clearer to all noble Lords. My honourable friend wrote,
"I can assure [the noble Lord] that the Human Rights Bill will have no direct effect on the courts-martial procedure system, which will remain the proper route for dealing with disciplinary charges against Service personnel. The Human Rights Bill will not allow Service personnel to elect for trial by a civil court, thereby bypassing the military system".
A little later on in the final paragraph of Dr. Reid's letter to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, he wrote,
"I can assure you that [the Ministry of Defence] has been giving very careful consideration to the possible implications for the Armed Forces of the Human Rights Bill. The Armed Forces have been subject to the Convention since 1953".
The situation is no different from what it has been as far as the rights of servicemen and the responsibilities of servicemen and disciplinary procedures in force since 1953.
The letter also states:
"the Human Rights Bill does not change their substantive rights under the Convention. The way in which the Convention is interpreted can, however, change over time in response to individuals' changing expectations and changes in society generally. That is something which we will therefore need to keep under review".
With those quotations from my honourable friend's letter, I hope that I have managed to lay to rest some of the fears which noble Lords have expressed this evening.
I believe that it was also the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, who asked about the parental leave directive. I am briefed that it will apply to the services once it is adopted under the social chapter. We are not able to renegotiate directives which have been made under that chapter, but we can request postponements of people asking for their three months' leave; but that is only one three-month period in the eight years after the birth of a child.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, although I am quite unable to follow him in all the legal precedents that he quoted for your Lordships'
1418
illumination. I understand that the position that he laid out was precisely that of Her Majesty's Government. He gave chapter and verse of why he thought the proposed legal changes would have no detrimental effect on discipline. That is certainly the view of Ministers.
The noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, asked whether or not the Chiefs of Staff asked to see the Prime Minister. If they did, I am not aware of it and I think that I would have known about it if they had. The noble Earl said that the eradication of bullying and drugs was essential. That must be the objective of all of us, as is the eradication of racial prejudice. I have given examples of the leadership which the forces are giving in this respect. I only wish that I could give guarantees that bullying and drugs will be permanently eradicated but. unfortunately, that is not the human condition.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked how we would apply standards of civilian life to the forces, if I understood him correctly from the notes that I made of his speech. I must make it clear that we are not required under the legislation to apply standards to the forces that we think inappropriate.
I welcome the noble Viscount. Lord Montgomery of Alamein, to his maiden speech in a defence debate. I hope that we hear many more from him in the years ahead. I do not think that any Member of this House would dissent from a single word that he said, drawing as he was fortunately able to do on the experience of his father. I do not think that any Member of your Lordships' House or serving officer would dissent from the proposition that morale is the single most important battle-winning factor.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been taking all the matters raised by your Lordships into account when formulating his proposals for the strategic defence review. I regret that I have to ask your Lordships to be a little patient. It will not be long before the review reaches the public gaze. I was a little startled, however, to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that it would be signed this week. That was news to me, but perhaps the noble Lord knows things that I do not know. It would not be the first time.
Lord Burnham: My Lord, I was determined not to get up because I know that the Minister is short of time. I understand that I am right, but an awful lot of things need to be done before it is published, including involving the Treasury.
Lord Gilbert: Indeed, my Lords, it is Thursday evening now and if it is to be signed this week, all that I can say is that somebody will have to get their skates on.
Finally, I cannot help but thank again the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for saying that morale is remarkably high in Her Majesty's forces. I recall, however, that that is not quite the message that he gave on a previous occasion at the Dispatch Box, but I shall refrain from dilating any longer on that point.

1419
If I have not managed to cover all the concerns raised by your Lordships I undertake to write to noble Lords in the next few days. I assure the House that the points made about the necessity of maintaining morale and the importance of discipline are matters of which all Her Majesty's Ministers and all leaders of the Armed Forces are totally seized.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
8.45 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1: Amendment No. 5.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: One factor not so far mentioned in our deliberations is that the European Union's common foreign and security policy has failed at pretty well everything it has attempted. One has only to cite the Falklands war, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Liberia, the Middle East and Iraq to see that that is so. Indeed, it is hard to think of any foreign policy area in which the European Union has been successful. I may be wrong about that, in which case no doubt the Minister will put me right.
One of the European Union's problems is that it has interfered in those areas not because it was able to bring any particular expertise or influence to bear but because it wished to justify the existence of a foreign policy which is, after all, one of the essential features of a state. We all know that the European Union has great ambitions to become a single state; at least, our partners in the European Union do, even if British governments, of every hue, continue to deny it.
Often, too, the European Union's unhelpful interventions are inspired by a pathetic desire to show the Americans that the Europeans are master in their own continent. As the Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, M. Jacques Poos, so dangerously put it at the start of the Yugoslavian problems:
"If there is one problem which Europe can solve, it is Yugoslavia".
How wrong he was, and at what cost.
With this history, it is very worrying that there is not more discussion about exactly why European foreign and defence policy has failed so dismally and why it is likely to continue to do so. Even more worrying, however, is that one can now discern the voices of bad workmen blaming their tools and starting to ask for newer and sharper tools so that they can do better in future. Some of those newer tools are clearly in the Treaty of Amsterdam.
That is to me reminiscent of past discussions about socialism. If, 20 years ago, one pointed out, as one often did, that socialism did not work economically, politically, culturally or morally, one often met the response that that was because there was not enough of it, or that it was not sufficiently pure, or that it was being polluted by elements of the market economy, and so on. I hope that we shall not hear that sort of answer
1420
from the Government tonight. Many noble Lords have pointed out the folly of what is now contemplated by the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act at Maastricht and now by these very dangerous modifications agreed at Amsterdam. There is only one thing to do with them—and that is to scrap them.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I shall not detain the Committee for long, but we must recognise that we are an island race with world-wide responsibilities which have been developed through past centuries and which are not to be negated or abandoned in favour of the Amsterdam Treaty as implemented by the Council of Europe. A common foreign policy can be implemented in the final analysis only by the use of defence forces and in the extremely short term. That is the import of the Treaty of Amsterdam; it will conflict with NATO. It is a deliberate attempt to remove the Anglo-Saxon influence. If that is not xenophobic what is? Are we all to be taken to court for being xenophobic because we like to look after the Anglo-Saxon influence in the world?
When the crisis in Iraq occurred the disarray was obvious. This is not a good augury for a common position. I direct one comment to the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke cogently about co-operation with which we are very much in agreement. However he did not recognise or appear to have read Article J.4 which is entirely prescriptive. It does not allow us exit from any common arrangements that may be made.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: The Government may be assisted to know that noble Lords on these Benches do not necessarily agree with one another. Some of us believe that the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act, the Treaty of Maastricht and now the Treaty of Amsterdam are very good measures. I believe that it is worthwhile intervening very briefly in this matter to state that we are not wholly united. Some noble Lords believe that the Treaty of Rome was the forerunner to the establishment of peace in Europe which has existed for more than 50 years. It is that aspect of the Treaty of Rome we are addressing tonight. I believe that what the Government are doing in continuing with the unification of Europe is extremely good. I shall continue to support them and what my noble friend Lord Wallace has said throughout the remaining stages of this Bill when I have the opportunity to do so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The comment of the noble Viscount brings me to my feet. He will be well aware that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was formed long before the Treaty of Rome of 1957. If anything has kept the peace in Europe it is not the European Community, the European Union or the Common Market; it is NATO. The noble Viscount should be aware that the greatest threat to western Europe was the Russian blockade of Berlin in 1949. That blockade was broken not by the European Union—which had not been formed at that time—but by the United States and Britain acting together. They ferried

1421
by air all of the supplies that Berlin needed. It is true that the French provided a little help but it was a little because they were unable to do more. I want to nail once and for all the suggestion that it is the Treaty of Rome that has kept the peace in Europe. That is not the case. The peace in Europe has been kept by NATO and the Atlantic alliance.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: The noble Lord, Lord Shore, said so much of what I originally intended to say that I have scrapped about two-thirds of my speech, which I am sure will come as a relief to the Committee. Nevertheless, I should like to make a number of points. Particular stress has been placed on Articles 12 and 13 and the adoption of joint action and common positions. Reference has also been made to Article 15 which requires member states to ensure that their national policies conform to the common position. I do not believe that that gives us any choice because it is an obligation placed upon us by the treaty.
Article 17 announces the framing of a common EU defence policy based on fostering closer institutional relations with the WEU leading to a common defence with a view to integrating the WEU into the Union. Meanwhile, it provides access to an operational capability under Article 17.2, notably humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping and tasks of combat forces in crisis management including peacemaking. Essentially, that is the WEU's Petersberg mandate.
I should like to comment particularly on Article 28 which has financial implications I find disturbing. What machinery is there for clearing a cost benefit analysis with member states and getting their agreement to a defence budget every year? It is significant that the inter-institutional agreement regarding the financing of the CFSP is between the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission and that it is attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam but does not form part of the formal treaty on European Union. What is its status? The text says that the agreement was finalised in July 1997 and that the provisions are now in force. At what stage, if at all, were member states consulted on the powers taken to create this budget, and will national parliaments have no control over it? That is the kind of question that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asks and answers, but I wish to pose it at this stage.
It will be said that there is one saving grace in the new treaty that should serve to compensate for the many new fetters that it rivets upon us; that is, the statement in Article 23 that QMV will not be used to enforce joint action or common positions when decisions have military or defence implications. However, those are the very tasks for which the EU intends to use the Western European Union and its resources under Article 15.3.
There cannot be any doubt that the EU has now given itself a mandate for setting up its own defence machinery and strategy and is moving purposefully away from the present position, which has served us and Europe well in NATO for over 50 years, of independent nation states freely working together but working as national governments answerable to national parliaments and implementing national strategy.
1422
Defence is the first duty of any government and governments have to answer to their parliaments when they send men out to be killed, even when they are peacekeepers. Defence has to continue to be inter-governmental, not under supranational control. Nation states have to make their own decisions on matters of the life and death of their citizens and the use of increasingly scarce human resources. Our own strategic defence review has already shown that, even in carrying out our own national tasks, which already include peacekeeping in Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Cyprus and the Falklands.
When people dismiss our role east of Suez they forget that we have the Caribbean and the Commonwealth—a world wide constituency that we must look after and to which we must answer. We must make hard choices to match resources to commitment. It would be impossible for us to be required to respond in addition to government-by-committee in Brussels, particularly in view of the discrepancies between membership of the WEU, where all nine full members belong both to the EU and to NATO and are covered by the NATO defence guarantee, and that of the EU. There are European members of NATO—Turkey, Norway and Iceland—who are not members of the EU. They are also covered by NATO but not the WEU guarantee. The WEU has five observer members; Denmark, which is covered by the NATO guarantee, and four neutrals, who are also members of the EU, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria. The WEU has associate partnerships with nine states: Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and the three Baltic states. As one FCO document put it well some time ago:
"Congruence between the membership of WEU and the EU is not complete".
The WEU is not exactly over-burdened with military resources. There is already not a little triple-hafting going on between the Allied Command Europe Reaction Force (ARRC), which is part of NATO's Allied Command Europe, the NATO-led forces in Bosnia, and the WEU. When the EU talks in Article 17 of,
"availing itself of the WEU to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications",
where, may I ask, are the troops cominig from? Britain, as the framework country—the lead country in ARRC—provides 60 per cent. of the troops and resources; the Americans 20 per cent.; the Netherlands 7 per cent.; and the others equally small or smaller contingents. In some respects it can be said to be a case of two generals and two stretcher bearers, or maybe a field hospital. The German army of 305,000 men is constrained as to where it can operate by perfectly valid political decisions. It had to pull together a contingent of individual volunteers for Bosnia who had never served together as a unit. Of our own existing commitments, too many are already peacekeeping so that training in the main area of defence is suffering badly, as is morale. The French, the joker in the pack, also have overseas commitments and a somewhat volatile relationship with NATO, although not of course with the EU. Are the Government to make provision in the defence review for more troops, aircraft and weaponry for the committees in Brussels to despatch somewhere to carry out their very own

1423
operations, paid for and executed by us? And what about the four neutral members who are to participate "fully and on an equal footing" in planning and decision making? The condition is of course that they contribute to the task, but it seems unlikely that the contribution could be more than token since for one thing, Ireland and Sweden, to take two of them are already fairly active UN peacekeepers.
I quail, and so should the Government, at the proposed proliferation of busy, opaque committees, working groups, directives, joint action, co-decision and so forth which we can now expect before the Brussels mountain brings forth a series of expensive and unwanted mice. The present arrangements of WEU and NATO work perfectly well. We simply cannot afford the administrative burden which the Commission will now proceed to lay on the weary shoulders of our planners and our troops, and I can only pray that implementing EMU leaves them no time to do anything else for a while. Meanwhile I strongly support the proposal for regular reports to Parliament, preferably before and not after action has been taken.
I have one last point—and an important one—upon which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, might disagree were he here. Once the EU starts to present itself as a single entity claiming to have the capacity to conduct a supranational Union defence policy, we can probably expect the Americans to take their cue to withdraw from Europe. Without American logistics and air power there can be no effective European military operation, not even peacekeeping and humanitarian rescue, and there will be a serious threat to stability in a potentially volatile world. At present the British presence in Germany, as the lead nation in ARRC, and at Land Command, is playing a very important role in creating that stability, as well as creating an excellent relationship with the Germans at local level. That is something positive. That is a worthwhile part of being in the EU, but it is national.
I can only hope that the Government's blessed position at the heart of Europe will enable them to put the brakes on. It is quite difficult enough to deal with the delicate issue of Russia's relationship with Europe in the defence field through NATO where I believe it will work. We should not confuse that situation. The Union, after all, will have its hands full with enlargement and its consequences. Let us insist that it puts its toy soldiers away and refuse to play its war games.
Lord Moynihan: I feel that I must comment upon the procedural exchanges which took place earlier this evening. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Whitty, will accept my observations on those interventions. First, there is no one in this Chamber who condones filibustering, or have we witnessed any filibustering during the lengthy proceedings of this Committee? The unusual yet important nature of the amendments under consideration make them, by definition, wide ranging, detailed and deserving of serious consideration.
1424
Every aspect of this legislation has far-reaching constitutional importance. Indeed, it is of such significance that it merits a nationwide referendum in Denmark, the result of which may negate all the work undertaken on this treaty in both Houses.
Secondly, agreement has been reached to couple together important issues for the convenience of this Committee, so no constructive contributions should be curtailed. To take an example, foreign affairs and defence this evening could have been separated, but this place and the usual channels decided that they would be joined. The Committee would expect them to be properly debated.
Thirdly, this Bill was ruthlessly guillotined in another place. This place has a duty and reputation to fill the void created there, and to seek amendments, and, where appropriate, revisions to this legislation, whenever possible and wherever necessary.
Fourthly, I heard no repetition in the eloquent and invaluable contribution to our proceedings of the noble Lord, Lord Shore. What I did hear from the noble Lord. Lord Whitty, was a criticism of one of the most respected noble Lords in this Chamber. I may disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shore, but I respect his integrity, his oratory, his commitment, and his utter sincerity.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps—
Lord Moynihan: I shall give way in a moment, if I may just finish this point. I am frankly astonished that the Government should so criticise a senior Labour Peer.
Lord Whitty: I fear that the noble Lord's recollection is faulty. There was nothing that I said that was criticism of my noble friend Lord Shore. I was pointing out, reacting to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the Companion provides guidance on the length of speeches. I was respectfully requesting my noble friend to observe that. It is completely untrue that there was any criticism of the contents of my noble friend's speech or of his conduct. I was just pointing out the normal procedure of this place, which I think is the job of the Government Whip.
Lord Moynihan: On the contrary, it was made explicitly clear by the noble Lord, in echoing the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Shore, was speaking was too lengthy. That was precisely the point that was being made. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, should make that point, because his party had already spoken from the Front Bench on this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, spoke eloquently on it. Clearly, his Front Bench did not believe that that was long enough.
If one combines the contributions from that Front Bench, 24 minutes of contributions came from the Liberal Democrats Front Bench. I find it even more surprising that criticism should be made about the length of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, when it was felt necessary that on this one amendment the Front Bench required 24 minutes.

1425
There is a considerable degree of cross-party support for the manner in which these complex and, in some ways, unique Committee proceedings are to be managed. I hope that intemperate, and in my view ill judged, procedural interventions will not prejudice the future handling of this Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I hesitate to break a confidence, but I recall a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who asked me whether I was intending to speak in this debate and said that he hoped that I might contribute on the defence dimension upon which my noble friend Lady Williams had not touched. I am sorry that I acceded to the suggestion. I thought that that was something that contributed to the debate. I recognise that the politics of the Conservative Party are such that one has to do all sorts of funny things on the Front Bench. I merely wish to record that that was the conversation we had.
Lord Moynihan: I am more than happy to echo that as a completely accurate reflection of the conversation. I welcomed the noble Lord's contribution in the substantive debate on the amendments before the House tonight. I should be only too happy if he felt it necessary to make further contributions on the amendments, but that was not the point that I was making.
My point was on the interventions specifically criticising the length of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, which I believe was an unjustified criticism from the Government Benches and from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. He may find that amusing, but I can tell him that it is not a matter which the Official Opposition find amusing or are light-hearted and relaxed about. We intend to consider the Bill in detail. If the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is challenging me because he feels that it is light-hearted to draw to the attention of the Committee the importance of detailed consideration of the Bill he should have sat through every aspect of our proceedings. I can promise him that we on these Benches intend to look into the legislation, to question the Government and to take as much time as is necessary to ensure that there is full and detailed consideration. That is no laughing matter.
I wish to consider a number of key areas relating to defence policies. It is covered in this section of the treaty under Article J.7 and revises the original Treaty of Maastricht, Article J.4. It is addressed in new Clause 42 standing in my name. From these Benches, I offer the Government our unreserved support for resisting merging the European Union with the Western European Union. The Prime Minister is rightly proud of the article in the treaty which states that NATO, rather than the European Union, is the cornerstone of our defence. Likewise, the previous administration was proud of the explicit reference expressing a similar sentiment in the Maastricht text which stated that nothing undertaken by the EU should prejudice the importance of NATO.
1426
Under Article J.7, the role of the WEU is defined as to support the Union in the,
"framing of the defence aspects of the common foreign and security policy",
and to provide the EU with access to the,
"operational capability to enable it to undertake the Petersberg tasks",
which consist of,
"humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacekeeping".
However, behind that reasonable definition of the WEU's role, there lurk worrying integrationist moves towards the EU common defence and this is why I have tabled new Clause 42 which seeks to give Parliament—and Parliament is the important word here—an enhanced role in determining the appropriate relationship between the European Union and the Western European Union.
First, Article J.7, paragraph 1, foresees the,
"progressive framing of a common defence policy",
which,
"might lead to a common defence policy".
This is a revision of Article J.4, paragraph 1, in the Treaty of Maastricht, in which direct EU involvement in defence tasks was to be "eventual". Therefore, the framing of a common defence policy is now no longer to be "eventual", but "progressive".
Secondly, in the Treaty of Maastricht. Article J.4, paragraph (2), the,
"Union requests the WEU, which is an integral part of the development of the Union, to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications".
This system of "requesting" provided for an informal relationship between the two bodies which retained distinct identities. Now, instead of the European Union requesting that the WEU undertakes actions on its behalf, the Union will now,
"avail itself of the WEU to elaborate and implement decisions and actions which have defence implications".
Thirdly, under Article J.7, the text states unequivocally that,
"the Union shall accordingly foster closer relationships with the WEU with a view to the possibility of integration of the WEU into the Union".
The phrase "possibility of integration" worries me greatly. What guarantees can the Minister give that, despite the possibility of a merger enshrined in treaty form for the first time, no such merger will take place? For if this treaty gives explicit recognition that NATO is the foundation of our common defence, it also gives an explicit recognition of the possibility of an EU and WEU merger and the first steps towards the common defence identity for the European Union.
Given that Article J.7 states that,
"the CFSP shall include all questions relating to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy… which might lead to a common defence should the European Council so decide".
and given the statement before the election that,
"Labour will not permit an EU Commissioner to determine our defence policy",

1427
can the Minister give an assurance that we are not slowly but surely moving into the orbit of an unrealistic, potentially damaging European common defence identity? For decisions on defence policy must be taken by consensus and must remain where they belong—with sovereign nation states. The European Union is not equipped to fulfil that role. At present it contains four neutral countries which do not share the obligation to mutual defence upon which both NATO and the WEU full membership are founded. It would be quite wrong for those countries to have an equal say in decisions affecting those who do.
Nor does the EU have any of the operational expertise or the working understanding with NATO which the WEU has gradually acquired over the past few years and which will be essential to the success of future European-led operations. Finally, it would be inappropriate for the Commission, the European Parliament or the European Court of Justice to have any role in defence decision-making.
I should like to take a step back for a moment and consider what role the EU should have in the field of security policy. Of course, member states of the European Union have many interests in common. There is a role for the common foreign and security policy in safeguarding and advancing those interests. That is a role in which this country can play a prominent part. From these Benches, we are keen to develop European defence co-operation, but questions of defence go right to the heart of national sovereignty. A decision to send members of our Armed Forces to risk their lives must remain a decision for our national government, accountable to our national Parliament. They are not matters for decision in the European Union. Member states must be free to act in the defence of their national interests. That is reflected in our commitment to NATO which has been covered so eloquently by my noble friend, and which has been the keystone of our security since 1949.
For half a century, the peace and security of Europe has been guaranteed by perhaps the most successful alliance in our history. Except in extremis, forces can be committed to NATO operations which involve the risk of conflict only with the approval and always by consensus of the North Atlantic Council. Indeed, NATO's position as the predominant institution of European security has been acknowledged, even by France and Spain which are in the process of joining its military structures. NATO is founded on the democratic and liberal values which are common to its members. Those are not exclusively European values. They unite the whole of the Western world.
But the importance of NATO is not only political but military. The European allies alone lack the air and sea capacity, missile defence, the advanced communication satellites and military computers provided by the United States. From these Benches, we believe firmly in the overriding importance of the Atlantic Alliance as the bedrock of our future security. Sustaining a strong US component to European security is an essential part of that.
1428
It is true that in the new strategic environment, military forces are also increasingly likely to be needed for crisis management tasks which fall short of territorial defence. But in the case of smaller, peacekeeping, humanitarian or other crisis management operations, it will not always be reasonable to expect the United States or Canada to participate. The WEU provides the best framework for the further development of that co-operation. The fact that its 10 full members are also members of the Atlantic Alliance enables it to maintain close relations with NATO. The WEU provides also a network of countries with associate and observer status, drawing together 27 European countries in all. That enables it to bring together the widest possible range of contributions, including NATO allies which are not part of the EU, and central European countries.
The previous government believed that the WEU should be maintained as an autonomous organisation with its own treaty base and that its operational capabilities should be developed to enable it to operate effectively in peacekeeping, humanitarian and other limited crisis management tasks. European defence co-operation must therefore be organised in such a way that while bearing their full share of the burden within NATO, and without building new structures that duplicate those already available in the alliance, European countries are also able to act on their own when necessary.
It is essential, too, that any development of a common security policy should not in any way impair the effectiveness of NATO; nor should it seek to duplicate what NATO does so effectively. The common foreign and security pillar of the European Union should strengthen the European pillar of NATO. It should allow Europe to take on a more equitable share of the costs of its own defence and should provide a forum in which common interests should be discussed.
During this debate, I hope to receive a clear statement from the Minister—and I am sure I will—about the Government's vision of the role of the common foreign and security policy. How do they see its relationship with NATO? How can duplication of NATO's work be avoided? I hope also to receive reassurance that moves towards a common European Union defence identity will be staunchly resisted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): In answering this part of our debate this evening, I should point out that I am speaking not only to Amendment No. 5, but also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, 9A to 9E, 32 to 35, 39, 41 and 42 which have been grouped together. Over the past two evenings of debate there have been two broad and largely contradictory criticisms in this Chamber of the changes in the Amsterdam Treaty to the provisions governing co-operation on foreign policy. There are those, exemplified by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who want a single, integrated EU policy and who think that the Amsterdam changes do not go nearly far enough, leaving CFSP arrangements intergovernmental and so hamstrung. There are those, like my noble friends Lord Shore and Lord Stoddart

1429
who argue the opposite; namely, that Amsterdam will introduce a single EU foreign policy through the back door. Both arguments are misguided. Her Majesty's Government were right to ensure at Amsterdam that co-operation on foreign policy remains intergovernmental, under the control of member states. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, acknowledged when he spoke on the last occasion that we discussed this matter, in an interdependent world we need to co-operate on foreign policy. That means pooling EU efforts where sensible and in line with UK national interests; indeed, I stress that point. Collectively, we can exercise more weight on the world stage.
However, a supranational CFSP would not be more effective. CFSP is based on the will of member states to act together. Again, and at the risk of wrecking the career of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I must say that I agreed with him when he said that this will cannot be artificially created through institutional mechanisms, such as QMV. If member states do not hold convergent positions, we should not try to create a false consensus. Such a hollow foreign common policy would weaken, not strengthen, the weight of the EU on the world stage, as member states would be quick to undermine that policy behind the scenes.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, as he requested, that Amsterdam is not a Trojan horse for such a supranational foreign policy. Her Majesty's Government ensured, as we committed ourselves to do in our manifesto, that, under Article J.13, no member can be forced to act or not to act against its will. Member states in the Council remain in firm control of CFSP, with the Presidency in the lead in managing it. I can also assure my noble friend Lord Bruce that the Commission has never had, and is not given in this treaty, sole right of initiative in CFSP matters.
As this Government have noted before—and as my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey told Members of the Committee—Amsterdam is a consolidating treaty: it rationalises the intergovernmental arrangements agreed in Maastricht in order to increase their efficiency and effectiveness. In CFSP, it introduces practical steps to streamline decision-making and financing arrangements; to improve the quality of Council Secretariat advice; to improve external representation of the EU; and to enhance the armoury of instruments for action at member states' disposal. Perhaps I may attempt to cover each of those improvements in a little more detail. I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Shore of Stepney: I am much obliged to my noble friend for giving way. I noted my noble friend's response to the leading spokesman for the Opposition and her emphatic statement that we cannot, so to speak, have decisions imposed upon us and that we remain intergovernmental in that sense. However, what does my noble friend have to say about the adjacent provisions in the treaty which allow for enhanced or closer co-operation undertaken not by unanimity but by a majority of member states? Does that apply to the collective defence area? If so, cannot my noble friend envisage a substantial group of states in the European
1430
Union, led perhaps by France and Germany—though I am not too sure about that—insisting upon or carrying forward this closer co-operation without a British veto to prevent them? Is that not a danger to the cohesion of NATO?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I think the noble Lord will find that much of my contribution is devoted to the point that he raised. But as he has asked me about this categorically, flexibility does not apply to the CFSP provisions. I hope to be able to give him some greater assurance on that point in a moment or two.
I was addressing points about decision-making which I hope will interest the noble Lord, Lord Shore. In line with our negotiating aims the Government preserved at Amsterdam the UK's ability to require unanimity in CFSP decision-making. This safeguard is at the heart of our position. Article J.13 preserves unanimity for all decisions on common foreign policy in the form of common strategies or of joint actions and common positions not agreed on the basis of common strategies; and for any decision with military or defence implications.
Maastricht allowed for QMV for implementation of agreed foreign policy. Amsterdam makes that automatic. Further, it adds the ability constructively to abstain when a member state does not want to be forced to act, but does not want to stop others from doing so. It is for the individual member state to decide whether or not to abstain. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—as he specifically requested—that constructive abstention cannot be used to make a member state act against its national interest if it is in a minority. These two measures usefully streamline decision-making. The UK is a leader, not a follower, in CFSP. Therefore QMV and constructive abstention are to our advantage as they allow more effective implementation arrangements for what we want. EU election monitoring, for example, could not be held up by bickering over precisely how many monitors to send. Less active member states can stand aside without blocking action by others.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked for clarification on the so-called emergency brake, the provision in Article J.13(2). He asked how it would work. Any member state can require that any decision is taken by unanimity. The reference in Article J.13(2) to,
"important and stated reasons of national policy"
is a deterrent against frivolous use. Referral to the European Council merely reflects the current reality that if Foreign Ministers cannot agree, they pass an issue to heads of government or state in the European Council to attempt to resolve the issue by unanimity. But the key is that the individual member state has independent control of whether and when to pull the emergency brake. In answer to another specific point from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that decision is not subject to—indeed no decision under Title V is—review by the ECJ. The emergency brake is an important safeguard which recognises the potential sensitivity for all member states of foreign policy decisions, as so many Members of the Committee have recognised this evening.

1431
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and other noble Lords asked whether a unanimously agreed common strategy on Iraq could have led to a decision by QMV that no member state should use force during the recent crisis. However many times and however many ways this question is put, the answer remains "No". The Government would not have agreed to a common strategy which excluded the use of force. There would thus have been no legal basis for any subsequent decision by QMV not to use force. We would use the emergency brake to block any attempt to use QMV to extend or otherwise change unanimously decided policy. Therefore we would be able to retain our freedom to act again in future, as we have done in the recent past, in a situation such as Iraq.
The noble Lord, Lord Shore, asked about Article J.1. He is right that the article requires that member states support the common foreign and security policy. But under both Maastricht and Amsterdam member states have the power to block decisions which they oppose, as I hope I have been able to demonstrate to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord referred to Article J.9(2) which requires member states to defend the interests of the Union. He threw away the line, "without prejudice to their responsibilities under the United Nations Charter"; but that is, of course, the important line. That means that there is freedom to act as an independent UN Security Council member, and that freedom is not fettered. It is not a new provision. It was in Maastricht.
The noble Lord, Lord Shore, asked again about flexibility. The flexibility provisions are applicable only in respect of the first and third pillars. There is no provision for flexibility as regards this second pillar which we are discussing this evening.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sure the Minister will agree that this is a very complicated treaty and provision. I understand that Article J.13(I) provides for decisions to be taken unanimously. But any one country abstaining does not create a veto. Any decision under Article J.13(1) could not be vetoed by any member.
Let me put a hypothetical position to my noble friend. Imagine, for example, that under Article J.13 the Council had considered the position in Iraq. It had decided, with Britain abstaining, that force should not be used. Bearing in mind that Britain wished to support the United States in its military action against Iraq had not agreement been reached between the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Iraqi leadership, how would the British presidency have been involved? I hope that that is not too complicated.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I do not think that it is too complicated. I hope that I have understood what my noble friend asks. The abstention is what we have called a constructive abstention, which does not impede the actions of others to act if they feel they wish to do so.
My noble friend gave an example which I believe is fundamentally flawed. In that position we would not have constructively abstained. We would have either
1432
vetoed the common strategy—I believe that the real issue would have arisen at that point—or we would have pulled the emergency brake at a later point. Therefore, on both points my arguments remain that we would have, in effect, had a veto.
I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that we would have had the freedom to act in the way we did after the ratification of the treaty. I hope that I have assured him on that point.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She has dealt well with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. However, let us suppose that the last administration had, like President Bush, gone wobbly. Let us suppose they had agreed, and there had been a unanimous agreement within the Council, that force should not be used against Iraq. Of course, subsequently, there was the general election and the present Administration are most robust, have given great support to our American allies and would have wanted to change the policy. In exactly what way would that have been possible? Or would the incoming Government have been locked in to the policy of the preceding government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Like any international obligation, such obligations are binding, not on the government of the day, but on the state, as I am sure the noble Lord is well aware. However, there is an important point here. Most CFSP instruments reflect the rapidly changing nature of foreign affairs. They are therefore generally time-limited to six months or a year. Indeed. Articles J.3 and J.4 require common strategies and joint actions to specify their duration.
Perhaps I may now turn to the instruments. I hope my remarks will shed a little more light, even though the noble Lord shakes his head. Article J contains two useful CFSP instruments. The first is the common strategy. This will be a more formal vehicle for the existing European Council practice of setting guidelines on foreign policy. It will give important common policies more weight on the world stage. It is given the same degree of definition as joint actions were in the Maastricht Treaty.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked for a definition of a common strategy. The common strategy must set out objectives, duration—an important point for the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—and the means to be made available. In other words—and again this is important in respect of the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Stoddart—we can insist on a common strategy being as precise as we want. In practice, common strategies are unlikely to be very different from existing joint actions. Both the preparation of, and the decision on, common strategies are by unanimity. So we have an independent control of the process.
Secondly, we pressed successfully for a new provision, Article J.4.4, for the Council to request the Commission to submit proposals in support of CFSP common measures. We believe that that will help ensure better coherence in external economic and political activities. However, as I indicated previously, such a request does not confer exclusive rights of initiative in

1433
CFSP upon the Commission. I say that most emphatically to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington.
Turning to institutions, we negotiated at Amsterdam three useful additions to CFSP institutions: first, double-hatting the secretary-general of the Council secretariat as High Representative for CFSP. That will improve the representation and visibility of CFSP. The High Representative will add to existing representational capacity, reduce the burden on the presidency and the troika, and help ensure continuity from presidency to presidency in contacts with third countries. He will ensure better coherence within the secretariat of external economic and political activity.
I assure the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Stoddart, however, that the High Representative will not be an independent EU Foreign Minister. The treaty makes clear that he or she will be accountable to, and the servant of, member states in the Council. So CFSP remains firmly under member state control and the presidency in the lead on the management of it. I hope that that answers the specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in winding up.
Secondly, Amsterdam creates a new deputy secretary general to relieve the new secretary general high representative of many of the current secretary general's duties, and so make time for his new CFSP duties. Thirdly, it adds a new policy planning and early warning unit to the CFSP resources of the secretariat. This will help sharpen the preparation and the focus of policy options put before the Council.
We also successfully negotiated improved financing arrangements. CFSP expenditure will normally be borne by the Community budget rather than by member states. Under Maastricht, the European Parliament was able to place CFSP funding in the reserve, so allowing it to block or amend Council decisions on the financing of individual CFSP actions. The inter-institutional agreement we negotiated at Amsterdam prevents that happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked what the CFSP budget is used for. There are 30 mecu or about £20 million in the budget for 1998. Member states in the Council of Ministers can choose to use this to fund common foreign policy activities under five main headings. First, there is support for democratic transition and electoral processes, as we did in 1995 for the Palestinian elections, and in 1996 and 1997 in the former Yugoslavia. The second is disarmament, including funding for demining activities and support for victims of anti-personnel land-mines, as we have done since 1995. The third heading is special envoys, providing funding as necessary for the EU special envoys to the Middle East peace process and the Great Lakes region.
The fourth heading is prevention of conflicts and support for peace processes. This year, the budget has been used to provide 6 mecu in rapid short-term assistance to the new Dayton-friendly Republic of Serpska Government in Bosnia. Last year it was used to provide funding for counter-terrorism training for the
1434
Palestinian Authority. It is also used to provide support, as necessary, for the office of the high representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The fifth is to fund common foreign policy action in response to any emergency.
Like my noble friend Lord Grenfell. I have been amazed during this debate at some noble Lords' sheer inventiveness in trying to turn what he described as "modest mice into woolly mammoths of evil disposition". I will deal with one or two of the modest mice or evil mammoths. First, the noble Lord. Lord Renton, referred to the dropping of the reference to "member states" in Article J.1. That merely recognises that when member states act collectively it is by definition as the Union. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lord Stoddart that this is the same drafting as that employed in Article J.1.3 of the Maastricht Treaty. There is nothing new or particularly alarming in it.
Secondly, member states have shared confidential information with each other ever since European political co-operation first started in 1970. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was worried about sharing of intelligence reports. Common policies are based on common analyses which must start from a common information base. We are putting in place arrangements to ensure security vetting of secretariat and policy planning unit staff. However, it remains entirely at the discretion of the individual member state what information that state chooses to share. So I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the UK's defence intelligence relationship with the United States is not affected. Indeed, we would not allow it to be affected.
Thirdly, Article J.9, mentioned by many noble Lords, is unchanged from the provisions negotiated by the last government in Articles J.2.3 and J.5.4 of the Maastricht Treaty. The UK would have to agree to any common position before being required to uphold it in any international forum. The Government also welcome the continued explicit acknowledgment in the treaty that the UK and France, as permanent members of the UN Security Council, have independent responsibilities under the UN Charter.
Fourthly, the EMU stability pact would not prevent us from going to war if we wished. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, suggested that any such foreign policy adventure would imperil our budgetary position, putting us in breach of the pact.
I am pleased to be able to assure the noble Lord that deficits over 3 per cent. of GDP will not be judged excessive or incur penalties under the stability pact if they are exceptional and temporary. The relevant regulation makes clear that exceptional and temporary deficits include those resulting from unusual events outside the control of the member state concerned. That description would fit any military action which any EU member state is likely to want to undertake nationally.
Lord Shore of Stepney: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. In considering that point, as she will know, the ways and means facility available now to the Treasury is to be repealed as part of joining the European Central Bank and EMU. If that ways and

1435
means facility is withdrawn, and with it the Government's ability to borrow from the markets at will, will it not be the case that we would then need the consent of the European Central Bank?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I do not believe that that is so. I believe the position is clear in what I have just said to my noble friend. The deficits, if they are incurred in exceptional or temporary circumstances, will not impede us from taking any kind of military action. I do not believe that my noble friend's point is one that has real locus.
I should like to turn to the security and defence provisions. The Amsterdam Treaty clarifies the security provisions of CFSP. Let us be clear. NATO is the bedrock of our security. At Amsterdam we secured a treaty change which underlined the primacy of NATO in European defence. At the same time we improved arrangements aimed at enabling Europeans to make a more effective contribution to the security of their continent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, expressed anxiety that members of the EU and NATO had not engaged in serious dialogue over the enlargement of their respective organisations and that this reflected an inability to co-ordinate European foreign policy. But one should remember that NATO is a collective defence organisation; the European Union is not. As other Members of the Committee have said, not all EU members share the same strategic perspective and defence commitments. Indeed, not all future members may share them. So the criteria for the two enlargement processes are different. Countries involved in both processes will naturally have taken the issues specific to each into account in their overall policy-making and in their discussions with partners. But it would not be right for the EU to have a say in the expansion of NATO. Nor vice versa.
Amsterdam brings welcome clarity to the provisions agreed at Maastricht on this key question of the EU role in security and defence and its implications for NATO. I remind the Committee that it was Maastricht that introduced the concept of an EU common defence policy and common, or collective, defence. At Amsterdam a majority of partners wanted to go further, by committing to an EU common defence and integration of the WEU into the EU.
We succeeded in resisting those changes, which would have undermined NATO. In doing so, we managed to clarify Maastricht in a way that underlines the primacy of NATO. The treaty explicitly states that "partners who are members of the alliance see their common defence realised in NATO."
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. I was reading some of the comments in the senate ratification debate on NATO this morning. All of them make clear that from an American perspective the expansion of NATO and the expansion of the EU are clearly linked. It is part of
1436
the American expectation that successful enlargement of the EU is seen very much as part of how NATO is strengthened. Does the noble Baroness accept that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I accept that many people do link them. What I do not accept is that there is a direct or specific read-across from one set of negotiations to another.
I was talking about the clarification of the Maastricht position in the treaty under discussion. The treaty explicitly states that partners who are members of the alliance see their common defence in NATO, and the treaty also makes clear, as Maastricht did not, that there can be no EU common defence or EU/WEU integration unless and until all member states agree by unanimity in the European Council and, further, endorse the decision in line with their own constitutional requirements.
Like the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam language on the relationship between the EU and the WEU reflects the difficulty in reconciling opposing views among partners of how the relationship should work. Most would like to see the WEU set on the path to integration into the EU. Together with our partners who shared our concerns, we prevented this. The EU and WEU remain separate organisations with their own decision-making procedures. Amsterdam confirms that only the WEU, not the EU, has an operational military capability and that decisions on military operations undertaken by the WEU on the EU's behalf will continue to be taken in the WEU.
At the same time, Amsterdam takes important steps towards a more efficient, practical approach to handling crises under the common foreign and security policy. It makes clear that the WEU will be the channel whereby the EU can call on an operational military capability in support of its own non-military crisis management activity. The WEU's so-called "Petersberg tasks", referred to by my noble friend Lord Shore, include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including, of course, peacemaking. They are included in the treaty. It not only underlines the EU's political commitment to crisis management, but it also usefully confirms the range of activities which the WEU may carry out on the EU's behalf.
The treaty makes clear the commitment to a closer working relationship between the EU and the WEU, aiming particularly at more effective arrangements for assessing and planning a co-ordinated response to any crisis. The protocol to Article J.7 of the treaty recognises the importance of strengthening this practical co-operation. The treaty also promotes a greater role for neutral partners in European crisis management, where they have a valuable contribution to make. The effects of these changes will be to strengthen Europe's crisis management capability in a way which we believe will not weaken but support the primary role of NATO in European defence.

1437
I hope that I have covered most of the detailed questions which your Lordships have raised. I realise that I may not have dealt with one or two questions. Indeed, I believe I should say something on the provisions regarding scrutiny.
We are committed to enhance national parliaments' role in the EU and to strengthen the UK scrutiny system. On the intergovernmental pillars, we confirmed to the scrutiny committees of both Houses our decision to reinforce arrangements for formal parliamentary scrutiny. My right honourable friend the President of the Council published a memorandum in January setting out our proposals to strengthen the scrutiny system. Those proposals include extending the scope of the scrutiny reserve and fuller reports to Parliament on Council meetings as well as greater scrutiny on the intergovernmental pillars. The memorandum was sent to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, whose views on it we would warmly welcome. We look forward to hearing from the noble Lord and his committee in due course.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Would the Minister mind confirming a point which I put to her noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey in Committee on Tuesday about the effect of the scrutiny reserve? Is it still the position that Her Majesty's Government will not agree to any directive or piece of legislation in Brussels unless the scrutiny reserve of the scrutiny committees of both Houses of Parliament has been lifted? Is that still the position?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I understand that directives and legislation do not apply to the CFSP. I hope that that gives the noble Lord the information he was seeking.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not believe that regulations could apply. Any form of European action or legislation should be subject to the scrutiny reserve of both Houses of Parliament. Can the Minister say whether that is still the case?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I shall have to write to the noble Lord on the point that he raises so that we can be precise.
In closing, I should say something about the remarks from my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. I was sorry that he felt it necessary to raise questions about the Civil Service. I have had the privilege of working with civil servants over the past 20 years. I have worked with them in every single government department. My own experience is that civil servants are assiduous in their briefing. Indeed, the Foreign Office has been extraordinarily assiduous in briefing me for the very many debates that I have had in your Lordships' House. The wide range of briefing that I am called to bring to your Lordships' attention allows me to say that they are very thorough indeed. Any shortcomings in the way in which I have presented the arguments are entirely mine
1438
and not theirs. I hope that I have covered the major points raised by Members of the Committee and that they will now feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I shall be very brief because my noble friend has done an extremely good job, and charmingly, in replying to the debate. I am concerned about three matters. First, in Article J.9 it says,
"In international organisations and at international conferences where not all the Members States participate, those which do not take part shall uphold the common positions".
Can my noble friend comment on that in relation to our position as a permanent member of the Security Council? Can she also answer the question I asked about our position as a permanent member of the Security Council and that it will not be undermined? As regards the high representative, can I have her assurance that if ever she hears him call himself or herself, "the ambassador of the European Union" she will slap him or her down very quickly?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: On that last point I hardly think that a junior Minister is very likely to—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Or rather the Foreign Secretary.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am sure that my right honourable friend will take all appropriate action with anyone who gets a bit above themselves.
The noble Lord asked about our membership of the Security Council. There is nothing in the treaty that undermines our position on the Security Council. The noble Lord also asked about upholding the common positions. I hope that I have explained that I do not believe that we would be in the position of having to uphold a common position in which we had not participated. Given what I have explained to the Committee about the unanimity of view required for a common position, I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured on those points.
Lord Bruce of Donington: In congratulating the noble Baroness on the detailed manner in which she has dealt with these many questions which have arisen under the common foreign and security arrangements, has she taken into account one rather important factor? I refer to the Elysée treaty between Germany and France concluded in 1963 whereby the governments of France and Germany agreed to meet together before every meeting of the Council of Ministers in order to determine a common position between those two countries?
Is my noble friend further aware that in a process which I cannot identify, but which nevertheless exists, the European Commission seems to be singularly well informed of the common position arrived at between France and Germany before each meeting of the Council of Ministers? Bearing in mind my noble friend's emphasis on the importance of individual member states reaching their own decisions and the manner

1439
undoubtedly with which our ambassadorial staff deal with the individual countries as such, will she indicate to what extent she has taken that extra factor into account in what she has so lucidly put forward this evening?
10 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I cannot for a moment claim to have anything like the extraordinarily detailed knowledge of my noble friend in his careful and painstaking study of European relationships; but I think I can safely say that those briefing me will have taken into account the treaty to which my noble friend referred. Perhaps I may also point out that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is now making good the undertaking made in Labour's manifesto to move into a leading role in Europe. It is our business also to have good bilateral relationships with our colleagues in Europe. My right honourable friend is doing that—and he did it not only to his great credit, but to the credit of the whole country, in Paris this week.
Lord Shore of Stepney: Before my noble friend begins her well-earned rest—we greatly appreciate her excellent and detailed responses—may I put it to her that what she has managed to produce for the Committee has been a number of last resort vetos which are available to the British Government or, indeed, to other governments who are at the extreme end of their tether, as it were?
As against that, will she not recognise and comment on the whole thrust of the treaty? I quote the first sentence:
"The Union shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy covering all areas of foreign and security policy".
Either those words are, quite frankly, misleading and should never have been accepted by any British Government or they really do indicate what in the real world is the actual tilt of the treaty and the pressures that we would come under from a majority within the European Union before we were able to use our veto. We must always see vetoing the European Union's activities in one area against the possibilities of the Union taking counter action against our veto in a number of other adjacent areas.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I fully understand the passionate and sincere views that my noble friend holds on these matters. However, I do not believe that he is right when he describes these measures as "last resort vetos". The Common Strategy is the point where common views come together. This is not a last-minute veto. The Common Strategy has, through painstaking discussion, not only to set out objectives but also deal with the duration and the means to be made available for delivering that Common Strategy. I think that what is presented to us in this treaty is a far more logical position—one that allows for a great deal more thought in putting together the strategies and position of the EU as a whole—than was the case in its predecessor treaty.
Lord Tebbit: I hate to risk the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, by referring again to some of these matters, but I do not think that the Minister adequately dealt with the point that has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shore. The noble Baroness appears to have fallen into the same trap as the previous administration in believing that such words are guff and do not mean very much, whereas we know that when the chips are down the interpretation of the treaty is based upon its broad ideals which always override the niceties that we in our parliamentary system regard as important but which under the continental system do not matter a damn.
I am distinctly unimpressed by the arguments of the noble Baroness in reply to my point that an incoming government may have the endorsement of the electorate to change the foreign policy agreed by their predecessor. There is no provision whatever in the treaty for that to happen. The views of the electorate are brushed aside; they do not matter. If a government have agreed to a policy that is the policy. This treaty states that it is not for an incoming parliament to say that it will not be bound by the deeds of a predecessor. The noble Baroness said that the predecessor government may have cautiously agreed that the policy should last for only six months, or perhaps 12 months, but that may not be the case. Does not the noble Baroness understand that there is something fundamentally offensive about a government, who have been elected on the basis of one policy, being required by this treaty to go about the world upholding a contrary policy? If she does not understand that, she does not understand anything about the parliamentary system that has grown up in this country over the past few centuries.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I believe that the noble Lord has sought to put words into my mouth. I do not believe that the words of this treaty are so much guff. He may believe that they are, but I do not. I have the greatest possible respect not only for those who negotiated the treaty but for our European partners. I rather doubt that there are any words that can reassure the noble Lord on this point. I am sure that the views of the noble Lord are extraordinarily well known and that he will not be reassured. I reiterate, if he is willing to listen to the point that I put, that international obligations are binding on a state, not a government. The noble Lord is aware of that. He chides me and says that I know nothing about the parliamentary system. I am sure that I do not know as much as the noble Lord, but I know a little. I am aware that international obligations are a matter for the state and not a government. I said earlier that in this treaty Common Strategies were time-limited at the time of negotiation. That is clearly laid down in Articles J.3 and J.4. Therefore, in practice a new government would soon find themselves able to renegotiate the terms of an instrument which they wanted to renegotiate. I am sure that I have not been able to reassure the noble Lord, but I have done my best. I hope that other noble Lords, who may have wondered whether the noble Lord had a point, are now convinced that he does not.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Can I tempt the Minister to go further and explain in a little more detail the concept of the emergency brake and the constructive abstention to which reference has been made only briefly? Article J.13(1) is a very carefully balanced article. Article J.13(1) refers to constructive abstention in order to enable decisions to be made when one member is unhappy. Article J.13(2), however, provides an emergency brake.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I hope that I explained that. I was at some pains so to do, and in answer to the specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The Minister disagrees with the noble Lord, Lord Shore, that what we have been observing here this evening is a constant stream of desperate vetoes which we may or may not be able to launch against the advancing tide of European integration. Can I put to her a question that I put to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on Tuesday, and to which I did not get an answer? Perhaps the Minister can give it.
The original Treaty of Rome talked of creating an ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe in Article A, as it then was—Article 1 now. Can the Minister think of any amendments to the Treaty of Rome since that time—in the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, or the Treaty of Amsterdam—which go against the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe? If she can, the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and I might be marginally reassured. I am afraid she will see that all amendments, sometimes with the British Government rather desperately trying to avoid them, putting in a little veto here and a little block there, go in that direction. That is because the intention of our partners in Europe is precisely to achieve what is written in the treaty:
"an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
The ever closer union leads in the end to the Union.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The word used was not "desperate". That was not the word that my noble friend Lord Shore used, and it was not the description that I used back to him. The phrase was "last resort." I hope that I was able to indicate that these were not "last resort." They are built in to the process of establishing common strategies.
The noble Lord asked whether I could produce one example in all the treaties that showed the countries of Europe moving further apart and not coming closer together. I am sure that were I to say "no" or "yes" someone would prove that I am wrong. So I shall ask officials whether they can provide the noble Lord with the points that he wants.
I will say to the noble Lord, quite clearly, that there were those, when we were dealing with this latest treaty, who wanted closer integration between the EU and the WEU. The resistance to that was led by Her Majesty's Government. There were others who took part in that resistance but the resistance was led by Her Majesty's Government. So, although I know that I cannot reassure
1442
the noble Lord, I hope that I can assure him that we have been true to the Government's stated negotiating aims for Amsterdam.
Lord Moynihan: I congratulate the Minister and her civil servants on her response to the debate, and, above all, on her presence throughout the proceedings on Tuesday and this evening. She has tracked down both mice and mammoths with considerable deft ability and skill. We have had a comprehensive, valuable debate on the two issues—foreign policy and defence—which are of crucial importance in the context of the Bill.
I have no doubt that we will return to some of these issues on Report, especially since there are some explanations provided by the Minister which require further detailed attention. However, today, I thank her again and my noble friends and noble Lords for their valuable contributions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 9M not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Amendment No. 10, Lord Shore?
Lord Shore of Stepney: Not moved.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 11, Lord Shore, not moved?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Order‡
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord said "Not moved". Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved, Lord Shore? Who wishes to move Amendment No. 10? The noble Lord, Lord Shore, did not move the amendment. The noble Lord. Lord Moynihan, wishes to move it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 10 was not moved and the Deputy Chairman moved on to Amendment No. 11.
Lord Shore of Stepney Lord Shore of Stepney moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 13, after ("2") insert (", other than paragraph 19 (Title VIa of the Treaty establishing the European Community (employment)),").
The noble Lord said: I thought that we were still dealing with foreign policy amendments. There were a very large number, not all of which were read. I had not realised that we had moved to the new group of amendments. I certainly do not withdraw them, and with your Lordships' agreement and consent I formally move the amendment standing in my name. I shall develop one or two observations about them, being most careful to scrutinise the clock in the remarks that I make. The amendments are important and relate to important subjects.
It is probably as well to comment on the background to the employment chapter, introduced into the Amsterdam Treaty, with which the amendments are

1443
concerned. Once again, one must return to the Maastricht Treaty. The reason why we have an employment chapter is because the gentlemen who got together and drafted the Maastricht Treaty, in their remote and bureaucratic way, forgot entirely about the subject of employment and about the effects of rising unemployment upon the peoples in the countries of the European Union.
Waking up rather late in the day, and much encouraged by the Swedish Government who had always attached great importance to employment, they set about creating the chapter on employment. Frankly, it is not easy to take it seriously because it is spatchcocked into a treaty which is totally overshadowed by commitments to economic and monetary union, a single currency, stable prices and so forth.
It is as well to recall at the beginning what happened in Europe during the lead-in period to the Amsterdam Treaty, in particular in respect of the events which are to take place in a few weeks time in this country when 11 nation states of the European Union will, with the support of the Commission and perhaps the EMI, claimed that they have qualified to meet the convergence criteria in the Maastricht Treaty.
The Committee should be aware that, in the effort to qualify for the single currency under the convergence criteria, most countries in Europe have had to sustain a policy of deflation in their economies for several years past. I do not say that on my own authority, as it were, hut it is worth recalling what the IMF's world economic outlook, published a few months ago, stated about the principal European Continental economies. It stated:
"The unsatisfactory economic performance of the three major economies—of Germany, France and Italy—cannot he blamed on the external environment. External markets have been expanding strongly and exports have been the main source of stimulus in recent years. But, the source of weakness has been internal and in fact"—
and these words must be carefully considered—
"domestic demand has expanded by less than I per cent. a year in these three countries combined during the past five years".
As the growth of productive potential is in the order of 2.5 per cent. per annum in each of those countries, it is inevitable that unemployment will rise, and so it has done.
I should now document that. In the five years from 1992 to 1997 in France unemployment has risen from 2.5 million to nearly 3.2 million; in Germany, from 2.5 million to, according to Eurostat, 3.8 million, although I have heard figures much higher than that for Germany; and in Italy from 2 million to 2.7 million. Those are increases in unemployment of around 30 per cent., and perhaps higher in one of those cases.
There is not much dispute about what has happened. In particular, in order to reach the 3 per cent. of GDP borrowing requirement, most or all of those countries have raised taxes and cut public expenditure. Therefore, they have suffered a diminution of demand and have seen unemployment rise on a fairly large scale. They have not been able to do much more on the export front. They have not been able to increase greatly their exports
1444
because they have exchange rates which are fixed in the ERM in preparation for the other qualification for joining a single currency.
Until those constraints are eased upon the borrowing requirement and the creation of increased demand, unemployment will continue either at its present level or will increase in the years ahead. They have the knowledge now, or at least from the moment that the single currency comes into effect on 1st January next year, that if they fail in holding down the 3 per cent. GDP borrowing requirement or if they exceed it, they will be subject to fines under the miscalled stability and growth pact. Those countries will be very careful indeed not to expand demand and therefore not to incur those penalties.
That is a fairly unhappy background and environment in which this chapter, which is supposed to promote measures to increase employment and decrease unemployment, has been inserted. Let us for a moment consider the language used. It is all in Article 109, where the objectives are set out. It states that member states shall co-ordinate their actions; the Community shall contribute by encouraging co-operation between Member States; the objective of a high level of employment shall be taken into consideration in the formation of Community policies; the Council shall draw up guidelines which member states shall take account of; the Council, by qualified majority voting, may make recommendations; the Council may adopt incentive measures; the Council shall establish an employment committee with advisory status.
Compare that with the command language of the chapter on economic and monetary union and the quantified targets in the chapter and the protocol. The feebleness of this cosmetic aspect is then apparent to all.
I am fully aware that some attempt was made to give a little more credence to its content in the Luxembourg summit in November. But that really did nothing except to publish the guidelines, which are perfectly all right as far as they go in relation to increasing training and education and one or two other measures. The European Investment Bank is to create a new facility or to divert some of its resources to assisting small and medium-sized enterprises—the SMEs which we hear about so often. I have no objection to that. But the idea that that will make any serious impact upon the level of unemployment in Europe is absurd and we shall have to return to that matter and discuss it in considerable detail.
I have to keep my eye on the time in the presence of the Liberal Democrats, so I must move hastily on to the other group of amendments which deals with the social chapter. Of course, it is rather a separate subject; but, nevertheless, time is pressing and the social chapter has to be encountered. The whole issue of this chapter has always seemed to me to be utterly bogus and artificial. The reason it came to assume the prominence that it did in the last Parliament in the other place was because of the tacit agreement between the two Front Benches that, in the great debate on the Maastricht Treaty—where, of course, it begins—there should be no serious discussion on economic and monetary union and the single currency. To my certain knowledge, no debate took

1445
place on those matters until well after midnight during the Committee stage when, fortunately, the Press Galleries were empty and no one could overhear what was said.
Meanwhile, with a great flourish, as it were, of traditional antagonism, like champions charging in some contest, the Labour Front Bench denounced the Conservative Front Bench for not accepting and including the social chapter in the treaty, and, equally, the Conservatives emphatically said that it would be the destruction of the British economy if it were brought in. Of course, it is in fact a virtually empty vessel. Indeed, I believe that two measures were agreed in the social chapter, and one, if I remember correctly, was about paid paternity leave. As I said, it was a bogus contest on a bogus issue, and we should acknowledge that. In the Amsterdam Treaty, the new Labour Government brought the social chapter into the main body of the treaty, whereas previously it had been thrust into the appendices or protocols under the heading of the "social agreement".
Frankly, the provisions are nothing like as fearsome—and I say this particularly to Opposition Members of the Committee—as people have been led to believe. Most of the really important issues are deliberately excluded from it, like the level of wages. Other very important matters, like social security business, are wholly held within the need for unanimity. However, I have to tell my own Front Bench that there is the possibility that it can develop and there is also the distinct possibility that, in areas outside those that I have mentioned and which are listed in the treaty, they could be carried by qualified majority voting.
I do not think that the content of these agreements would give me any trouble, but the constitutional issue is whether we should allow the EU to legislate for social policy in this country. I say no, no, and no again to that proposition: these are matters which properly belong to this Parliament and not to the European Union. I simply conclude my remarks by recommending the amendments which are tabled in my name, especially those that ask for a proper annual report on developments under both these headings—not for the European Parliament but for this Parliament in Westminster. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Taverne: I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Shore, on the brevity of his speech. I hope that I, too, shall be brief. I, too, will seek to deal with the employment and social aspects of the Amsterdam Treaty together. On this occasion, I agree with him that to some extent the importance of the Amsterdam Treaty has been greatly exaggerated. The importance of the social chapter has always been greatly exaggerated both for good and ill. It is not the great engine for social change which some have claimed it to be—and have supported it for that reason—nor is it the great threat which Members of the Opposition have often claimed that it is.
1446
It seems to me that the Amsterdam Treaty has certain provisions which are not dramatic but which are on the whole useful. Nothing is possible now as regards employment policy that was not possible before, but there has been a useful insistence on looking at the employment side to an extent which had not perhaps necessarily been in every government's mind before. We on these Benches welcomed the Government's signing up to the social chapter. That means that the social chapter is now a full part of the Maastricht Treaty provisions. Signing up gives us a voice and it gives us influence. Apart from that, the attractive side of the social chapter is that it seeks to present a common base for social rights. However, I do not think there is any ground at the moment for supposing that the social chapter will be a great threat to labour market flexibility. If one reads it together with the employment provisions of Amsterdam, there seems to be something of a move towards liberalisation and realism. The employment chapter which has now been added talks of a need for an,
"adaptable work force and labour markets responsive to social change".
There was some difficulty over persuading the French to accept any degree of labour market flexibility, but they accepted that labour markets should be responsive to social change.
The references to employment have been coupled with competitiveness. Indeed, there seems to be a considerable move on the Continent now in many countries towards a greater degree of labour market flexibility. Part of the reason for the high unemployment figure—I agree again with the noble Lord, Lord Shore, on this—has been the deflationary policy particularly of the Bundesbank. This was the result of unification and the uncharacteristically unrealistic high wage claims made in Germany which led to the Bundesbank having to follow what it described as a punitive policy to maintain low inflation. This of course had its effects throughout Europe because of the influence of the Bundesbank.
As the OECD has pointed out, another reason for high unemployment in Europe has been the degree of rigidity in the labour markets. There are changes taking place. It is extremely significant, for example, that whereas wages in East Germany previously were some 90 per cent. of wages in West Germany on average, they are now some 70 per cent. So there is a considerable measure of wage flexibility now to be seen in Germany. There is also a determination to spread best practices which, again, is to be welcomed, and yet on the whole the principle of subsidiarity has been asserted. The main responsibility for high employment remains with the nation states.
However, as far as we are concerned, what is to be welcomed is the emphasis on co-ordinating employment policies and that this should now be part of the deliberate activity of the EU institutions. This, inevitably, is part of the greater emphasis on the role of ECOFIN. Indeed it has always seemed to me that with monetary union, the role of the so-called Euro X committee was going to assume vital significance. One does not wish the whole burden of containing inflation

1447
to rest entirely on the European Central Bank. If it rests on the central bank, as it rests on the Bundesbank in Germany, the result will be a deflationary policy. It is far healthier that there should be co-ordination of fiscal policies by the members of monetary union, and indeed the members of ECOFIN as a whole. That is one of the factors which the Amsterdam Treaty stresses. Anti-inflation policy is not just to be left to the central banks, or the European Central Bank. There is now a responsibility for Ministers to co-ordinate as closely as possible their various policies; and there is a responsibility on the European Commission also to seek to co-ordinate these policies. That co-operation on employment seems to us wholly beneficial. Although the steps which have been taken by the Amsterdam Treaty are limited, on the whole they seem to be beneficial steps. To that extent we welcome the treaty.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Lord, Lord Shore, dealt with unemployment in Europe. As he said, it has increased by about 5 million despite all the policies that are alleged to have been so successful. Day to day—it is echoed in the press of this country—we are all prospering for some reason or other. We talk of rising prosperity. They talk of it in Europe.
Speaking for the correspondents, in particular those who spend a good deal of their time on the ground floor in the Commission buildings, where they are periodically fed by communiqués from the Commission itself, that makes a lot of sense. It saves them a lot of trouble if they broadcast the alleged prosperity within Europe. But the question of unemployment is not entirely confined to Europe. For example, in the Statement repeated by my noble friend Lady Hollis today we had an admission about our own unemployment. It will be in the recollection of the House because the Statement was made only a few hours ago. She said:
"I now turn to incapacity benefit. We all know that the last government used it to disguise the real level of unemployment. Since 1979, the numbers on incapacity benefit have trebled, pushing the cost of the benefit to almost £8 billion, more than we spend on the whole of the police in England and Wales".
I welcome this recognition by Her Majesty's Government that the unemployment figures have in the past been fiddled. It is something that we have not emphasised unduly in the past. It is undoubtedly so. To talk of rising property either in Europe or in this country is a load of nonsense.
Europe as a whole has been influenced—and this country has not been entirely uninfluenced—by the provisions of Article 99, formerly Article 103 of the Treaty of Rome as amended in Maastricht at page 162 of the current Treaty of Amsterdam. It states—to do them justice, the governments have apparently responded—at paragraph (1):
"Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall coordinate them within the Council, in accordance with the provisions of Article 98".
Paragraph (2) states:
"The Council shall, acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission, formulate a draft for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community, and shall report its findings to the European Council.
1448
"The European Council shall, acting on the basis of the report from the Council, discuss a conclusion on the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community.
"On the basis of this conclusion, the Council shall, acting by a qualified majority, adopt a recommendation setting out these broad guidelines. The Council shall inform the European Parliament of its recommendation".
That was the position after Maastricht.
I ask noble Lords to ponder a very important question. What expertise (if any) lies behind these recommendations? Who, with authority, is making an assessment of individual economic policies in each, of the countries? Who is in an intellectual position to make an economic pronunciamento to be adopted by member states as to the economic policy to be followed in Europe?
It seems to be current thinking that the moment something gets into print, the moment it is incorporated in an official document, that alone gives it some intellectual validity. In fact, what happened is very simple. The Commission brought out its pamphlet—or rather, its tome—on growth, employment and inflation, the famous White Paper, which recommended economic steps to be taken by Europe as a whole and by individual member states which have, frankly, proved disastrous. They have produced deflation in Europe and in the United Kingdom. All we are invited to do in the current article of the Treaty of Amsterdam is to carry on the same policies as before—except that Article 1090 states:
"Member States, through their employment policies, shall contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in Article 109n in a way consistent with the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community adopted pursuant to Article 103/".
What has happened at Amsterdam? All that Amsterdam has done, instead of initiating a complete reappraisal of the disastrous economic policies that have been followed throughout the European Community since Maastricht, is reinforce them and endow them with a new sanctity. I do not believe that is in the interests of Europe.
The Amsterdam Treaty now proposes in Article 109q:
"The European Council"—
let us note the "European Council", not the Council of Ministers—
"shall each year consider the employment situation in the Community and adopt conclusions thereon, on the basis of a joint annual report by the Council and the Commission".
Who—what body of people—is in fact capable beyond all reasonable doubt of formulating sensible policies in relation to this?
Baroness Ludford: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He queried who would have the intellectual capacity. In view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be on the Council and the Prime Minister would be on the European Council, is he saying that there would be no intellectual capacity to contribute to this exercise?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I have not yet had the opportunity of engaging in debate with either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or his representatives in this House on the merits or otherwise of the economic steps that he proposes to take. Should such an occasion arise, I shall enter into the debate with some zest.
Paragraph 2 of Article 109q then states:
"On the basis of the conclusions of the European Council, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Employment Committee referred to in Article 109s, shall each year draw up guidelines which the Member States shall take into account in their employment policies. These guidelines shall be consistent with the broad guidelines adopted in Article 103/".
The reference is to page 162 of the current treaty. They are living in Cloud-cuckoo-land. Can it be assumed that a responsible body of people, sitting in various parts of Europe, endeavouring to solve a problem common to all member states, can reach conclusions which are thereupon enshrined almost in law? As if any printed format of economic policy agreed to by member states can be appropriate to any one of them, let alone all of them taken together‡
The existing policies to which everyone now apparently genuflects have been policies disastrous to the whole of Europe and the United Kingdom. They certainly do not merit endorsement in a treaty signed by us which will bind the country from now on.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: It is rather nice to find myself from time to time in some measure of disagreement with the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Shore. It restores the normal healthy routine of the political process and, no doubt, brings a sense of relief to some of our Front Bench colleagues.
However, we still stand on a great deal of common ground. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce does not like the policy which is being implemented in Europe. I differ from him about some aspects of it. I think it is vitally important that we pursue policies which maintain the value of money and there may be difficult times in ensuring that that happens. But during the years when the German government and the Bundesbank were much more successful than we were at maintaining the value of money by rather restrictionist and perhaps what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would call deflationary policies, its record on unemployment was also much better than ours. So I do not think it is self-evident that inflationary policies are better for the economy than deflationary policies.
However, that is not the real core of the discussion which we should be having this evening. The discussion this evening is surely about in what manner economic policies should be made: whether they should be made within national governments, within nation states, and whether or not as a result of the electoral process those
1450
policies can be changed. That seems to me to be the key point. I would always accept that if the majority decide at a general election that they want the economic policies which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would wish to follow, then we abide by it. He has had some experience over the past 18 years of abiding by policies which he does not like. But there was always the opportunity for those policies to be changed.
I return to the question which I asked in an earlier debate and which was so unsatisfactorily answered. It was not answered—I had a response, but not an answer. We are now committing ourselves in this treaty to extending the area of economic policies which are covered by the treaty. That is what the social chapter is about. These are essentially matters of economic policy. Whether we should have a minimum wage will soon be a matter covered in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Shore, reminded us in an earlier debate this evening, these things creep in. Once they are in the treaty, have no doubt about it, the bridgehead will be expanded. Since the creation of the Treaty there has been no record of a bridgehead contracting.
So what we can expect is that this bridgehead will be opened and expanded more and more in the future. Policies will be reached—sometimes the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will agree with the policies; sometimes I might agree with them. But I have to ask the question again: what happens when the British electorate do not agree with the policy and want it changed? They change the majority in Parliament; we all swap sides of the Chamber; but the policy goes remorselessly on. We cannot change it.
Will any incoming government have any realistic chance of removing the social chapter from the treaty? Not a ghost of a chance. It is there. It is not going to get pulled out any more than the sections on foreign and defence policy will get pulled out. They will simply get bigger. They will spread out further and further. We will find that what the British people say in their elections has less and less influence.
In the last debate I was mildly chastised for not understanding that treaties entered into are binding not upon the government which entered them but upon the state. Quite so. But we have never before entered into a treaty which did not have the facility for renunciation. We have never before entered into treaties which have expanded over such a wide area of our national life. We have never before entered into a treaty under which, before very long, through the social chapter, the way in which we conduct our industrial relations shall be decided not here, but somewhere else; not by us, but by other people with ourselves in a minority of the people who decide. There is no provision for our having second thoughts. There is no provision for saying, "No, we have changed our mind and we want something different."
What happens when consistently, over one area after another at some time in the future, the British people say they want different policies? They will be told, "You cannot have different policies because a combination of

1451
the Germans, the French, the Greeks and the Finns"—or something or other—"amount to a qualified majority vote, and that is it." What has happened to the democratic process? I would agree that in many ways we have to accept that in a modern world the freedom of manoeuvre of nation states is much more limited than it was—though we see time and time again that some relatively small states seem to have a great deal of freedom of manoeuvre; they may indeed even defy the United Nations.
The point is that we are conceding that general elections in this country in future will not matter very much. What will be the result in our national life? Why do we think that the number of people voting in general elections is falling? Why do we think that our debates in this House and in the other place are less and less reported by the press and the BBC? Surely it must be that people are already tumbling to the fact that what is said here matters less and less, and what is said on the continent of Europe matters more and more. We are no longer masters of our own destiny.
As I say, in some areas, naturally, we have to concede that it is more effective for us to move jointly together than it is separately. I would certainly accept that we should enter into commitments with our trading partners about the manner in which we open markets and such like things. But the idea that we have to expand constantly that area over which the British people have no direct control is absurd, it is dangerous and it will undoubtedly lead to great troubles.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Lest anyone thinks that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was scaremongering when he suggested that fewer and fewer people listen to what MPs say, I draw the attention of the Committee to The Times of Monday 23rd March 1998. An article by Peter Riddell, under the heading "Does anybody listen to MPs?", states under a sub-heading, "Ministers are increasingly ignoring the Commons". So if Ministers are ignoring the Commons, I should think many other people are as well.
I want to say a few words on the new employment chapter and on the social chapter because the employment chapter assumes that we are building and developing a partnership. But of course the countries of the European Union are not our partners; they are our competitors. When you talk about a partnership and when you talk about this new employment chapter you are working to further and cement that partnership—in other words, further integration.
Now it is quite true that within this new chapter there does not seem to be anything startling. There are bromide clauses, if I may put it that way, but those of us who have been au fait with this problem over a long period of time know perfectly well that innocuous clauses later on become binding decisions and binding articles. That is why I am a little worried about this new employment chapter—"title" I think is the right word. We have to be very careful about it.
1452
When one looks at Europe, bringing to mind the diverse economies there are, the diverse cultural backgrounds, the diverse employment policies, the diverse trade union and management organisations, one sees the huge difficulty within the present 15 states. But in the not too distant future, if those who want expansion have their way, it will he 21 diverse countries, systems, cultural backgrounds and what have you. How are we going to handle this in employment terms? Are we going to have a "gosplan"? Are we going to have five-year plans? What are we going to have? How are we going to reconcile the French system with our own system?
Our Prime Minister went to Paris and spoke to the National Assembly. He saw straightaway that within that assembly he had not quite got it right, because the Left were down in the dumps and the Right were cock-a-hoop. It was not supposed to he that way. It should have been the Left who were cheering and the Right who were growling. So one can see how difficult it is to understand what other people are about.
The French want to deal with their unemployment problem by having a reduced working week to 35 hours. In this country we prefer to deal with our unemployment position in a different manner by providing opportunities in other ways. Some of us believe that if the French have a 35-hour week that will suit us very well because it will put up their unit costs and enable us to export our goods more easily. These are the problems that we shall have to face if we go too far down this line of co-operation in employment. Co-operation, yes, but I fear what will follow co-operation. We really do not want a sort of sovietised kind of system in western Europe now, do we?
Time is getting on. I turn very briefly to the social aspects. I am very interested in this because, like the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I was a trade union official. I used to negotiate. There is a difference between the noble Lord and myself: he was paid and I was not. Nevertheless, we had the same problems to deal with. Again, my background in the Labour Party is different from that of the backgrounds of some of our newer entrants. I was brought up to believe that the way to obtain good industrial relations was by free collective bargaining. That is what I had always been taught. I have always understood and accepted that in a free society that is the way one goes about it. Workers are free to accept or reject an offer and employers are able to make offers either high or low. That applies to conditions of service as well. I have always found it successful.
My own party for very many years was opposed to government intervention in the bargaining system because it believed that it would work against the interests of workers. In many respects, so it has proved. So I do not believe in a lot of government intervention in the bargaining process and I am sorry that the TUC in this country should be a little taken in by what is happening about the social chapter.

1453
Perhaps I may give another example. We are going to have imposed on us a consultation system where workers and managers will have a big "confab" at the top. I do not believe that is proper workers' consultation or involvement. I believe that one can only have workers' involvement if it grows organically from the bottom. I say that not because I am academic, but because I have been at the bottom and I know how these
1454
things work successfully. With those few words, I hope that I have raised some serious questions which my noble friend will be able to answer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that further debate on Amendment No. 10 be now adjourned. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at five minutes past eleven o'clock.