Lords Sitting of 29 October 1998

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Colyton Lord Colyton —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

Seat Belts
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to take any further steps to alert drivers and passengers in motor vehicles to the liability that may arise, by reason of contributory negligence, through a failure to wear seat belts when the vehicle in which they are travelling is involved in an accident.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, it is a well-established fact that wearing a seat belt reduces the risk or the severity of an injury in a road traffic accident. Failure to wear one could indeed reduce an award for damages if it could be shown that the injury would have been less severe if the seat belt had been worn. In most cases, wearing a seat belt is also a legal requirement.
In any claim for damages in respect of injury or loss the principle of contributory negligence arises. It is a long accepted and well understood principle of civil law. A recent government campaign has highlighted the dangers that can occur when seat belts are not worn, and more of these campaigns are planned.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. But is he aware that most people are ignorant of the fact that grave consequences can arise in the civil courts as a result of not wearing seat belts, because in certain circumstances damages could be reduced by as much as 50 per cent.? Does he agree that previous campaigns by successive governments have not highlighted that important factor? Does he further agree that the time is overdue for a campaign to alert people to the real sanctions which can apply—namely, those referred to in my Question—and that it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that seat belt legislation becomes effective?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the recent safety campaign on wearing seat belts in the back of cars was probably one of the most hard-hitting and effective which the Government have run. It certainly had an effect on the number of people wearing seat belts. Unfortunately, even now less than 50 per cent. of adults wear seat belts
2074
in the back of cars. The contributory negligence aspect in court cases would differ from case to case, but in any future campaign we shall bear it in mind and try to bring it to the attention of the public as one of the consequences, and financially possibly a larger consequence than a simple fine.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 17 years ago the late Lady Birk, a distinguished Labour Front Bencher for a dozen years or more, admitted to your Lordships that despite favouring the compulsory wearing of seat belts, her life had been saved by not wearing a seat belt? Her car was in a collision and she was thrown out to safety on a grass verge. But the front of her car was totally crushed, as she would have been had she been belted in. Is that by no means unique incident not hard to reconcile with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not aware of that situation. There are very few cases in which not wearing a seat belt has avoided injury. However, statistics show that in the vast majority of cases the wearing of seat belts can reduce risk. The courts in considering such cases will take into account the size of the risk and in many circumstances suggest that not wearing a seat belt contributed to the injury.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, since I have become ancient I use black cabs fairly frequently. Is my noble friend aware that often the seat belts are difficult to put on and sometimes do not work at all? I suggest that the owners of black cabs and mini-cabs should be urged to ensure that their seat belts are wearable.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, even though I have not quite reached my noble friend's advanced years I sometimes find my dexterity lacking in the back of some taxi-cabs.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I must rapidly rephrase that and return to seat belts! The responsibility is on the cab-owners to ensure that seat belts in the back of the cab are workable and usable. That is the case with drivers of cars which are required to have such belts.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said about the effectiveness of seat belts. However, is it not the case that under certain conditions certain people—for instance, the very old and the very young, those who have been injured and perhaps pregnant women—are doubtful about their relationship with the law as regards seat belts? Can the Minister give any guidance to those who are uncertain about whether they should travel in a vehicle when they find the belts uncomfortable or threatening during their period of injury and so forth? Can he give guidance on the difficulty which may be faced?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand that the law requires all people travelling in a car fitted with seat

2075
belts to use them. If that caused much discomfort it would be a matter of personal judgment not to travel by car. Such circumstances are limited. In many cases it may be uncomfortable or difficult to wear a seat belt, but it is still substantially safer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House his view of rear seat belts?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my view of rear seat belts is that passengers in cars fitted with them should use them, and that is indeed the law.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, why according to the law must one wear a seat belt in the back of a taxi while the driver need not do so?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I would need to take advice on that matter. However, I understand that the drivers of all cars, including black cabs, must wear a seat belt.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the situation is clearly governed by taxi regulations rather than the law to which I have referred. I will rapidly retreat and let the noble Earl know the reasoning behind it, if any.
Lord Acton: My Lords, have any surveys been carried out to ascertain whether passengers other than the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and the Minister himself use seat belts in the back of taxis?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I should talk about the back seat of taxis any more! In general, surveys show that for vehicles as a whole just under 50 per cent. of adults use a seat belt. It is a legal requirement to wear them where they are fitted.
Lord Meston: My Lords, are any reliable statistics held by the insurance industry or elsewhere relating to the number of awards or settlements which have been discounted by contributory negligence? If there are reliable statistics should they not be further publicised?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not aware of statistics in that form. Should they be in that simple form, clearly they should be given greater publicity. The problem is that the degree of contributory negligence will vary from case to case.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, bearing in mind the alarming fact that, despite all the campaigns, less than 50 per cent. of people are wearing seat belts, is it not necessary, as I indicated before, to inject a measure of urgency into a campaign to boost the wearing of seat belts by emphasising the dire consequences that can occur if they are not worn?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have said already to my noble friend that in future campaigns we shall certainly
2076
take that aspect into account. Whether in the literature or the television campaigns, I am sure that it will feature in future.

Millennium Dome
3.10 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What new information they can give on the Millennium Dome, with particular reference to means of access, parking arrangements, contents.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the new Millennium Experience Company's annual report and financial statements for 1997–98 were published on 30th July and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The company's corporate plan for the period 1997–98 to 2000–01 was published in August and copies of that are available in the Libraries. I understand that the Millennium Commission has today laid copies of its annual report in the Libraries of both Houses.
Good progress is being made on all aspects of the transport arrangements for the dome. In particular, the Government welcome London Transport's recent appointment of Bechtel to manage the completion and commissioning stages of the Jubilee Line extension, and its confirmation that it will open in good time for the millennium experience.
I understand that the London Borough of Greenwich has recently approved the principle of the New Millennium Experience Company park-and-ride strategy. Overall, I am happy to report that the millennium experience, both at the dome and around the country through the associated national programme, is developing extremely well. The installation of the content of the dome has already begun on time.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does it not strike the noble Lord as being rather odd that in this age of spin doctoring, carefully contrived messages and masses of paper, there is still very little understanding throughout the country as to what will emerge in the dome at the end of the day? For example, is there to be any sign or token of the anniversary which it commemorates; or alternatively, will there be in any way a stage to show British skills? So far, little is known on those subjects?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure from the noble Lord's question whether he deplores spin doctoring or asks for more of it. It has always been planned that the details of the content of the dome will be made public over a period of time. We do not want to have everything known more than a year in advance.
As regards the anniversary which the dome celebrates, as the noble Lord knows, one of the zones is the spirit zone. The content of that is being developed

2077
in conjunction with the Lambeth Group which is chaired by the personal chaplain of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what plans are being made for parking and other facilities for severely disabled people within the dome?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there will be parking facilities for severely disabled people, and only severely disabled people, in the dome area.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a dome has been marking the birth which this dome celebrates since the Great Fire of London in the building of St. Paul's? It would be more fitting if, instead of looking like a giant mushroom, the new dome, like the old dome, had a cross on top of it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his aesthetic and architectural judgments. Many other people who have seen the dome—which, strictly speaking in architectural terms, is not a dome—are very excited about it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the noble Lord say more about the opportunity being given to the Christian Churches within the spiritual content of the dome?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought I had answered that question. The spirit zone within the dome is being developed in consultation with the Lambeth Group which is chaired by the personal chaplain of the Archbishop of Canterbury and includes representatives of all faiths in this country. In addition, the noble Lord may be aware of the announcement made earlier this month about the candle ceremony which is planned for the beginning of the new millennium. It is to be observed all round the country and at the dome.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that the masses, other than the disabled, will be able to get to the dome?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, I can give that assurance. We have confirmation that the work on the Jubilee Line extension, which is planned to take 60 per cent. of visitors to the dome, will be completed in good time for the millennium. As I said, the park-and-ride facilities which are necessary are going ahead as planned.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, is it not the case that even if the Jubilee Line is completed—and we all hope that it is—it is totally distorting the investment priorities of London Transport and therefore other tube lines are being totally neglected? On the Northern Line and other lines, people are travelling in appalling conditions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as a user of the Northern Line, I agree that it leaves much to be desired. Of course, the Jubilee Line extension was planned a long time before the suggestion of the
2078
Greenwich site for the dome. It is important for the economic development of the whole of eastern London and is justified on those grounds alone.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, in view of pending competition inquiries involving Sky Television, British Airways and the Ford Motor Company, all large donors to the Millennium Dome, does the Minister not agree with me that there is a potentially serious conflict of interest between the role of Mr. Peter Mandelson as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his role as chief fund raiser for the dome? Does the Minister not agree further that the prospects for the dome would be greatly enhanced if it were declared a Mandelson-free zone?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have indicated already in answering questions on the dome that I do not propose to intervene in other noble Lords making jokes on the subject. However, the noble Lord made two serious points which I shall answer. First, the shareholder, Peter Mandelson, is not involved in the detailed negotiations or indeed in the negotiations in principle on sponsorship within the dome. That is the responsibility of the New Millennium Experience Company. Secondly, the noble Lord asked about possible conflicts of interest. I assure the noble Lord that on each occasion that matters concerning sponsors of the dome have arisen in his department, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has taken proper advice. So far he has been advised that there is no conflict of interest, but if he were advised that there were a conflict of interest, he would certainly not take part in anything which would give rise to such a conflict.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord but I should draw his attention to the fact that we are beyond the half-way mark for Questions.

Regional Eurostar Services
3.18 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will announce whether the north of London Eurostar trains will be used for services north of London or, suitably shortened, for services between Paris, Brussels and Heathrow.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in his statement of 3rd June, the train operator consortium has been asked urgently to review the feasibility of regional Eurostar services, and to report before the end of the year.

2079
We understand that the train operator consortium is simultaneously considering the feasibility of a Heathrow service. It is intended that a statement regarding the reviews will be made to Parliament before the end of the year.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extremely interesting Answer. Is he aware that part of the consortium carrying out that study is British Airways which naturally wants the set of trains to go to Heathrow? The same set of trains are required to go north of London. Would it surprise the Minister if it were demonstrated in that study that north of London services would not be viable without a subsidy? He is probably aware that Virgin trains, the Labour Party's special friend at Blackpool, has offered to operate a service north of London without subsidy. Will the company be given an opportunity to operate that service if the subsidy request is zero as opposed to the other request which may be higher?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware that British Airways, along with National Express Group, SNCF and SNCB—the French and Belgian railways—are party to this consortium. However, I welcome the involvement in an integrated transport sense of British Airways in surface transport. The feasibility studies will be objective and they will reach a conclusion which I should not like to pre-empt or predict today.
Virgin has run a campaign saying that it will run regional services north of London without public subsidy. Quite what that means when it says that it will have to have the regional Eurostar trains, which are the same trains that the consortium is considering, I am not sure. It is not the only option for running a service to Heathrow. Clearly, if the north of London service proves feasible, we shall move on from there to consider the operators of that service.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, would not certain railway companies be better advised to make a good job of running the services they have at present rather than thinking of running new ones?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister made his view clear on that matter with regard to Virgin and other operators. Clearly we wish to see some improvement of the current operators, but we want also to look at options for improving and extending the Eurostar service. That is what the consortium is considering and I hope to make a Statement before the end of the year.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there will be grave discontent in the north of England and in Scotland if regional services are delayed in order to let the Heathrow services go ahead first? Is he also aware that considerable track improvements need to be put in place before the Heathrow service to Paris and Brussels—however desirable it may be and I agree that it is desirable—can
2080
be put in place? Is it not therefore a matter of timing, with the regional services coming first and the Heathrow link second?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are track aspects and track difficulties in both the north-south route and the Heathrow route which Railtrack needs to address and which need to be involved in the feasibility study. The first question is not timing, but whether either of those services is feasible. That is what the current study is designed to find out.

Kosovo: OSCE Monitors
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements have been made to protect the OSCE monitors in Kosovo.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the security of members of the OSCE Verification Mission to Kosovo is of paramount concern to Her Majesty's Government. That is why Britain pressed for the adoption of a new UN Security Council resolution making clear to President Milosevic the responsibilities incumbent upon him to ensure the safety and security of all international personnel working in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. NATO is working on options for a force to extract OSCE personnel in an emergency.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees made it clear at a contact group meeting on 23rd October that the overwhelming reason for a failure of refugees to return was their fear of being once again attacked by Serb security or police forces? The only reassurance UNHCR felt able to offer was the presence, on a 24-hour basis, of the monitors. Those monitors may be at risk of hostage taking and I therefore press the Minister to consider whether more urgent action might be taken.
When the refugees return, they will find nothing—no food, no shelter and no stocks for the winter. Will Her Majesty's Government consider the possibility of using NATO logistics to mount a major humanitarian effort of the kind that has been perhaps exemplified by the recent US airlift of blankets and health kits to Pristina in the last few days?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks a number of important questions. I hope the House will forgive me if I take a little time to try to answer the points she raised.
The UK sent a joint Foreign Office Ministry of Defence team to Kosovo today to explore the scope for deploying an advance contingent of 50 British personnel to Kosovo to reinforce the Kosovo diplomatic observer

2081
mission. They will be integrated into the OSCE mission once it is properly established. We hope that that will be possible next week. Thereafter 2,000 monitors or verifiers will flood into Kosovo, along with the presence of the humanitarian agencies and the international staff from those agencies. We hope that we will be encouraging the displaced persons to return.
The noble Baroness again raises the question of the vulnerability of those monitors. NATO plans for ensuring that the mission members can be extracted in an emergency are being worked out as a matter of urgency. I am sure the House will understand that I cannot go into detail in relation to those plans, but I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are fully engaged in that process. The noble Baroness asked also about aid. I can see that the Front Bench opposite is becoming restless. Questions of aid are important and I shall be happy to answer them if other noble Lords wish to ask them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish to ask two crucial questions, cutting aside the verbiage. First, is it not manifestly plain that the monitors cannot go in unless they are amply safeguarded by armed protection on the ground? Secondly, is it not equally plain that no monitors can go in while there is any prospect—and there is—that air strikes may be required?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I must remind the noble Lord that there have been 45 to 50 monitors in Kosovo so far this year. It is not verbiage to tell the House that a Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence team is going into Kosovo this very day to look at the logistics on the ground and, furthermore, that the NATO ambassadors are taking advice from military planners in regard to the safety of those people on the ground. It is not verbiage; these are matters of fact.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the Minister say how long it will be before the winter sets in and many of the upper villages become unreachable? Can she say also whether NATO engineers will have a mandate to use military equipment to open the routes during the winter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in relation to the last point I shall have to take further advice. I will write to the noble Lord on the use of military equipment for humanitarian purposes. The good news is that humanitarian agencies have been able to return to Kosovo. They have already resumed the delivery of aid. The weather is highlighting the urgency of that task. It is right that the UNHCR should focus on providing adequate shelter for those still living out of doors. There were 50,000 still living out of doors when your Lordships last discussed this issue. I am happy to say that the numbers are coming down and there are now only 10,000 people living out of doors. I am also happy to say that last week UNHCR managed to deliver aid to 100,000 needy people in Kosovo. I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to make those important points.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the UN Security Council Resolution 1203, to which she referred, once again fell short of authorising military action in the event of non-compliance by Belgrade? Given that both China and Russia abstained from that resolution, what assurances can the Minister give the House that, should history repeat itself in Kosovo, we will not yet again be a witness to the spectre of a "dithering and disunited" international community, as the Prime Minister's press spokesman himself described it last week?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of what the UN Security Council resolution states. It fulfils an important function in reminding the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of its responsibilities to ensure the safety of the OSCE mission members, the diplomats and the humanitarian workers. It spells out to the Kosovo Albanian leadership that it, too, must play its part in ensuring safety. However, the legal base of any military action is, of course, the same as it was when your Lordships last discussed the issue. The United Kingdom's view is that even without Security Council authorisation, military intervention can be justified when there is an overwhelming humanitarian necessity.
Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord that NATO intends to keep up the pressure on President Milosevic. There has been serious progress towards compliance with UN Security Council resolutions but only because of the continuing threat of NATO action. NATO will not lower its guard. It remains ready to act.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I see very clearly the difficulty in which Her Majesty's present advisers find themselves. I suspect—the noble Baroness might like to confirm this—that our allies are rather less keen on getting involved than we would think correct. Is not the noble Baroness aware that the danger that many of us see is the kidnapping of, say, 20 or 30 observers which would then make it almost impossible to carry out air strikes. The more pressure that is put on Milosevic when civilians are involved, the more dangerous it will be for those same civilians. I promise that I am not trying to make difficulties for the Government; I am asking this question with the maximum amount of sympathy. Can the Minister help us on this?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I note the spirit behind the noble Earl's question. Of course there are difficulties in using civilian monitors in that way. If there were no difficulties there would not be an MoD/FCO team going in today to look at the problems and the UN ambassadors would not be consulting military planners over the safety of those monitors. It is because the dangers are so clearly recognised that that vital planning work must go ahead. I am sure that the noble Earl is not trying to tempt me to reveal those details. I have given the House the assurance that that work is under way. The difficulties described by the noble Earl are fully understood. The seriousness with which this matter is being discussed at NATO is understood by all participants.

Petition: Mr. Roger Viggers
3.32 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from Mr. Roger Viggers which prays that this House will call upon the Secretary of State for Social Security to backdate the war pension of Roger Viggers who, following a serious accident, was discharged from the Army in 1976 but did not receive a war pension until 1995.
Petition presented.

Business
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House a question about business. Can the noble Baroness confirm to the House that she and the Government regard the report published this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as a matter of some importance? If they do so regard it, I hope that the House can be assured that the Government will take the report seriously. I hope that they will also feel that Parliament is owed an explanation as soon as possible of how the Government regard the report and what they intend to do. After all, one House will be deeply affected by the report whether or not it is accepted.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for drawing the attention of the House to the important report by the independent commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The report's proposals are significant and worthy of lengthy debate and discussion. The noble Lord recommends, for example, that the proposals that he puts forward could not be considered for any general election until the one after next. I think, therefore, that this is not a matter for immediate discussion although it is clearly worthy of important discussion.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Government used adequate and proper methods to ensure that your Lordships were aware of the publication of the report. The arrangements appeared in a Written Answer in Hansard yesterday. The report was available in the Printed Paper Office this morning at 11 o'clock. It was accompanied by a statement from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

Regional Development Agencies Bill
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 1,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 2,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 3 to 6,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 7 to 19,
Schedule 4,
Clause 20,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 21 to 23,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 24 to 32,
Schedule 7,
Clauses 33 and 34,
Schedule 8,
Clauses 35 and 36,
Schedule 9,
Clauses 37 to 45.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (119) as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert ("and

(c) Articles 1 and 2 of the Sixth Protocol,").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.1. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 46, 54, 55, 57, and 59.
Amendment No. 1 adds two substantive articles of the sixth protocol to the convention rights. This refers to the abolition of the death penalty, except for acts committed in time of war or imminent threat of war.
The other place added Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol in response to amendments tabled by my honourable friend Mr. McNamara. It was explained in another place that that would make it impossible for Parliament to reintroduce the death penalty in future, except for acts committed in time of war or imminent threat of war, without denouncing the convention itself. It was also explained that if those articles were added to the Bill, when we had not signed or ratified the sixth protocol, there would be a certain degree of lack of kilter with our international obligations.
Another place voted by a very large majority (294 to 136) on a free vote to go ahead with the amendments. Your Lordships may recall that we said at that stage that we would respect the will of another place and would initiate the signing and ratification of the sixth protocol.
Three other amendments in this group come from a decision announced in another place on 24th July by my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. He said that there had been a review of the law in this area and that following that review the Government

2085
intended to abolish the death penalty for military offences in all circumstances, whether in peace or war. Therefore, Amendment No. 54 inserts a new subsection into Clause 21 which provides that any liability to the death penalty under the service discipline Acts is to be treated as a liability to life imprisonment or some lesser penalty. This general statement will be supplemented by detailed amendments to the service discipline Acts when the next legislation to consolidate those Acts is announced.
Amendment No. 55 provides that the new subsection inserted by Amendment No. 54 comes into force when the Human Rights Bill receives Royal Assent. I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is consistent with our intention to proceed without delay to sign and ratify the sixth protocol.
Amendment No. 57 provides that the new subsection inserted by Amendment No. 54 has effect in any place in which the service discipline Acts have effect. This is needed because the Acts, unlike the Human Rights Bill, are not limited in their territorial extent to the United Kingdom. It is consistent with our intention, subject to their agreement, to extend the ratification of the sixth protocol to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I can tell the House that Jersey and the Isle of Man have already agreed and that Guernsey is this week debating a recommendation from the appropriate committee to do so as well. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.1.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, my party does not object to the Commons amendments. We shall not oppose them. I wish, however, to ask the Minister one question by way of elucidation. Before I do so, perhaps I may thank him for the helpful and quite lengthy letters he sent to myself and other noble Lords setting out what the various Commons amendments do. To receive such information when one is dealing with a Bill of this complexity makes the life of Peers in all parts of the House much easier.
The only question I wish to ask relates to the possible resurrection, if that is not the wrong word, of the death penalty as regards the Armed Forces. I am not sure that the noble Lord made that quite clear in his remarks and I may have misunderstood. Am I right in saying that it will be possible for Parliament to reintroduce the death penalty for acts committed in time of war or imminent threat of war without being in breach of the convention itself but only in those circumstances?
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, it will become apparent that I am not altogether in agreement with the views of my party, as so clearly expressed by my noble friend Lord Henley. I doubt whether I am really exceptional in finding considerable difficulty with the amendment. I have been an abolitionist for as long as I can remember. Indeed, I cannot recall a time when I was not opposed to capital punishment; nor do I remember now what made me an abolitionist. I suspect that it may have been
2086
the case of Craig and Bentley. What I do remember is that in my Oxford college hall there was a portrait—it may still be there—of Lord Goddard. I still feel a certain sense of unease upon recalling the sight of the former Lord Chief Justice above us in his frame.
At the same time I cannot accept that it is constitutionally proper or reasonable to end, against the apparent wishes of the Government and in a hole and corner way, the convention which has existed for so many years that Parliament, its Members voting according to conscience and on a free vote, decides whether and on what terms the death penalty may be restored.
The objection to the death penalty, I accept, is its irreversibility and, to a lesser extent, what many people may call its obscenity. But the irreversibility and obscenity of the death penalty pale into insignificance when compared to the irreversibility and obscenity of the death of innocent civilians in war or of innocent bystanders in civil disturbance, at the hands of public authorities, which we have to accept. The right not to be hanged for a crime is important to me, but that does not make it an absolute human right, philosophically valid in all circumstances. I suggest that in human rights terms it is not even on a par with the right to a fair trial or with the other rights given effect to by the convention.
I do not believe that these views will necessarily be all that far distant from those expressed by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in Committee. The noble Lord said then that the Government's view was that the issue of the death penalty was a matter of judgment and conscience to be decided by Members of Parliament as they saw fit, and he believed that this was common currency among all the political parties. How wrong he was. He said that he believed that all political parties had taken a view on this particular aspect which was different from other human civil rights. He pointed out that the ratification of the sixth protocol would mean that we could not reintroduce the death penalty for murder, short of renouncing the convention. Six months later, almost to the day, the overwhelming majority of his party in another place voted against that advice and that of the Government by adding the sixth protocol to the Bill. Even before the vote was taken, Mike O'Brien, the junior Minister entrusted with the Bill, had said, when pressed, that the Government would take a yes vote as an instruction of the House and would proceed to ratify the protocol, notwithstanding the views which he and the Home Secretary had expressed. There was nothing in the amendment itself to show that it contained any such instruction. How many of those who supported the amendment actually heard the debate and knew that that was how the Government viewed it? On entering the Lobbies, how many were told that it was a vote against capital punishment?
Questions should be asked of the Government. Why the volte-face? The Minister has not made that clear, except by quoting the size of the majority in favour of the amendment. One possible reason strikes me

2087
forcefully. It could have occurred to the Government, at some time between the support of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in November of the massive logic of the White Paper and the vote in May, that there was a political disaster of the dimensions of Niagara Falls lying in wait for them. The Government must have come to the conclusion that one unavoidable result of tinkering with the constitution like a cabinet of dysfunctional canons would be a referendum on the death penalty unless something was done to stop it. Clearly, the Government will have realised that such a referendum could not be fudged in the way the Welsh referendum was fudged and that the only safe way out of this constitutional impasse was to put the question of the death penalty into the hands of the Council of Europe. Only in that way might they escape the inevitable logic of their penchant for referendums.
The Minister may like to comment on the point of order which my honourable friend Mr. Grieve attempted to make during the Division in the other place. He claimed that after Mr. O'Brien had stated there would be a free vote, the Government Whips outside the Chamber were directing Labour Members to vote against the ostensible position of the Government and in favour of the amendment. Were the Government blowing hot and cold at the same time? Had they a hidden agenda? I believe they had.
The amendment we have received from the other place is an intolerant assault on the rights of Parliament. It demeans parliamentary democracy itself. We are all diminished by the Government's volte-face and their abandonment of principle. We have witnessed a trahison des clercs which does credit to no one.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I take a rather different view to that of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. We support these amendments and pay tribute to the efforts of those in this House and the other place to carry them. Perhaps I may recall one or two background facts in view of the speech which the noble Lord has just made.
As I recall the position, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, moved amendments in this House to abolish the death penalty for military offences. There was a debate on them. When a vote was called there were insufficient Tellers on the Conservative side. A very small minority had spoken against the proposition. So there was no vote.
So far as the undemocratic upper House was concerned, the matter was carried without even a Division. However, I was one of those who said that because we were the undemocratic, unelected upper House it was right that the democratic other place should speak. It did overwhelmingly by 294 votes to 136 to extend the incorporation of the convention to include the as yet unratified sixth protocol to abolish the death penalty in peacetime and then to deal with the situation as regards military offences.
The protocol has been ratified by all the European Union states with the exception of the United Kingdom. It has also been ratified by 28 of the 40 Council of
2088
Europe states. So far as I am aware, the death penalty has been abolished from Ireland in the west to Turkey in the east in 40 member states. I understand the strongly held opinions to the contrary, although not recently expressed, even in the tabloid media, which is remarkable. But it seems to me that no one can say that what we are doing has not been carefully considered by both Houses or is out of line with general standards across the European system which includes a variety of legal and cultural traditions.
We pay tribute in particular to the efforts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. We are very glad to hear that the position in the Channel Islands is to be brought into line because we attach great importance to the implementation of the international human rights obligations to all parts of the United Kingdom and to the Channel Islands. We have made that clear in the past.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may add one sentence. If I heard him aright, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, described the amendment as an intolerable assault on the rights of Parliament. I do not understand how a sovereign Parliament can do such a thing. To put it no higher, is this not a most ingenious paradox?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, made about the letter which was sent to him. It is a tribute to the quality of the work which officials in the Home Office have demonstrated throughout the quite lengthy and difficult passage of this Bill. I shall certainly pass on his gratitude and thanks to them.
The noble Lord's specific question was: is it still possible to reintroduce the death penalty for acts in times of war or imminent threat of war? The answer to that is yes, because of Section 2 of the sixth protocol. That would not involve a denunciation of the convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, asked for a number of matters to be attended to. I understand his points. They were fully explained to another place and it chose to come to its conclusion, on a free vote, 294 to 136, as I have already indicated. I do not think that this is a demeaning of parliamentary democracy. The noble Lord spoke of an intolerable assault on parliamentary democracy, or an intolerable insult, as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell, a moment ago. Quite a lot of us in both Houses think that the death penalty is an intolerable insult to human rights. It is not for me to comment on unsubstantiated hearsay about who said what in another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 1, Page 1, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("any").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.

2089
Amendment No. 2 is an amendment of some importance because there was a very significant debate in your Lordships' House about the position of Churches and other religious organisations. Your Lordships will remember those debates quite vividly. There was quite considerable correspondence thereafter between, notably, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a number of the bishops and a large number of representatives, one way or another, of other religious organisations. We in the Home Office promised that we would pay careful attention to those representations and we have demonstrated that we have done so. We had a number of meetings, which were all extremely courteous and fruitful.
Your Lordships passed certain amendments to the Bill. We came to the conclusion that they ought not to remain in the Bill in their then form—I underline those words—and another place, on the 20th May, voted to remove them. We concluded that we should put our minds to a proper and proportionate response to the concerns of Churches and religious organisations. The important aspect of this present group—it consists of Amendments Nos. 2, 8, 14, 16 and 37—is Amendment No. 37. Perhaps I may quote it to assist your Lordships:
"If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right".
I have mentioned the matters that have been raised. In particular, without being unduly selective, I shall mention the concerns which were moderately pressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. We responded to his concerns in two ways: first, by provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act; and, secondly, by this present clause.
The Archbishop of Canterbury wrote to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in these terms:
"The proposed new clause does not provide the firm guarantee of the Churches' continued doctrinal independence which we have sought, and you will appreciate that not all Church members will therefore be satisfied with it.
Nevertheless, I am grateful both for the new clause and for the proposed amendments to the Human Rights Bill and the School Standards and Framework Bill which, together with the assurances given by the Lord Chancellor …. and the other amendments already made …. I believe constitute a significant improvement".
Cardinal Hume wrote:
"I also welcome the fact that the Government has moved an amendment to the Human Rights Bill in order to meet the more general anxiety we have expressed. I recognise the difficulty of framing an amendment in a way which is consistent with the Convention. I have sought the best legal advice and my initial assessment is that the amendment in the form tabled by the Government may be the best that can reasonably be achieved to reinforce the protection given by the Convention to the churches and other faiths under Article 9".
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, in an earlier part of my life, in particular in the Department of Social Security, I was defeated on many occasions by my noble kinsman Lord Russell on various social security Bills. On a number of occasions those defeats were reversed or partially
2090
reversed in another place. I remember that on each occasion my noble kinsman obtained part of what he asked for, he was grateful for it and welcomed the half a loaf rather than a full loaf. All I can say on this occasion is that we welcome the fact that the Government were prepared to move some way even if they were not prepared to move as far as this House originally sought to push them when my noble friend Lady Young and others made their original amendments to this Bill. On this occasion I thank the noble Lord and the Government for that half a loaf, even if it is not a full loaf.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, on behalf of the Churches I reiterate our gratitude to the Government for taking our concerns into account in these amendments in the way that has already been described. Perhaps I may take a little time to correct any misunderstanding that has arisen about the fact that Churches and other religious bodies have pressed for these amendments. The Churches are deeply committed to human rights, both in theory and practice, and support the incorporation of the European convention into United Kingdom law.
It is important to set the great body of human rights law that has arisen since the Second World War into some kind of historical perspective. Above all, it has been about the protection of the individual against tyranny—first the tyranny of the Nazis and then the tyranny of Soviet-style communism.
Societies contain not only individuals but institutions such as trade unions, schools, families and churches. If we are genuinely concerned about a plural society we must be concerned not only about the rights of individuals but also the legitimate claims of those intermediate institutions. Therefore it is particularly welcome that in Amendment No. 37 there is a reference to an organisation—in this case a religious organisation, itself or its members collectively. We very much welcome the fact that these intermediate institutions in the forms of Churches and other religious bodies have legitimate claims.
Let me give one brief example. Let us suppose that there is a voluntary aided school—either Jewish, Moslem or Christian—and the head teacher of that school decides to convert to another religion. If he claims a right to freedom of speech, and therefore the right to remain in his position, what would happen to the particular ethos of that voluntary aided school? Under the amendment which the Government have incorporated into this Bill, it is said that if the matter comes to court then the court must have particular regard to the importance of the right of the institution.
It is true that the amendment does not go quite as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the religious bodies wanted. However, I hope that your Lordships will feel that a reasonable balance has been struck so that the individual's right to freedom will be measured against the legitimate claims of religious institutions. I reiterate the thanks of the Churches to the Government for hearing their concerns and incorporating them into these amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it is very good to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. One can think of very few religious leaders who are more deeply committed to the cause of human rights. No one doubts at all that the Churches in this country are indeed deeply committed to the effective protection of human rights.
It seems to us that these amendments strike a fair balance. On the one hand, they draw attention to the particular importance of freedom of conscience, belief and religion, without seeking to distinguish between one religion and another, speaking of religious bodies generally, which seems very wise, so that there is no hierarchy or exclusivity, and being declaratory of what we have understood the convention in any case to have guaranteed; that is to say, not in any way trespassing on the regulation of divine worship, including the administration of the sacrament or admission to church membership or the priesthood, which are all plainly private matters. On the other hand, there are situations in which the Church is part of the state or exercises public functions; for example, in maintaining voluntary schools. In such a case the law already intervenes; for example, by forbidding racial discrimination in providing education in all schools, including voluntary schools. Even religious bodies are capable of breaching convention rights and cannot be above the law of the convention; and no one disputes that.
Therefore, it seems to us that this provision does not in any way seek to immunise religious bodies from the convention but respects freedom of conscience, belief and religion, drawing attention to the importance of that and maintaining the distinction between the public sphere and the private sphere. For all those reasons we support this balanced approach.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for those generous responses. We in Government did not ever think that the Churches or other religious organisations were seeking a selfish or partisan advantage. They had legitimate concerns. I am grateful to your Lordships for recognising that we have addressed them fairly and achieved the proper balance.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 1, Page 1, line 16, leave out ("section or Schedule 1") and insert ("Act").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. This is a technical amendment only. Clause 1(4) provides a power to amend Clause 1 and Schedule 1 to reflect protocols which have become binding on the United Kingdom. There is also a reference in Clause 21(1) of the Bill, so we took the view that a wider power was not needed. We thought the neatest way of doing this was to leave out "section or Schedule 1" and insert "Act". I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 2, page 2, line 1, leave out ("under this Act").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, 9, 17 to 21, 23, 32, 38 to 45 and 47 to 53. These amendments are entirely technical and relatively minor. Their purpose in the main is to ensure that the Human Rights Bill is consistent with the Government's devolution legislation; that is, the Government of Wales Act, the Scotland Bill and the Northern Ireland Bill.
The purpose of Amendment No. 4 is to enable the devolution legislation to work effectively. Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 38, 39, 40 and 41 enable evidence of Strasbourg judgments to be conveniently introduced. The rest of the amendments are entirely technical. They are concerned with the status of, for instance, certain types of Order in Council and relate to definitions of, for instance, Northern Ireland Ministers. Unless your Lordships particularly require an explanation of a specific amendment—I see vigorous shaking of heads in the negative and I hope I can take a hint—I commend the amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 2, Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
("(aa) by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State, in relation to any proceedings outside Scotland;").
6 Page 2, line 18, leave out ("Lord Advocate or").
7 Page 2, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
("(b) by a Northern Ireland department, in relation to proceedings before a tribunal in Northern Ireland—

(i) which deals with transferred matters; and

(ii) for which no rules made under paragraph (aa) are in force.").

8 Page 2, leave out lines 22 to 35.
9 Clause 5, page 3, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert—
("(a) a Minister of the Crown (or a person nominated by him),

(b) a member of the Scottish Executive,

(c) a Northern Ireland Minister,

(d) a Northern Ireland department,").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 9. These amendments have already been spoken to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 9.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 5, Page 3, line 35, leave out ("an application made to the court") and insert ("giving notice").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 to 13. These also are technical amendments to Clause 5 relating to whether or not notification is required to the Crown when a court is considering making a declaration of incompatibility. They are entirely technical. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. l0.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, perhaps I may welcome these amendments, as I had intended to welcome the previous group of amendments but was somewhat slow to get to my feet. I wish to raise one practical issue in relation to the relationship between Amendment No. 9 and these amendments.
I may be wrong, but I understand that Clause 5, as now amended, entitles the Crown to notice of the consideration of whether a declaration of incompatibility is to be made, and then, under subsection (2), gives the Minister of the Crown and various other parties, who now include a member of the Scottish executive and a Northern Ireland Minister, the right to intervene. I am interested in exploring the practicalities of how the Scottish executive, the Northern Ireland Minister and the Northern Ireland department will become aware of the possibility of a declaration of incompatibility being made. No obligation is set out on the face of the Bill to give notice to other parties in the same way as to the Crown. One possible solution might be for the Crown to undertake to pass on such notice to the other parties involved. I am sure that could be done administratively.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we welcome what are undoubtedly perfectly sensible technical amendments. However, I wish to raise one matter. Under the amendments that have just been passed and under these amendments, it is obviously sensible for the governing authorities of the country to be given notice and for the Crown to be given adequate notice of the right to intervene when a court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility, whether in the context of the devolution legislation or under the Human Rights Act. It is troubling that there will be no body that is able to represent anyone other than the individual victim or the Crown or government body concerned except in the context of the Northern Ireland Bill, where, as we understand it, the Human Rights Commission for Northern Ireland will be able to intervene, playing a public interest amicus role.
I was re-reading an important essay written by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when in opposition. He deployed the case for a human rights commission very clearly. That is water under the bridge at the moment as far as concerns Great Britain, but I wonder whether the Minister can say something about
2094
how he sees the amicus curiae role of third party interest groups able to put in their submissions, in addition to the Crown's submissions, when issues about declarations of incompatibility are in issue. It is quite right that the Crown should be in a preferred position and have an automatic right of intervention, but does the Minister echo the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at an earlier stage when he said he hoped that the courts would be generous in permitting third party human rights organisations to be able to make their representations, in addition to the victim him or herself.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, originally this was simply a technical amendment because no notice is required to be served on the Crown. However, I have taken note of the noble Lord's question. I hope I can undertake that, if there is a gap in the appropriate notification to, for example, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Scottish parliament, that will be attended to in the rules as provided for in Clause 5(2). I am grateful to the noble Lord because he has made a specific point and one which we need to bear particularly in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is casting his net a little wider as regards this amendment. We have been together now for not quite 40 years—although it sometimes feels like it. I ought to point out that there is nothing at all—and I am saying this on the record for the noble Lord's legitimate, though subterranean purpose—to stop interest groups assisting individuals who may bring proceedings or making their views known to the Crown.
An important aspect of the development of judicial review and related proceedings in this country—and this echoes what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said quite plainly—is how much more flexible and open the courts have been in allowing various interest groups the amicus role. I can give your Lordships one illustration in that respect. I have in mind, for example, the time when NACRO performed an extremely helpful role in the very thorny question of the balancing of rights of those who have been convicted of paedophile offences to live reasonably with the rights of the community to know of their offences. That was a step forward and one in the continuing process. On the basis of the assurances that I have given to the noble Lord about the rule-making power, together with the other indications that I have made, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
11 Clause 5, Page 3, line 37, leave out ("An application") and insert ("Notice").
12 Page 3, line 37, leave out ("made") and insert ("given").
13 Page 3, line 40, leave out ("an application under this section") and insert ("a notice under subsection (2)").
14 Clause 6, page 4, leave out lines 24 to 30.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 14.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 14.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.15 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
15 Clause 7, page 5, line 9, at end insert—
("() Proceedings under subsection (1)(a) must be brought before the end of—

(a) the period of one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place; or

(b) such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances,

but that is subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question.").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.
At present, the Bill makes no provision regarding the period in which proceedings can be brought under Clause 7(1)(a); that is, on convention grounds alone as distinct from any pre-existing course of action. We believe that it is desirable to set a limitation period and that is the purpose of this amendment. It will provide that proceedings must be brought within one year beginning with the date upon which the act complained of took place or within such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances. The time limit is subject to any stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question; for example, the most obvious case being judicial review.
There is a balance between, on the one hand, the interests of the individual bringing the case and, on the other, those of the public authority alleged to have acted unlawfully. We think it is right that those who believe a public authority has acted unlawfully under the Human Rights Act and are bringing proceedings on that ground alone should do so within a reasonably short time. To allow for a longer period—for example, six years, which is the standard period in tort—would cause uncertainty for such authorities and make effective administration very difficult, if not virtually impossible.
We do look to flexibility. There may be occasions when there is a good reason for delay. Therefore, to cater for those circumstances the amendment gives the court a discretion to extend the one-year period. We know at present that the period for applications on judicial review is three months. It is true that it is notionally flexible, but I believe that it is rare for the three-month period to be extended. I think that I have given a fair summary of the balance that we have sought to achieve. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has tabled an amendment to this Commons amendment. Therefore, it will probably be more convenient if I defer my remarks in that respect until he has developed his theme.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 15
Line 3, at end insert—
("() the period of two years beginning with the date upon which this Act receives Royal Assent; and thereafter").
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name, which is an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 15. I should like also to speak to other amendments in this group. As the Minister explained, the Government take the view that a one-year basic limitation period for bringing proceedings under Clause 7 of the Bill strikes the right balance. They have essentially—and quite understandably and rightly—put their trust in the courts to do mercy and to extend the time limit when it is fair to do so.
Perhaps I may begin by saying that there was absolutely no indication that there would be any such time limit in the White Paper or in any other document which preceded the introduction of the Bill; nor is there any time limit of this kind in any of the other constitutional Bills of Rights anywhere else in the Commonwealth of which I am aware. Indeed, there is none in the New Zealand Bill of Rights and none in the Canadian Charter of Rights. However, this has been put in and it seems to me that Her Majesty's Treasury is probably concerned to seek to limit liability by public authorities for what will be a new constitutional tort under Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill.
What troubles me, first, about the time limit of one year is that it will cause confusion and uncertainty because the scheme of the Act will be to bind convention rights into the fabric of the common law. Therefore, there will be a whole variety of claims, some of which have time limits appropriate to an ordinary tort action but some of which will have time limits appropriate to this one-year constitutional tort action. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. Let us suppose that there is the tort of misfeasance in public office, which might have a convention element added to it. That would be subject to a longer time limit. Alternatively, there could be an Entick v. Carrington claim based upon common law notions of personal privacy which would be subject to a different time limit.
Somehow the unfortunate litigant will have to sort out what the true position will be about time limits. Therefore, I am troubled that it may cause confusion and uncertainty to introduce this unique one-year limit. I say "unique" in the sense that I know of nothing like it in any constitutional Bill of Rights. The Minister referred to the three-month time limit in judicial review, but that does not deal with a claim of right—a tort claim—indeed, it is dealing with a separate issue about judicial review.
That is my first major concern. My second concern is that the reasonableness of a one-year period is also undermined by the narrow victim test that has been adopted on standing and by the absence of any assistance for complainants, about which I have already spoken and upon which we await future government announcements.

2097
It is easy to imagine a situation where someone with a potentially meritorious claim is unaware for a year that his or her rights have been infringed, especially if the person has had no effective access to legal services and little knowledge about the impact of the new legislation. In such a situation, the Minister will no doubt say that we can trust the judges to extend the time limit. I agree that that seems to be probable. However, I am still concerned that this new one-year time limit will have a chilling effect upon the vulnerable and underprivileged in deciding whether to invoke the Act.
The reason why I tabled my amendment to extend the one-year period to an initial two-years relates to another problem which, if anything, is more serious as far as concerns ordinary members of the public. When we read Bringing Rights Home we thought—at least I did, and I believe most other people did—that it meant that rights would be brought home within a reasonable period of time. I certainly thought they would be brought home some time within a year of Royal Assent.
My understanding is that at present the Government are not thinking of bringing rights home next year—in terms of any claims of right—and not until some unspecified time in the year 2000. I believe that the reason put forward is judicial training. I am much in favour of any form of training for anyone, including the legal profession and judges. However, I am concerned that the public administration will immunise itself from claims involving alleged breaches of convention rights throughout that long hiatus with no prospect of an individual being able to seek and obtain an effective domestic remedy throughout a period of perhaps two years from now while breaches of convention rights may occur.
That will result in a number of factors which concern me greatly. First, it will frustrate the central objective of the legislation, which is to bring rights home and create speedy and effective domestic remedies without the need to go to Strasbourg, except in the last recourse. The longer the hiatus, the longer the period in which there will be no effective domestic remedies. That will be a great misfortune. In my view as time goes by and we see rights not being effectively brought home, many of us who strongly support the Government and strongly support the objectives of this legislation will become discontented. Instead of being friends and allies of the Bill—as we are—we shall become discontented. That would be a great pity because in a measure of this kind I believe that we should seek the widest consensus of support. Therefore the longer the hiatus—if I may say so, this may be the result of the Treasury seeking to minimise liability as much as anything else—the greater the discontent.
My concern was aggravated by the comments of the Home Secretary in another place when he explained to one of the Members of his party why Article 13 of the convention had not been incorporated into our domestic law. I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure me on this matter. During the Third Reading debate on 21st October the Home Secretary said,
"Although Article 13 mentions a national authority, the truth is that it is there to provide a remedy for the international Court at Strasbourg. For that reason, the Government thought that it would
2098
be inappropriate to include Article 13 in the Bill to incorporate the principal operational parts of the convention that provide substantive rights".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/10/98; col. 1367.]
With great respect, the Home Secretary was surely mistaken in suggesting that Article 13 does not create a substantive right to an effective national remedy. That has been made quite clear by the court in Strasbourg again and again. I mention it because it is important in the context of this time limit and the immunity that it gives to public authorities when allied with a delay in bringing the Bill into force. It will mean that there are continuing breaches of Article 13 of the convention for failure to provide effective domestic remedies during the long hiatus.
I have proposed a two year initial period so that no one will be prejudiced, in terms of their claims against a public authority, by the one year limitation period if the Government take two full years to bring the substantive provisions into force. It will mean that time will stand still as regards the one year limitation period. If people are the victims of breaches of convention rights by public authorities during that period after Royal Assent, once the Bill comes into force they will be able to seek and obtain a domestic remedy. If that does not happen, it will simply mean that we shall have to continue to have recourse on the international plain.
I am not suggesting that the Government should bring the Act into force on Royal Assent. That would be absurd. Nor am I suggesting that they should do so within a matter of weeks. However, I hope that we may be given some reassurance that the Government will look sympathetically at this matter and bring it into force in the course of 1999 before the millennium. I hope that the one year limitation period will not be an engine of injustice. I am sure the courts will do their best to secure that it is not.
Moved, That Amendment No. 15A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 15, be agreed to.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I object to this amendment. This is not the occasion either to initiate or reiterate a form of Committee stage argument. The views of the noble Lord are sincerely held, he is entitled to hold them, and I respect them. However, to impose them at this stage in these circumstances upon this House is not acceptable. The Government have this measure. I do not always agree with the Government—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not know why I do not always agree with the Government, but if one does not feel like doing so one does not. There are occasions when I agree with the Government. I think that the Government have this measure right, and it is rather distressing that we have to take the time of the House on this affair. The noble Lord is, of course, an expert on this matter, but we are not a House of experts. I hope that we are still all of a somewhat amateur status.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that we

2099
are discussing something entirely new; namely, a time limit that was inserted by the other place? That is why I thought it right to raise the consequences of that, coupled with commencement. Therefore it is a proper point for this House to consider.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall not prolong the discussion between the noble Lord and myself. In my opinion too much time has been spent on this matter already.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I wonder whether he would care to rectify one thing that he said. He said that we do not have experts here. The strength of this House and its superiority is because of the vast amount of expertise that there is here.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I wish to reinforce the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill by reminding the House of the opening words of the financial memorandum to the Bill which state, in terms, that public authorities should already be seeking to comply with the convention. I also point out that although these amendments affect Clause 7(1)(a) of the Bill, Clause 7(1)(b) provides that a person may,
"rely on the Convention right or rights … in any legal proceedings".
As I understand it, Clause 22(4) provides, in terms, that that applies to,
"proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority whenever the act in question took place".
Accordingly the message should clearly be going out to public authorities that they cannot afford to be complacent and that they are vulnerable to arguments involving convention rights from now on.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am always reluctant to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on matters such as these because he is so often right. I am equally nervous of agreeing with the Government lest my noble friends accuse me of political ineptitude. Nevertheless I think this is an occasion where the Government have got it right.
If the noble Lord, Lord Lester, had advanced an argument based on a six-year limitation period deriving from the establishment of a new tort, the logic would have been compelling. But the noble Lord has not done that. What he has done is to say: "The Government have taken a stab at what is a fair limitation period; I think that they have got it wrong, and my stab is better than theirs".
In matters relating to public authorities, speed is important. Our laws must be certain. I am sure that the Minister would wish to assure the House that, in circumstances where an individual could not possibly have known that a breach of the convention had arisen, a court would normally extend the time period in sympathy with that individual. If the Minister could give some indication along those lines and deal with the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the transitional provisions, we might all find ourselves in agreement with him.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was in the Chamber at the end of Questions. I am fairly sure that the Minister was. The noble Lord may have heard a Petition presented by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, to which I listened with close attention, relating to the denial of a war pension for service-induced deafness. The denial happened in 1976 and was discovered and finally put right in 1993.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on the need for speedy execution of the law. Public bodies do not always rise to that. We do not yet have a freedom of information Act. I shall not speculate on when we shall have one. In the absence of such a right it may take quite a long time to discover that a miscarriage of justice or denial of the convention right has taken place. In those circumstances this time limit may prove doubly onerous.
To repeat a comment from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, this matter is before the House for the first time. This is our first opportunity to address it. If new matter comes from the Commons at this stage, we should at least have the privilege of speaking about it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this amendment delivers all that can reasonably be required. I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in indicating that sub-paragraph (b) gives a discretion to the court by stating specifically that the period of one year may be extended to,
"such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances".
I cannot think of a clause that could be more aptly drafted to secure the interests of those persons of whom examples have been given, not least that of Mr. Viggers—I was present; I am always here—and the Petition regarding his deafness.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked what happens if there is a good reason for delay. I am happy to confirm that there may well be occasions where an individual has good reasons for delay—for example, when he is not aware at the time of the act that it might be incompatible with convention rights and therefore unlawful.
Every matter has been introduced into this debate, including a freedom of information Bill. I am happy to reiterate—yet again, and I am not confident that it is for the last time—that a draft freedom of information Bill is to be placed before the relevant committee in another place for pre-legislation scrutiny in the early part of next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, thought that this was somehow the hand of the Treasury manipulating the Home Office like a marionette. That is simply not so. The Home Secretary has already announced that a task force is to be set up. He has asked the Solicitor-General and the Minister of State in the Lord Chancellor's Department to be on the task force. There will be representatives from non-governmental organisations, and the Home Secretary has asked me to chair it. That is not putting off the evil day at the request or

2101
instruction of the Treasury. It is an attempt to make sure that this epoch-making Act is translated into practice in the proper way. Judicial training is a very important aspect. We have already achieved the result from the Treasury of an extra £5 million for the Judicial Studies Board for judicial training. And it may be that barristers and solicitors will also be able to open their minds to training in this new discipline.
There will not be confusion. A person bringing proceedings will have the choice of proceeding under Clause 7(1)(a), on the convention ground alone, the one-year time limit, or relying on convention grounds in the course of existing proceedings under Clause 7 (1)(b) with exactly the same time limit as at present.
It would be confusing to have no time limit at all. There is no necessary confusion. For instance, the time limit for defamation has recently been reduced to one year. If I am assaulted by a police officer and defamed by him on the same occasion, there are two different limits. But that is easily manageable. We believe that we have got this matter right—to coin a phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was kind enough to offer. This is new law. A year is not unreasonable. It has nothing to do with the purse strings of the Treasury. Public authorities have to run their businesses and manage their schemes. If they are left in limbo for an unnecessarily long period of time, that will militate against efficient administration; in fact, it will be a recipe for human rights not to be upheld and demonstrated. On the basis of the assurances I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I ask him to withdraw his amendment to the Commons amendment—which I respectfully commend to the House in its place.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will deal with two matters before I explain what I propose to do. First, does it follow from his remarks that in the Government's view it would be open to the courts to treat as a just and equitable reason for extending the time period any very long delay in bringing the human rights Act into force after Royal Assent, so that the hiatus problem could be dealt with in that equitable way?
Secondly, will the Minister reassure me on a matter that causes widespread concern among human rights organisations; namely, the suggestion by the Home Secretary that we are not obliged under Article 13 to give effective domestic remedies as a substantive right? Again, that relates to the hiatus problem.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the discretion is given to the courts to be exercised judicially on an equitable basis. It is not right for any government Minister, not even a Home Office Minister, to give indications to the courts as to how they exercise their discretion. That would be improper.
Article 13 states that everyone whose convention rights are breached has a right to an effective remedy before a national authority. I do not believe that on any occasion the Home Secretary has said anything implying a contrary proposition.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate, even to
2102
the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who thought it somehow improper to raise the subject at all since he thought it to be unimportant. It is important that, if we bring rights home, we do so speedily and in a way that can be enjoyed in practice by ordinary men and women of limited means, by the vulnerable and by those who do not understand their rights well.
I am reassured by the Minister's remarks about the width of the judicial discretion. I very much hope that the Government will make sure that there is no unnecessarily long hiatus. On the basis that it is common ground that Article 13 guarantees the right to an effective remedy in this country, not merely a right to an international remedy, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 15A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 15, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
16 Clause 7, Page 5, leave out lines 19 to 39.
17 Page 5, line 40, at end insert—
("(aa) in relation to proceedings before a court or tribunal outside Scotland, rules made by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section or rules of court,").
18 Page 5, line 41, after ("court") insert ("or tribunal").
19 Page 5, line 42, leave out ("the purposes of this section") and insert ("those purposes").
20 Page 5, leave out lines 43 and 44.
21 Page 5, line 45, leave out from ("before") to end of line 47 and insert ("a tribunal in Northern Ireland—

(i) which deals with transferred matters; and

(ii) for which no rules made under paragraph (aa) are in force,

rules made by a Northern Ireland department for those purposes,").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 21 en bloc.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 21 en bloc.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
22 Clause 7, Page 6, line 3, leave out from ("may") to end of line 9 and insert (", to the extent he considers it necessary to ensure that the tribunal can provide an appropriate remedy in relation to an act (or proposed act) of a public authority which is (or would be) unlawful as a result of section 6(1), by order add to—

(a) the relief or remedies which the tribunal may grant; or

(b) the grounds on which it may grant any of them.").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is just departing but he ought not to, because I deal with a question that he raised on an earlier occasion. I caught him just in time.

2103
I was about to pay a glowing tribute to him and did not wish him to read it at second hand and stale tomorrow morning. Amendment No. 22, to which I link Amendment No. 24, clarifies the intended effect of the power in Clause 7(13) to make an order in relation to tribunals. When we considered what became the Asylum and Immigrations Appeals Act 1993, the noble Earl pointed out that there might be the consequence that a special adjudicator would be prevented from determining whether an appellant's removal would breach his convention rights. When the noble Earl raised it with me, I said that I would give it careful consideration. We have done so, and we think that the current wording might be misinterpreted. It might be read as implying that no tribunal would be able to take account of convention rights unless and until a Minister made an order under Clause 7(13).
Therefore, we have introduced these amendments in order to bring about the consequence which the noble Earl wanted, namely, to make it quite plain that the gap he feared is not to exist. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly and apologise for my mistaken intended departure.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, these amendments are most welcome. I believe that the gap was exposed first, not only by my noble friend Lord Russell but also by two prominent members of the Bar, Murray Hunt and Rubindar Singh. I too was involved in it at one stage. It is obviously right to make quite clear that the tribunals will give full effect to the convention rights, as these amendments do.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
23 Clause 7, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
("() "The Minister" includes the Northern Ireland department concerned.").
24 Clause 8, page 6, line 15, leave out ("jurisdiction") and insert ("powers").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23 and 24.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23 and 24.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
25 Page 6, line 32, at end insert—
("() A public authority against which damages are awarded is to be treated—

(a) in Scotland, for the purposes of section 3 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940 as if the award were made in an action of damages in which the authority has been found liable in respect of loss or damage to the person to whom the award is made;

(b) for the purposes of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 as liable in respect of damage suffered by the person to whom the award is made.").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25.
The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 provides a right to contribution where more than one person is liable in respect of the same damage. We believe that this should apply where damages are awarded against a public authority under Clause 8. Therefore, the effect of the amendment is that the terms of the 1978 Act and the relevant related provisions in Scotland apply. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
26 Clause 10, page 7, line 21, after ("stated") insert ("in writing").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 to 31, 33 to 35 and 60.
These are technical amendments concerned with the remedial order provisions of the Bill. In earlier discussions a number of your Lordships indicated that in their view the power to make remedial orders was too wideranging. There was not sufficient opportunity for scrutiny by Parliament. We promised to think about the matter and this series of amendments demonstrates that we have done so. We thought that we should do more to respond to the concerns. Therefore, most of the amendments relate to extending the opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment No. 26 requires persons stating that they do not intend to appeal to do so in writing before the power to make a remedial order can be exercised. This places on a statutory basis what is likely to happen in any event, because the only way in which Clause 10(1)(a) can operate in practice will be for the person making the order, if he wishes to proceed urgently before the time for appeal has expired, to take positive steps by seeking statements from all interested parties to the effect that they do not propose to appeal.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 27 to 30. At the moment Clause 10(2) provides that, if a Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate to amend legislation using the power conferred, he may do so by making a remedial

2105
order, introducing such amendments as he considers appropriate. Amendment No. 27 takes that term away from Clause 10(2) and requires there to be compelling reasons for proceedings under Clause 10(2). It limits the amendments to those which are necessary to remove the incompatibility. It is therefore a restriction of the circumstances, responding to your Lordships' concerns specifically, in which a remedial order may be made. Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 make equivalent provisions in Clause 10(3) and (4).
I have seen the further report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation which was printed yesterday. I shall come to that in a moment. The procedures for making remedial orders are at present in Clauses 11 and 12. Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 remove those clauses from the Bill. Amendment No. 60 inserts a new schedule into the Bill (Schedule 2) which reproduces Clauses 11 and 12, with certain modifications. We thought it would be easier to read and understand them if they were in one place. They are procedural and therefore we consider they should be in the schedule. Amendment No. 31 is simply consequential.
The modifications made in Schedule 2 by Amendment No. 60 are intended to provide greater opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of draft remedial orders or remedial orders. Schedule 2 describes the different procedures for non-urgent and urgent orders. Essentially, a 60-day period of consideration is provided during which representations on an order or proposed draft order may be made, followed by a further 60-day period after which a non-urgent order may be made if Parliament approves it or an urgent order, which has been made, expires if Parliament does not approve it.
In the case of non-urgent orders, paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 provides for a document containing a draft of the proposed order and certain other information to be laid before Parliament for a minimum period of 60 days. After that, the draft order itself may be laid before Parliament together with a summary of any representations received. Under paragraph 2(a) of Schedule 2, a further 60 days must then elapse.
In the case of urgent orders made before first being approved in draft—this appears in paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 2—the order must, under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, be laid before Parliament after it is made with the required explanatory information. If any representations are made on the order within 60 days of it being made, a summary of the representations must be laid before Parliament together with details of any changes proposed as a result of those representations. If there are changes, a replacement order must be made and laid before Parliament.
The point of having two 60-day periods is to provide an opportunity for representations to be made on the Government's proposals when laid in the form of a document containing a draft order and then an opportunity for considering the draft order, including any changes made before a Motion to approve the draft order is debated.
The report of the Select Committee to which I referred criticises one of the provisions of the new schedule inserted by Amendment No. 60. That is the
2106
procedure for non-urgent remedial orders. It provides for two successive 60-day periods. The report indicates that the second 60-day period differs from what the Select Committee recommended in its previous report, which was essentially to follow the procedure under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The report states that the second 60-day period amounts to an excessive delay and could make a remedial order procedure unworkable. The Select Committee's recommendation is to remove the second 60-day period.
We took the report seriously. I believe that the criticism is perhaps misplaced. We did not need to follow the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act exactly because our schedule provides for two kinds of remedial order: non-urgent (paragraph 3) and urgent (paragraph 4). The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act has only one kind: non-urgent. If there were compelling reasons for amending primary legislation by means of a remedial order and the matter was urgent, we would proceed by way of an urgent remedial order made in advance of parliamentary scrutiny and approval. If the matter was not urgent, we would proceed with a non-urgent remedial order. It would not matter that the process took 120 days. It would still offer an advantage, in a compelling case, over the normal kind of amending legislation for which it might be difficult to find time in the legislative programme.
Therefore, I hope I can make two points. First, we listened carefully to concerns expressed by your Lordships about insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. I think we have attended to that. Secondly, we looked carefully at the comments of the Select Committee, took them into account but believe that the scheme we have is appropriate and acceptable. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I believe that a serious matter arises under Amendment No. 60. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has done his best to explain and excuse the purpose of Amendment No. 60 which inserts a new schedule and, for the first time, makes proposals to deal with remedial orders. It is right that the matter should be dealt with. If only the third paragraph of the new schedule had not been inserted everybody would have been satisfied. But I invite the attention of the House to the comments on this matter by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I shall not read a great part of what is said. However, if I quote paragraph 8 on page 4 of the report it will place on record the difficulties that are likely to arise. Having said that paragraph 2 of the new schedule introduces a second 60-day delay by providing that a draft order cannot be approved by resolution until after the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid, the committee states:
"The consequence is that a proposal which meets with universal approval when laid under paragraph 3 cannot be made until at least 120 days have passed—and paragraph 6 (calculating periods) could make the delay much longer. The Government explains that the procedure was devised in response to concern expressed during the Lords proceedings on the Bill".

2107
I do not believe that anything was said during those proceedings to justify the long delay that is now put forward in paragraph 3 of the new schedule. The report continues:
"While we appreciate this positive response, the procedure set out in Commons amendment 60 is not, however, what we suggested in our previous report—there is only one 60 day limitation in the procedure under section 4 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994—and we see no reason for the introduction of a second 60 day period".
The committee met yesterday and its report was published only this morning. I confess that I did not see it until this afternoon. The paragraph concludes:
"We hesitated to draw this matter to the attention of the House at such a late stage in the Bill's passage, but do so because it may be that this exceptionally lengthy scrutiny period will in practice make the procedure so slow as to belie the definition 'fast-track', and will in fact make it unworkable, thus leading to greater reliance on the emergency procedure. The Government and the House may therefore wish to consider a simple amendment to Commons amendment 60 to remove the second 60 day period".
Due to the short notice, although I would have wished to table a manuscript amendment I have not done so. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who is always so sensitive and helpful about difficulties arising on legislation, will seek the permission of the House—I understand that under the rules of procedure such can be given—to delete paragraph 3 of the new schedule. There would be such obvious public advantage in so doing. I wish that I had had the opportunity to alert the noble Lord to the point before the debate. However, he has a full grasp of the situation as he made clear when he invited the House to approve Commons Amendment No. 60. I very much hope that even at this late stage we can put the matter right.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said. In a sense we are in a Gilbertian situation. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation is one of the most admirable recent inventions of this House. It is there to maximise parliamentary scrutiny over delegated legislation and to ensure that Henry VIII clauses are not abused. It blew the whistle at an early stage. It was the main Opposition party which pressed strongly for adequate safeguards against the misuse of Henry VIII powers. There was also a certain dislike of the fast-track procedure. We on these Benches were strongly in favour of that procedure while we also pressed for safeguards.
The reason for our support for the fast-track procedure was the same as that put forward by the Government; namely, first, that for the procedure to come into force there must be a declaration by a court of competent jurisdiction that there is an incompatibility between the statute and a convention right; and, secondly, that the victim must have abandoned or completed all appeals under our system, or it must appear to the Government having regard to a finding of the European Court of Human Rights that the provision in our statute book is incompatible with an obligation under the convention.
All of those events must have happened before the fast-track procedure can start. When one reaches that situation there has been a systemic failure: that is, the
2108
courts have decided that there is a mismatch between our statute and a convention right, and in the background is the victim. The victim cannot make the ghastly long journey to the Strasbourg court. The procedure takes six or seven further years after the fast-track procedure has been exhausted. The victim must have exhausted all effective domestic remedies; and this is one of them. Therefore, the longer the fast-track procedure the more it becomes a slow-track procedure, the worse the injustice to the individual, and the worse the failure to provide an effective remedy under our own legal system.
The Gilbertian aspect is that the admirable committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, now tells us that the Government quite rightly, commendably, and in a way that was not always true of the previous administration, are bending over backwards to provide effective safeguards. But by enhancing parliamentary scrutiny they have fallen on their back. The committee believes that the procedure is now so slow that it is no longer fast-track and use will have to be made of the emergency procedure.
I believe that the argument for doing what the committee suggests is quite overwhelming. I very much hope that it is possible—as a relatively new boy in this House, I do not know whether it is—to pursue the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and to table a manuscript amendment even at this late stage. If not, I am concerned that our desire for parliamentary scrutiny will defeat one of the central purposes of the legislation.
5.p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I endorse everything my noble friend Lord Renton said on the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and I endorse part of what the noble Lord, Lord Lester said.
I have two points to add. The previous government introduced the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee because, quite legitimately, there were a number of complaints about the use of delegated legislation and, in particular, Henry VIII clauses. I want to inform the House and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that, having introduced the committee, the previous government always observed the recommendations of that committee.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The committee was setup during the lifetime of the previous government and there was no case where its recommendations were not observed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for that acknowledgment. Since then the current Government have continued with the services of the committee and on a number of occasions have observed its recommendations, but not, I have to say, always with the alacrity with which the previous government observed them.
Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I saw the report at a late stage. Therefore, I was not in a position to put down an amendment to the Bill. Both my noble friend

2109
Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, have suggested that, at this late stage, the Government could introduce a manuscript amendment that would deal with the problem.
I propose another alternative. As there is considerable agreement on all sides of the House and a considerable amount of goodwill, which would allow the Bill to be dealt with quickly, we could adjourn consideration of this matter until some time next week. It would not take up time that the Chief Whip values so much and therefore we could see the Bill amended in the way in which the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has suggested. The Bill would then speed to the statute book without further delay.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is a misunderstanding and a deep irony here. We are doing more to protect parliamentary scrutiny than the committee suggested. It is not a case of a government doing less—for instance, flouting the views of the committee. In fact, we have done more. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, was generous enough to say that the committee welcomed the positive response but thought that the model should be the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The important point to bear in mind—I believe that it has been overlooked—is that the 1994 Act does not distinguish between urgent and non-urgent cases. Therefore, it has a single period of time. I cannot repeat often enough that we are offering more parliamentary scrutiny than the Select Committee suggested.
We need to distinguish carefully between the urgent and the non-urgent. If the matter were urgent, and there were compelling reasons, the Government would proceed by way of urgent remedial order, made in advance of parliamentary scrutiny and approval. If the matter were not urgent, the Government would proceed with a non-urgent remedial order and it would not matter that there were 120 days to complete the process, except in terms of the benefit of additional scrutiny. There would still be an advantage to whichever government were in power in terms of amending legislation when there was difficulty finding time in the legislative programme.
I have heard what your Lordships said. Perhaps I can suggest a way forward. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I have said on distinct occasions, as has the Home Secretary in another place, that we would welcome either a joint committee on human rights or a Commons committee or a Lords committee subject to the views of both Houses. This is the sort of question that could usefully be addressed by such a committee. Once this provision has been implemented and we have had a certain amount of experience, rather than conjecture, about how things may or may not work in practice, such a committee could usefully put its mind to see whether or not we should have second thoughts about the matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. There is one problem in dealing with the matter in that way. If we accept the new clause as it stands, it will become part of our statute law and
2110
we shall have the long delay of 120 days, and perhaps sometimes even longer, before what may be an urgent and important matter can be dealt with. As the select committee said, it utterly belies the fast track procedure, which is something that both Houses of Parliament presumably favour. Therefore, I have to say that the noble Lord's idea of letting us approve the new clause as it stands, without striking out one paragraph, is unsatisfactory and taking a big risk.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, as the Minister has not yet sat down, perhaps I may ask if he can deal with the points I raised about the victim. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 is, of course, not dealing with the same situation. The Bill is designed to give an effective and speedy remedy.
My points relate to the problem that the Government have in being too democratic. They have bent over backwards. I appreciate that they have gone further than the scrutiny committee. They point out that they have gone so far that something very bad will be produced which will mean resort to emergency procedures because everything will have to become an emergency or there will be great and unnecessary delay in securing a remedy. I appreciate the importance of the parliamentary Select Committee and I hope that that will be done swiftly. I am concerned to clarify the consequences if we accept the amendment as it stands.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understand that. But one needs to put it into context and into proportion. Here we are introducing two different types of orders, quite different from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act. I repeat that if the matter is urgent, and if there are compelling reasons—that takes into account the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the victim—then we can proceed on the basis of urgent remedial action. If it is non-urgent remedial action, we offer Parliament the opportunity of 120 days.
May I suggest that 120 days, in terms of having a right remedied and an injustice put right, is a very short time indeed if one is considering the balance of having proper parliamentary scrutiny. I am happy that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, accused me of being unduly democratic. A number of your Lordships have said that they are uneasy about the principle of remedial orders and that there is insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. We have bent over backwards, first, to maintain the urgent, compelling remedial route, and, secondly, to have the non-urgent remedial route which gives 120 days for consideration. The period of 120 days is not a vast amount of time for consideration and representations.
Lord Renton: My Lords, surely the greatest problem is that reconciliation—and that is what we are all aiming for—needs to be carried out as soon as possible and indeed failure to do so may lead to grave injustice. Those cases are more likely to have a time factor which is of importance than to be the sort of cases that can be dealt with at leisure.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as always, I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. There

2111
may well be urgent, compelling cases, which is why we have the urgent, compelling procedure. However, we suggest that for the non-urgent cases 120 days is a decent amount of time for parliamentary scrutiny.
I believe that we have got the balance right. The more I think about it and the more I listen with care to the arguments put forward, I am sure that we have got it right. If we have bent over too far to submit to parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary will, I am content.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 48.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Ahmed, L.

Amos, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bach, L.

Jeger, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Borrie, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Levy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Burlison, L.

Longford, E.

Carlisle, E.

McConnell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Christopher, L

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNair, L.

Coleraine, L.

McNally, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Newby, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dubs, L.

Paul, L.

Erroll, E.

Pitkeathley, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goudie, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Grenfell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hanworth, V.

Russell, E.

Hardie, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sandwich, E.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hayman, B.

Shannon, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon, V.

Hooson, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hughes, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

2112

Tenby, V.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Weatherill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Wharton, B.

Uddin, B.

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Balfour, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Berners, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Biddulph, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Bridges, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Chesham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cockfield, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northesk, E.

Cranborne, V.

Norton of Louth, L.

Denbigh, E.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harlech, L.

Stockton, E.

Harrowby, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Holderness, L.

Torrington, V.

Kintore, E.

Trefgame, L.

Kitchener, E.

Vinson, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
27 Clause 10, Page 7, line 33, leave out from ("that") to end of line 36 and insert ("there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this section, he may by order make such amendments to the legislation as he considers necessary to remove the incompatibility.").
28 Page 7, line 42, leave out from ("that") to end of line 43 and insert ("there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this section,").
29 Page 7, line 45, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("necessary").
30 Page 8, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("where") and insert—
("(4) This section also applies").
31 Page 8, line 4, leave out ("section 12(1)(b)") and insert ("paragraph 2(b) of Schedule (Remedial orders)").
32 Page 8, leave out lines 8 and 9.
33 Page 8, line 11, at end insert—
("() Schedule (Remedial orders) makes further provision about remedial orders.").
34 Clause 11. Leave out Clause 11.
35 Clause 12. Leave out Clause 12.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 35.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 35.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
36 After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
(".—(1) This section applies if a court is considering whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression.
(2) If the person against whom the application for relief is made ("the respondent") is neither present nor represented, no such relief is to be granted unless the court is satisfied—

(a) that the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent; or

(b) that there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notified.

(3) No such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.
(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—

(a) the extent to which—

(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or

(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published;

(b) any relevant privacy code.

(5) In this section—
"court" includes a tribunal; and
"relief" includes any remedy or order (other than in criminal proceedings).").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36. It is an extremely important amendment because it deals with the potential impact of the Human Rights Bill on the freedom of the press. As your Lordships will recall, a good deal of concern was expressed that the Bill might undermine press freedom and result in the introduction of a privacy law by the back door. We did not take that view.
However, after the Bill left this House we had a number of further conversations and representations in correspondence with a large number of people who were interested in free speech, whether in conventional writing, journalism, the broadcast media and so forth. Having considered all the representations made—and I should say how grateful the Government are notably to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and the representatives of the broadcast media—we thought that we should put forward this amendment which is designed, and designed solely, to ensure that free speech, free expression, is abundantly safeguarded after the Bill becomes law.
The terms of the clause are well known to your Lordships. It relates to questions of protection of free speech and free opinion as well as maintaining a proper balance for those whose personal interests in their reputation and private life need to be properly safeguarded.
2114
Of all the occasions during the passage of this Bill, the occasion of introducing this amendment to your Lordships' House is one which gives the greatest pleasure.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is not in his place. I am glad that the Government resisted the Press Complaints Commission's attempt, which the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, led, to immunise itself from liability under Clause 6 of the Bill as a public authority. The PCC performs extremely important public functions which have an impact on free speech, a fair trial and personal privacy. If it makes decisions which breach convention rights, it is important that the victim should have an effective remedy against it as a public authority.
I am glad also that the Government have successfully resisted the suggestion from some sections of the media that the Bill should not be able to be used as a springboard for the development by the courts of a common law protection of personal privacy. I am glad that they have not given in to an ill-judged campaign from some sections of the media.
This amendment creates a fair balance between the right to free speech and other competing rights and interests. What I like about it in particular is that it will ensure that prior restraints on free speech against the media—the most draconian form of interference in free speech—are imposed by the courts only when necessary and that the right to free speech is given particular weight by the courts.
But there is another aspect which I also welcome. This amendment will encourage the media to develop effective means of enforcing privacy codes because the extent to which a newspaper has complied with a relevant privacy code is a matter to be taken into account by the courts in deciding whether to grant a media injunction. The amendment will not fetter the courts in developing the common law nor in construing legislation in conformity with convention rights, including both the right to free speech and the right to respect for personal privacy. Therefore, thanks to this amendment, our law will be able to develop, on lines similar to those in other common law countries, including the United States. We fully support this fair and balanced amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
37 After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION
(".—(1) If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.
(2) In this section, "court" includes a tribunal.").
38 Clause 20, page 12, line 30, after ("power") insert ("of a Minister of the Crown").
39 Page 12, line 32, after ("power") insert ("of the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State").
40 Page 12, line 36, after ("made") insert ("by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State").
41 Page 12, line 40, at end insert—
("() The power of a Northern Ireland department to make—

(a) rules under section 2(3)(b) or 7(11)(c); or

(b) an order under section 7(13);

is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.
() Any rules made under section 2(3)(b) or 7(11)(c) shall be subject to negative resolution; and section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (meaning of "subject to negative resolution") shall apply as if the power to make the rules were conferred by an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
() No order may be made by a Northern Ireland department under section 7(13) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, the Northern Ireland Assembly.").
42 Clause 21, page 12, line 41, at end insert—
(""amend" includes repeal and apply (with or without modifications);").
43 Page 13, line 8, at end insert—
(""Northern Ireland Minister" includes the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland;").
44 Page 13, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert—
("(f) Order in Council—

(i) made in exercise of Her Majesty's Royal Prerogative;

(ii) made under section 38(1)(a) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 or the corresponding provision of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; or

(iii) amending an Act of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);").

45 Page 13, line 20, after ("legislation") insert ("(otherwise than by the National Assembly for Wales, a member of the Scottish Executive, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department)").
46 Page 13, line 24, at end insert—
(""the Sixth Protocol" means the Protocol to the Convention agreed at Strasbourg on 28th April 1983;").
47 Page 13, line 31, leave out ("or") and insert—
("(ii) made").
48 Page 13, line 32, at end insert ("or the corresponding provision of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; or

(iii) amending an Act of a kind mentioned in the definition of primary legislation;

(ab) Act of the Scottish Parliament;").
49 Page 13, line 34, leave out ("Northern Ireland Assembly") and insert ("Assembly established under section 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973;
(ca) Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly;").
50 Page 13, line 40, leave out ("paragraphs") and insert ("paragraph (ab),").
51 Page 13, line 41, leave out ("or (c)") and insert (", (c) or (ca)").
52 Page 13, line 42, at end insert—
("(f) order, rules, regulations, scheme, warrant, byelaw or other instrument made by a member of the Scottish Executive, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department in exercise of prerogative or other executive functions of Her Majesty which are exercisable by such a person on behalf of Her Majesty;
"transferred matters" has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Act 1998;").
53 Page 14, leave out lines 8 to 10.
54 Page 14, line 10, at end insert—
("(6) Any liability under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 to suffer death for an offence is replaced by a liability to imprisonment for life or any less punishment authorised by those Acts; and those Acts shall accordingly have effect with the necessary modifications.").
55 Clause 22, page 14, line 12, leave out ("and 20") and insert (", 20 and 21(6)").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 55.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 55.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
56 Clause, 22, page 14, line 20, leave out ("committed") and insert ("taking place").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56. This is a drafting amendment to Clause 22(4). At present it provides that Clause 7(1)(b) applies to proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority whenever the act in question "took place"; but that otherwise Clause 7(1)(b) does not apply to an act "committed" before Clause 7 comes into force. Amendment No. 56 replaces "committed" by "taking place" so as to be consistent.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
57 Clause 22, page 14, line 22, at end insert—
("() Section 21(6), so far as it relates to any provision contained in the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957, extends to any place to which that provision extends.").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 57.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 57.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
58 Clause 22, page 14, leave out lines 23 to 26.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58. This amendment, which I hope to be non-contentious, removes Clause 22(7) of the Bill. That is the provision inserted by this House in order to avoid questions of privilege.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
59 Schedule 1, page 19, line 23, at end insert—
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  PART III
    THE SIXTH PROTOCOL

      Article 1
      Abolition of the death penalty
      The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.

      Article 2
      Death penalty in time of war
      A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions. The State shall communicate to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe the relevant provisions of that law.").
      60 After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—

    SCHEDULE

      REMEDIAL ORDERS
      Orders
      1.—(1) A remedial order may—

      (a) contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the person making it considers appropriate;

      (b) be made so as to have effect from a date earlier than that on which it is made;

      (c) make provision for the delegation of specific functions;

      (d) make different provision for different cases.

      (2) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1)(a) includes—

      (a) power to amend primary legislation (including primary legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision); and

      (b) power to amend or revoke subordinate legislation (including subordinate legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision).

      (3) A remedial order may be made so as to have the same extent as the legislation which it affects.
      (4) No person is to be guilty of an offence solely as a result of the retrospective effect of a remedial order.
      Procedure
      2. No remedial order may be made unless—

      (a) a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament made after the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid; or

      (b) it is declared in the order that it appears to the person making it that, because of the urgency of the matter, it is necessary to make the order without a draft being so approved.

      Orders laid in draft
      3.—(1) No draft may be laid under paragraph 2(a) unless—

      (a) the person proposing to make the order has laid before Parliament a document which contains a draft of the proposed order and the required information; and

      (b) the period of 60 days, beginning with the day on which the document required by this subsection was laid, has ended.

      (2) If representations have been made during that period, the draft laid under paragraph 2(a) must be accompanied by a statement containing—

      (a) a summary of the representations; and

      (b) if, as a result of the representations, the proposed order has been changed, details of the changes.

      Urgent cases
      4.—(1) If a remedial order ("the original order") is made without being approved in draft, the person making it must lay it before Parliament, accompanied by the required information, after it is made.
      (2) If representations have been made during the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the original order was made, the person making it must (after the end of that period) lay before Parliament a statement containing—

      (a) a summary of the representations; and

      (b) if, as a result of the representations, he considers it appropriate to make changes to the original order, details of the changes.

      (3) If sub-paragraph (2)(b) applies, the person making the statement must—

      (a) make a further remedial order replacing the original order; and

      (b) lay the replacement order before Parliament.

      (4) If, at the end of the period of 120 days beginning with the day on which the original order was made, a resolution has not been passed by each House approving the original or replacement order, the order ceases to have effect (but without that affecting anything previously done under either order or the power to make a fresh remedial order).
      Definitions
      5. In this Schedule—
      "representations" means representations about a remedial order (or proposed remedial order) made to the person making (or proposing to make) it and includes any relevant Parliamentary report or resolution; and
      "required information" means—

      (a) an explanation of the incompatibility which the order (or proposed order) seeks to remove, including particulars of the relevant declaration, finding or order; and

      (b) a statement of the reasons for proceeding under section 10 and for making an order in those terms.

      Calculating periods
      6. In calculating any period for the purposes of this section, no account is to be taken of any time during which—

      (a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued; or

      (b) both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.").

      Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 59 and 60.
      Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 59 and 60.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
      Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may seek some clarification. We had a Division just now. I thought we were dividing on the Question as to whether we accept Amendment No. 60. If not, what was the Division about?
      Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I imagine that the Division was purely surreal and philosophical.
      On Question, Motion agreed to.

      Student Mobility in the EU: ECC Report
      5.26 p.m.
      Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Student Mobility in the European Union (27th Report, HL Paper 116).
      The noble Lord said: The context of this report was a Commission communication, Towards a Europe of Knowledge, which deals with the next round of the Erasmus-Socrates scheme which is to start from January 2000. Therefore, our aim is to feed into the development of that new and expanded programme. We note in particular that the Commission's aim is for a major expansion of exchange programmes with only a small expansion in the budget allocated. We note that the number of participants in the scheme is expanding and will expand further with the new programme, as applicants and associates join.
      In the past three months I have been struck by the fact that I have been approached by two former students of mine, one of whom is now the Icelandic co-ordinator for Erasmus-Socrates and the other the Estonian co-ordinator for Erasmus-Socrates. Clearly, those countries are gearing themselves up to take advantage of the best opportunities provided by the programme.
      I should like to thank our Clerk, Mary Bloor, and our special adviser, Anne Corbett, for the assistance they gave us in this inquiry.
      As we began the inquiry, we discovered the difficulty of examining only the Erasmus-Socrates schemes. We were aware immediately that those represent only a fraction of student flows into and out of the United Kingdom. There is also a substantial flow of students from the United Kingdom to the rest of the European
      2120
      Union and, of course, from other countries within the European Union into the UK, quite often for their full undergraduate or graduate study periods.
      There is also the whole international dimension of British higher education, which is much influenced by the interchange between the United Kingdom and non-EU countries, as indeed it has been for a long time. My own institution, the London School of Economics, was founded partly to deal with the education of Indian civil servants and has always had a strong Indian connection. Many of us have spent part of our educational experiences in the United States.
      There is, of course, an imbalance in all of these flows. We noted the imbalance within the Erasmus-Socrates programme. We were told—some within the Department for Education and Employment feel that this is a real problem—that there is an overall imbalance in interchanges between Britain and the rest of the European Union amounting to some 40,000 students which, we were informed, is equivalent to four United Kingdom universities. There is, of course, an imbalance between ourselves and the rest of the world, but at fuller cost since those students pay a much higher fee.
      We also noted a strong consensus that the international dimension is valuable; that it is an important aspect of the high quality of British higher education; and that it is to be encouraged rather than discouraged. There are clear benefits as well as some financial costs. But we were concerned to discover that the widening gap between inflows and outflows, particularly within Erasmus-Socrates, follows partly from the decline in the number of British students who are willing to spend part of their period of study abroad.
      The reasons for the decline were fully discussed. It is partly a problem of the deteriorating quality of language teaching in British schools and universities, partly a matter of funding, and partly the caution and conservatism of British students in the current uncertain financial conditions towards undertaking periods of study abroad which may lengthen their overall course and thus deepen their financial obligations. There were also fears over whether their home universities will recognise the value of the courses they have undertaken while abroad.
      We also discovered a degree of incoherence in the British Government's approach to Erasmus-Socrates in their calculation of the costs and benefits and the co-ordination between the different parts of the DfEE, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the UK Socrates-Erasmus Council. We explored and wish to query the Commission's bias in promoting student exchange towards minority languages as against the clear evidence that students prefer to study the major languages, above all in Britain. Britain and Ireland are the two countries with the biggest imbalance in the European Union, and then it is France, Germany and, to some extent, Spain and Italy.
      Our recommendations are directed both to the Commission and to Her Majesty's Government, and through those to other member states. To the Commission we recommend that grand objectives require comparable resources and that grand objectives

      2121
      without adequate resources must be questioned. If this is a worthwhile activity—we are convinced that it is—then the Commission should fight for a larger share of the Community budget than the current tiny proportion that is spent on it. It would also be of greater benefit to Britain than some other areas in which the Community budget is currently spent.
      We query the focus on minority languages within the Commission's initial proposals. The balance should be towards encouraging mobility and exchange and therefore responding to students' interests and needs. We also say that the Commission's new ideas about virtual mobility, electronic networking and computer exchanges are not a substitute for the encouragement of students to spend some of their time studying in foreign cultures and experiencing all the benefits of seeing how the world looks from a different environment.
      We wish to encourage more intensive language courses, shorter courses and summer courses in particular, to encourage mature students who do not have the time and often have family commitments which prevent them from going abroad for a full year. We wish also to encourage greater access for the disabled and other minorities. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, who is unable to be with us tonight, was particularly concerned about that dimension of our inquiry.
      We recommend that there should be more incentive payments for language development in the new programme in respect of English and the major languages. We emphasise also the importance of further progress and a mutual recognition of courses through the European Credit Transfer Scheme.
      Our recommendations to the Government are, first, that we wish there to be a clear recognition that the international dimension of higher education represents high value to British education. We welcome the warm response and the firm statement from the Government in response to that recommendation. We wish the Government to make it clear that it is a worthwhile aspect of higher education for more students to be encouraged to study abroad. In that respect, we welcome the Government's waiving of fees for British Erasmus students as one way of encouraging more student interchange.
      We call for an examination of the perverse effects of funding in that at the present time there is a greater incentive for British higher education institutions to recruit people from outside the European Union than from inside. We received some evidence of declining enthusiasm for Erasmus within British higher education institutions because the funding implications and costs are high. The benefits are intangible whereas the costs are tangible. Those are all elements in the shifting balance of funding for British higher education, which shifted this year and many of us fear will shift again over the next few years.
      We made a number of recommendations to improve the management of the UK scheme, which I shall leave to others to address. My noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton has been the chair of the UK Socrates scheme and I bow to his greater expertise in that respect. We wish to encourage and recommend to the Government a
      2122
      broader take-up of disciplines within the scheme. There is a vast overemphasis on business and language studies. We emphasise that we were given good evidence from the Institute of Physics that scientists also benefit from studying their subject in a different cultural environment. I hold a particularly strong view that economists would benefit a great deal from studying outside the Anglo-Saxon world, thus appreciating that Anglo-Saxon economics is not the only form of economics in the world. My economics colleagues do not entirely agree with me in that respect.
      We wish also to encourage the Government to pursue the question of funding of the Commission's programme and to encourage other governments to increase their funding of exchange programmes to attract more British students. The way to lessen the imbalance is to encourage more British students to study abroad, not to discourage students from elsewhere in the European Union from coming to Britain.
      There is a wider issue, which is expanding the horizons of the younger generation. I note the immense success of the Franco-German student exchange schemes over the past 35 years, which altered the way in which the younger generation in those two countries see each other. It is an immense success. I recall that when Britain joined the European Community in 1973 we had our own Rippon package, which was also intended to encourage precisely the same sort of student exchange, brought in by the then Conservative government which, in those days, your Lordships may remember, was in favour of greater European integration. The scheme was then killed by the incoming Labour Government, which your Lordships will remember in those days was against European integration.
      It seems to me that we should be moving towards something like a Rippon package. I see that in the Government's response there is a suggestion that a super-Erasmus set of scholarships should be pursued by private funding through business and the city. Private funding is a supplement, but it is not the only basis on which to expand.
      We wish to encourage, therefore, a wider British strategy for international education through languages, academic exchanges, student exchanges, funding priorities and incentives. The Government stated in their response that,
      "We recognise and endorse the view that it represents on the whole a lost opportunity for UK students in that many more could take part".
      That is precisely the approach we wish to encourage. We also welcome the Government's statement in their response that we need a proper strategy for language teaching. We need to reverse the decline in foreign language assistants in British schools and universities. The move towards broader A-levels and more language teaching, both in primary and secondary schools, is part of what our response should be.
      I was initially a sceptic in regard to the Erasmus scheme. However, I was impressed by how rapidly it encouraged interchange among universities in this country and elsewhere on the European continent. I was

      2123
      also impressed by how it changed the attitude of a number of British academics to international and European exchange. There have been problems of management, funding and balance as the scheme has grown. We address some of those questions in the report.
      However, the overall objective is highly valuable and important. This is not just a question of the European Union, or even of the efficiency or inefficiency of Commission management. This is a question of foreign policy and education in the widest sense. As we say in paragraph 219:
      "in terms of UK education policy, Europe can no longer be seen as an add-on".
      The European dimension of our own national education strategy cannot be ignored. I commend the report to the House.
      Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Student Mobility in the European Union (27th Report, HL Paper 116).—(Lord Wallace of Saltaire.)
      5.40 p.m.
      Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, like most of your Lordships, I became a European citizen with the passing of the Treaty of Maastricht. I do not recall having asked to become a European citizen; nevertheless I was made one. I should like to reassure your Lordships, in case there is any doubt, that I intend to be entirely non-controversial today. There are dangers in being too contentious on matters relating to Europe, but that is another story upon which I shall not enlarge today.
      I pass no comment on the purpose of the Commission as I see it although it is set out in the report. It wants to establish a firmer base to European citizenship. It considers that by the exchange of students, particularly those at higher level, an extra consciousness of European citizenship would be encouraged, irrespective of whether or not that consciousness rivals our responsibilities as British nationals to our own country.
      The trouble with these European programmes in which we are invited to participate and indeed to enlarge our participation is that they all cost money. I must apologise for drawing to the attention of the House the fact that such programmes always carry a cost which ultimately has to be borne by the British taxpayer, whether in the form of value added tax or income tax.
      At present—and, indeed, in the past—we have all been subject to financial disciplines. We have to determine our own priorities within our expenditures. Your Lordships will recall that in more recent times my right honourable friend in another place, the Secretary of State for Health, found it necessary to lay down firm rules with regard to any additional expenditure on, for example, the National Health Service. Indeed, stringency is implied in the term "sound finance", which means that there is a definite clampdown. Whether or not that is desirable is a question for economists. I do not think we have many here this afternoon.
      2124
      At present—this is factual; it is not at all controversial—the British taxpayer pays net into European funds £2,500 million per annum. I do not know whether people realise that. I repeat, "£2,500 million net"—that is after abatement and once all receipts into the Exchequer have been taken into account. That is not an insignificant sum. In order to heighten interest in the matter I observe in passing that so far neither this House nor its committees—the appropriate committee being the Select Committee on the European Communities—has considered the budget for 1999. The preliminary draft budget came to this country shortly after 15th May. I understand there was cursory perusal of the document but it did not feature in any committee or sub-committee deliberation. That is in spite of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, wrote in most explosive terms last year complaining that we were getting the budget too late for us to consider it. The budget was issued on 18th July. When it arrived here is not certain. I understand that it has been listed for consideration by Sub-committee A when it eventually meets. As far as I can ascertain—I have been making diligent inquiries of another place—the European budget has not been considered in the Commons either. Surely that is a little extraordinary. However, I digress from the central purpose of the report.
      We are already spending quite large sums, as per the Community budget, on exactly the matters covered by this debate. They cover Socrates, the remnant of Erasmus and another scheme, more picturesquely called, Leonardo da Vinci. I have taken the precaution of bringing a copy of the budget with me. In money terms, at an exchange rate—I have taken the average from The Times over the past week—of 1.41 ecus to the pound, the budget provision for 1999 amounts to £232,596,000. The share of the Commission's budgeted expenditure borne by the United Kingdom is 13.42 per cent.. That works out at £34,214,130. Therefore, we are already contributing quite large sums.
      Bearing in mind our overall contribution—made in cash out of taxpayers' pockets—into the European Communities, we are due to spend £32 million on this specific programme alone. That is £32 million as per the existing titles because all the expenditure is set out in the budget under Article B3–10. That can be checked.
      Can we really afford to increase our expenditure on this programme, which passes unnoticed and undebated and about which nobody bothers? Can we really afford it? It is not for me to be controversial on the matter but I think that I owe it to the House to point out the facts of the expenditure. That may perhaps encourage both your Lordships and Members of another place to pay far more attention, before we proceed further on such expenditure, when making up their minds on the difficult and hard decisions that have to be made regarding the finances of this country—decisions that usually have adverse effects on the lower income groups, let alone the higher.
      I thank your Lordships for so kindly listening to me on this matter. I have no opinions to offer on the desirability or otherwise of the scheme, but this House has not yet had the opportunity of even considering the

      2125
      United Kingdom's budgeted expenditure in Europe for 1999. Perhaps if there was a considered re-evaluation with the aim of improving the state of the nation's finances and establishing a proper order of priorities for those things on which the British taxpayer spends money, we might get a rational conclusion. I am certainly not going to hint to your Lordships which way I would wish the judgment to go. That remains for noble Lords and Members of another place to determine on the basis not so much of gutsy emotion or deeply ingrained prejudice, but on the sheer impact of financial facts.
      5.51 p.m.
      Lord Elibank: My Lords, our committee chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has given a broad and very lucid overview of the report and our hearings. I should like to concentrate for a few moments on the effect that the mobility of students has directly on the United Kingdom. It is rather different from that of other countries in Europe.
      We have been importing students for many years. We have been doing so for one or two centuries. It has been in the clear interests of this country to bring to our educational establishments leaders, and potential leaders, from what was then our empire. We would try to catch mostly young men at an appropriate stage and send them to this country to learn our way of life, culture and democracy. It was in the hope that when those young men returned to the home country after a period of years they would become leaders of their communities, having imbibed a good deal of what Britain had to offer. We also hoped that some—they would be sons of wealthy businessmen—would look to us as the mother country and it would become the first stop for the investigation of trade opportunities. It worked well, but perhaps we did not have sufficient of such students. The influence of the mother country on our empire was beneficial and profound in some respects.
      That situation has not changed today: what has changed is the clientele. We are now importing European citizens with precisely the same hopes: that they will be influenced by our culture and learn our language; and that in the course of time they will become senior business executives and trade and commerce will flow our way. That is quite admirable and it is money well spent. The more we can spare for such a cause, so much the better.
      However, the export of students is a more intangible matter. If we send our students to Europe what do they gain? They gain some knowledge of the culture of our European allies and the language. Perhaps they have rather a pleasant time. But the net benefit to UK Incorporated is rather slender. That is my first point. There is an imbalance, but do not let us worry too much about it.
      Several factors influence student mobility. Two of the main factors are finance and language. When we were taking evidence in committee, I was struck by the various sources of finance available to students coming to this country and those leaving it. But it is difficult to find out where a student should apply and where the
      2126
      relevant funds might be. If I were a little bewildered by that, I suspected that many of the students were. It is right that responsibility for the education of these people should be spread widely. That is wholly admirable. But information about what is available should be much more closely co-ordinated. I know that the Government are doing something about it and we had some evidence about that. I still believe, however, that a good deal more can properly be done to disseminate information about the possibilities of education, in particular in this country.
      Language is the other factor of great importance. We speak of English as one of the major languages of Europe—and, of course, it is. But it is a great deal more than that. I suggest to your Lordships that English is in a different category from French, German and Italian. English is now a world language and the lingua franca of a large part of the world. One can properly say that most intellectuals, academics, politicians and so forth who are scattered around the world aspire to a working knowledge of the English language. I believe that they regard it as indispensable not only for their own movement, but for their own ideas and trade. It is in quite a different category from the other European languages. It will inevitably lead to an imbalance in student mobility figures.
      How does it work the other way? Why do our students not go overseas, and specifically to Europe? I suggest that there is not much incentive for them to do so. For example, a graduate engineer might consider studying engineering in Italy and believe that that would be of benefit to him. Then he pauses to think what he should do. If the funds are there, then why not? The benefit to him and his career is dubious. The chance that a job in engineering in Italy will occur soon after graduation or in the next few years is pretty remote. The benefit to him is marginal. The benefit to this country is also marginal.
      This imbalance arises for historic reasons and because of the lucky fluke that our language has become a world language. It is not something that should worry us. We should not fret over the imbalance in the student mobility statistics. We should welcome it as a chance to benefit ourselves and spread our ideas, culture, civilisation and trade as widely as possible. We should put those funds available for higher education largely into the importation of students and their education here. Subsidising that education should be done in whatever way is thought appropriate. But I believe that we should be a good deal more conservative and cautious about investing moneys for British students to go to Europe. Our national interest in this exercise is pretty clear. We should keep it firmly in mind, notwithstanding the attractions of the cultural theory of student mobility which tends to dominate our thinking.
      6 p.m.
      Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I speak as a newcomer to this House and not as a member of the committee. I also speak as a university teacher who has taught students who have benefited from the Erasmus-Socrates scheme. I welcome this excellent report from the European Communities Committee. I am

      2127
      delighted that it has stressed the value of the exchange opportunities which the Erasmus-Socrates scheme offers students and the important part it plays in the international dimension of higher education.
      Looking through the report and its evidence, I regret that my own university, the University of Sussex, did not submit evidence to the committee. The university was founded in the 1960s, in the post-Robbins days, on the philosophy that knowledge did not fit into useful little boxes but crossed boundaries. It is was one of the first universities in this country to establish a school of European studies. In the school of European studies all the students benefited from a four-year course, which included a year abroad to study not only languages—French, Russian, Italian, German—but history, geography, international relations, law and economics.
      The scheme was extended in the 1970s to include science students of Sussex. We ran a Science for Europe programme. Those studying physics, chemistry, engineering and biology have had, for the last 20 years, the opportunity to do a four-year course and to spend the third year abroad studying their subjects at a foreign university.
      I have been teaching science students on that course economics and current European affairs for the past 10 years. I have found it extremely interesting to talk with the students, both before they go and after they come back. As you might expect, it is a very eye-opening exercise from their point of view. They are science students—many of them have done nothing but maths, chemistry, physics or biology since the age of 16—and I am amazed and appalled at how little they know about the way in which Britain operates, let alone about the world as a whole and the development of the European Union.
      When they set out, one of the issues that hits them immediately is the contrast between the higher education systems—the huge size of lectures, the lack of any personal contact with members of staff, the lack of laboratory work if they are science students. But they also benefit enormously from the experience because it is a different world. They are nearly always hit by the rigour of the scientific studies in these countries. In mathematics they frequently have to drop a year—sometimes even more—in order to keep pace with the mathematics required. Although there is not the practical work, they benefit from being taken into the laboratories of the host university to do a special project and to write it up, which they are expected to do. They return more mature, much more understanding of other cultures and much better citizens, not only of Britain but of the world. We are spending something like £34 billion a year on education. I think spending £34 million on this particular scheme is infinitely worthwhile.
      Let me put in a good word for the students we receive. The report notes the imbalance between those whom we send abroad and those who come to this country. I echo entirely what the report says about extending the teaching of languages in this country and extending the opportunities, such as we have at Sussex, for students to spend a year abroad—as, if you like, the wandering scholars—in foreign universities.
      2128
      It is also enormously valuable for us, as teachers, to have these students in our classes. If I am teaching about enlargement in the European Union, having a German student there to talk about issues such as the problems that Germany has faced in embracing the old East Germany into the new Germany, is enormously valuable. It acts as a catalyst; it gets the whole class talking. It is much better than my preaching at them. It is real experience.
      In almost all the classes that we hold on the subject, there is at least one and often there are two visiting students. They are enormously useful and valuable people to have in the class; they are delightful. They also wonder at the contact that they have with members of staff in this country. I remember one of the French students saying to me, "You know, Madame la Professeur, we see our teachers but they have separate staircases to the rostrum so that they can lecture and do not have to rub shoulders with us students." Visiting students enjoy and benefit from being treated as more equal members of society in our tutorial system, which is a very valuable part of British education.
      Let me end by saying that I endorse this report thoroughly. I welcome its very positive attitude to the Erasmus-Socrates scheme. I hope that other noble Lords will welcome it also.
      6.7 p.m.
      Lord Bridges: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, particularly as I was not able to be present when she made her maiden speech here last night. I welcome her to this House most warmly, not least for the contributions that she will be able to make on a subject such as the one we are debating this evening.
      I speak as a member of the sub-committee which, under the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, undertook this inquiry. The inquiry was perhaps rather unusual. It did not concern a large and important issue of policy, such as the European Central Bank, which we debated here a couple of weeks ago. Nor was it one of those detailed investigations into a precise directive on a scientific or environmental matter. The document we were looking at was a Commission communication entitled Building a Europe of Knowledge. It recommends, inter alia, continuation and extension of existing programmes to promote student exchanges. It will require approval by the Council in due course.
      Our preliminary discussions in the committee suggested that issues of long-term importance might be involved. After a good deal of preliminary deliberation we decided to take a closer look. This decision in itself was not easy. Some of our number doubted whether it would be possible to extract the necessary data and statistical information. But we thought that the questions involved were sufficiently important to justify the risk, and so I believe it has proved.
      We were greatly helped by the personal interest taken by the Minister, whose valuable evidence and widespread experience was made available to us. She also facilitated the production of evidence by her department's officials, which was quite essential to our

      2129
      work. In addition we had the benefit of the personal knowledge of some of our own members: the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, Lord Smith of Clifton, and our chairman stand out in my recollection.
      We saw some very interesting witnesses. I would especially commend to your Lordships Professor Ulrich Teichler of Kassel University, whose evidence on page 72 is of particular interest.
      What are the issues here? There are many. In part, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, pointed out, they are financial. To what extent should official resources, British or European, be used to encourage the flow of students between the various member states of the European Union? If the flow is uneven—and it certainly is—should we seek to correct the imbalance; and if so, how? There are more strictly educational matters to think about. If, as it appears, the imbalance is caused by a reluctance of British students to enter degree courses abroad because they feel that their linguistic skills are inadequate, should we attempt to improve those skills; and, if so, how?
      The Government's response to our report approaches these issues in a balanced and co-ordinated way. I notice that the department has no hesitation in adopting the celebrated 1066 and All That classification. Student exchanges, like Magna Carta and the execution of King Charles I, are a "Good Thing" and deserve encouragement and support, but, the department seems to say, we should not get carried away into the realms of dangerous enthusiasm. It sensibly welcomes the Commission proposal to continue existing programmes and to improve them in a practical manner—very much a Whitehall sentiment. As to imbalance, the Government suggest that it is,
      "unrealistic to expect complete parity",
      in student exchanges. That is a sage observation, but I do not think anyone has been so rash as to make that suggestion. However, they will seek a bilateral meeting with the Commission in order to bring about improvements.
      There is nothing objectionable in these responses and I suppose we can take comfort from the knowledge that, if the corpse of Jeremy Bentham is still on display at University College, his utilitarian principles remain alive and well in the Department for Education. I hasten to deny any implication that the Government's reply was drafted by the sub-committee. But, for me, there is one important missing dimension, and my purpose for intervening in this debate is to suggest what it is.
      Looking at this matter as a student of foreign policy, it seems to me that the success of the European Union over the long term will depend on our ability to train successive generations of citizens in a broader understanding of each other than is the case at present. This is, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, what France and Germany have been attempting to do bilaterally, and with considerable success, over the past 35 years on the basis of the Elysée Treaty. I should like to see this sort of effort reproduced on a multilateral basis. There is no better way of doing this than by encouraging a steady flow of students to conduct some of their courses in foreign universities. This is not
      2130
      always easy, because students are serious people who are interested in their subject for its own sake and seek to obtain a qualification in it which will launch them on a career based on some specialised knowledge. Linguistic skills are sometimes, but not always, a step on that road.
      Foreign students come to this country for a variety of reasons, but it would seem for two reasons in particular. First, they come to benefit from the high quality of our universities and the personal supervision which they receive here. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, our teachers supervise their pupils personally, rather than lecture to mass audiences as so commonly happens in Continental universities. So British universities are good value for money. Secondly, the incoming students acquire the English language which, as the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, said, is so useful in the world today.
      Statistics were made available to us. They show that some of these students are even prepared to put up with our weather and our cookery in order to obtain these advantages. British students, per contra, are often reluctant, even when the climatic and gastronomic factors are weighed in the balance, to give up the advantages they enjoy in their own country, including the support in so many cases of their own families. Now we are not the losers in importing more students than we export. Our Continental neighbours would be delighted to obtain the result we have, and they do indeed spend large sums in efforts to attract foreign students.
      But we are losing out in a different way. The relatively small outflow of British students means that the next generation of leaders in our professions, trade unions and businesses will lack a sufficient number of staff who have the advantage of having studied abroad in the past and thus have the ability to contribute strongly to the policy work and context of their organisation, because they understand the culture, attitude and language of the nations in which they seek to do business. To my mind—here I must disagree with my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Elibank—this is the area on which we need to concentrate most and where we have most to gain.
      To improve this situation, we need to develop language learning in our schools. This would not necessarily mean spending more money but it would mean spending money more wisely. Should we seek to make it normal to expect university graduates to obtain a reasonable facility in one foreign language as part of a first degree course? Myself, I do not regard that as an unreasonable objective in the modern world. I am pleased that the Government support our suggestion that we arrange summer courses to help those preparing to study in a foreign university. The important point, which I do strongly stress, is to recognise that the target we are aiming at is very significant, and that reasonable success in reaching this goal would have very beneficial effect for the country as a whole.
      Views on this subject are obviously much affected by personal experience. In my 36 years spent in government service, I worked in seven missions abroad, which involved using six different languages. In only

      2131
      one of those, Germany—I leave out the United States—did I have a reasonable competence in the native language on arrival in post. I was not a professional linguist but I tried hard to achieve a good standard in the language in each country. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, that I do think that the Foreign Office takes the study of foreign languages far more seriously than he implied in his Question last week. I think that his view may have been based on his knowledge of what happens in Lithuania and the other Baltic states, which are a rather special case.
      I did not always succeed in my objective but I used to set myself the personal target of trying, within one year of arrival, to be able to write a leading article-type of composition in the local language, expounding the local reaction to some wholly unexpected event. To do this, you had to understand the way in which local opinion would react and to write and talk about it in that language.
      An example I remember was Brazil in the early 1960s, when Brazilians were suffering from price inflation of up to 100 per cent. per annum. I asked myself how they would react to a decision by the Bank of Brazil to peg the cruzeiro to the US dollar. Of course, no Brazilian politician, thinking of the next elections, would dream of anything so rash. But the intellectual exercise was quite useful, not least in this case because it enabled my excellent language teacher to instruct me in the correct use of a rare tense in the Portuguese language, the future subjunctive, which I have not encountered anywhere else. It carried a strong sense of continuing uncertainty and doubt which was entirely appropriate in the circumstances.
      I hope your Lordships will forgive this stray reminiscence. I recite it for a serious reason. Students in foreign universities will carry away with them a knowledge and understanding of that country which will never be lost to them. I do believe that if we can increase the number of British students in foreign universities, we shall be creating a valuable resource for them personally and shall make a useful contribution to a more rational and peaceful Europe.
      6.18 p.m.
      The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I agreed with every single word he said. In a recent Parliamentary Question I asked how many of our 202 heads of legations abroad could speak the language of the nation to which they are accredited. The answer was 50 per cent. That reflects exceedingly well on a most remarkable organisation—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—which moves its senior mandarins around every two or three years. I hope that it will continue to set that magnificent example. I point out that in a space of just two or three months our ambassadors to the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, are speaking a "survival" version of the local languages.
      I thank my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for enabling us to take part in the debate this evening and
      2132
      for introducing it with his customary rigour and clarity—a hallmark, may I say, of this report and of the committee which produced it. I hope that the report will be widely read and circulated not only in British universities but also in our secondary schools. I hope that the main points will be taken up in those places where young people are studying for A-levels and deciding upon their university courses—that is, those who are fortunate and skilful enough to be awarded a place—and also in the European Commission and in other member states. I hope that the Minister and her department will study the report with care, take note of its recommendations and, most importantly, where it affects us all, implement them. Some of the recommendations can only be implemented by the European Commission. When the Minister concludes the debate, I hope that she will be able to inform us when and where she expects the Commission to act.
      If I have one quibble with the report it is that perhaps it does not give enough stress, although there is some, to the enlargement process. For example, between 1996 and 1997, I learned from a report, of the 85,210 people from overseas who took part in the scheme we have been discussing only 1,507 were from nations which were formerly occupied by the USSR. I can give your Lordships two examples of where the scheme has benefited individuals coming from overseas. The first is a Mr. Vaher Soosar from the foreign ministry in Estonia. He is 26 years of age and took a course in economics at Green College University. He has now gone back to his country to head the Central Asian desk in his foreign ministry, dealing with an extremely turbulent area of the world. He came to this House, met people and said afterwards, "I have received enormous value and great knowledge of this country. I have improved my language. I have seen and met members of your Foreign Office, and I am determined to follow and put into practice in my foreign ministry the good, positive lessons that I have learned."
      My second example concerns an historian, a Mr. Ilimar Ploom, who is currently at Tartu University. He spent a year at Queen's College, Oxford, studying the Conservative Party from Peel until the present time. He wrote his thesis at Tartu University on the subject of F.E. Smith/Lord Birkenhead, social reformer. That is how he looked upon Birkenhead. He met the noble Lord, Lord Blake, in the Peers' Guest Room. The noble Lord quietly assured him that F.E. Smith had other great virtues and that that of social reformer was not the one we prominently associated with the name of that noble and learned Lord who once sat on the Woolsack.
      The scheme has benefited Europe, the United Kingdom and our universities, especially those undergraduates and graduates who have been able to take part. Not only have member states needed to co-operate but universities, as well as their staff and their consumers, have also had to co-operate. The Commission's claim that education and training programmes have given meaning to the notion of a European dimension is well founded. As a result of the programme, we have achieved a greater sense of European citizenship and shared values.

      2133
      I should like to focus on two points raised in the report. The first is one upon which other noble Lords have dwelt; namely, the imbalance. It is claimed that UK students undergoing three-year degree courses abroad who take a year off as it is called—wrongly and incorrectly, in my opinion—in the second or third year to study at another European university on the Continent are penalised. Looking back over 28 years since I studied for a degree in modern history, I can say that I would have given a year's pay to have spent a year away from my university studying in a French, a German or an Italian university. However, the opportunity was not available because the scheme was not in existence at that time. Moreover, my knowledge of those languages was insufficient at that point.
      I hope that the Minister will encourage, exhort, persuade, entice but not bully the Comittee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals at the universities of the UK to ensure that those students who opt to take a course abroad should far from being penalised in their degree grade, be regarded as having special merit for their achievements and diplomas from Continental universities. If they have done well in their studies, so be it. However, I hope that they will also have done well as ambassadors for their country. Indeed, as has been pointed out, they will come back with better knowledge of those countries and will be able to put that to good use in the future over, say, five, 10, 15, 20 years or until they reach the grave. For that reason, and with great respect, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Elibank.
      I am pleased that our students are no longer penalised financially by undergoing courses at other European universities. Can the Minister reassure us that that will continue to be the case? Further, does the noble Baroness see her department offering any further financial incentives for our students who are studying abroad? If so, how and why?
      I come to my second crucial point; namely, language training. I divide that into two components. The first is language teaching and the second is the learning of a foreign language. I declare an interest here. At the age of 45, four years ago, having failed twice overwhelmingly to be elected to another place I applied, and was accepted, to train at that excellent establishment, Sheffield Hallam University. I attended and passed the TEFL course, the teaching of English as a foreign language. The final hurdle of a six-week course was to be put in a classroom with 35 pupils, none of whom could speak English. They were immigrants. In my class, 16 of the 35 were of different nationalities. One had to give two one-and-a-half hour lessons. Sitting at the back of the classroom was one's instructor. One sank or one swam. This was Sheffield University's present, if you like, to the people of Sheffield—the training of immigrants in our language.
      I passed the course and learnt more about teaching and about myself during those two lessons than I had learnt elsewhere. I also learnt that if other immigrants can bother to learn our language, then surely we can learn other languages with all the opportunities that we have. Indeed, our people can learn the language of a neighbouring nation.
      2134
      Moreover, I make the following point with no boasting but with a certain amount of pleasure. At the age of 48, when I went to Estonia to teach the English language to a Baltic battalion—a peacekeeping company of the Estonian nation—I began to learn their language. I shall not explain, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, did, certain differences between our languages. I just say that the Estonian language has nine vowels while we have five. Their language has no determiner and no future tense, despite the fact that they have a great future. Moreover, they have 14 different case endings.
      How did one learn? Perhaps the answer will help other people. I learnt from the Bible which fortunately I had been taught. Indeed, those who know the Bible well will recognise what is coming next. To learn Estonian, one should read the Estonian Bible. While in Estonia I also noticed that at five o'clock in the evening, which is prime television time, there was a comic strip programme for children; that is, for Russian and Estonian children. Those programmes had subtitles so that one could learn and follow the dialogue. I also watched many episodes of "Santa Barbara" and "Neighbours", which carried subtitles. It is the visual and the hearing that helps one to learn a language.
      Finally, I turn to the question of textbooks. I believe that the range of textbooks in our primary and secondary schools needs to be reviewed. Until we put more investment into learning foreign languages from primary school onwards, we will not build on sure foundations a Europe of knowledge.
      6.30 p.m.
      Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I must apologise for missing the first part of the speech of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire but I am reassured to learn that it was characteristically coherent and comprehensive. I must declare some interests as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ulster which participates to a great extent in the Erasmus-Socrates programme. I am also chairman of the United Kingdom Socrates Council.
      We very much welcome the report, as does the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It was produced quickly and well. It is a timely report because of the new programme that is emerging from Brussels. It served to tighten the sinews of the major actors: the DfEE, the CVCP and the universities. We had possibly allowed ourselves to take things too much for granted and I think that we are now more seriously pondering the problems that have been highlighted which might not otherwise have received attention. We welcome the fact that the Government have agreed a major relaunch of the programme some time in the future. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for that.
      Members of your Lordships' House have drawn attention to the biggest issue: that of imbalance. I believe that European Union enlargement will exacerbate the problems of imbalance. The member states from eastern Europe will swell the numbers of those students wanting to study in the United Kingdom. As many noble Lords have noted, the outward

      2135
      participation from the United Kingdom is falling. While the committee does not favour seeking compensation from the European Union, a programme where one member state alone, the UK, accounts for over 40 per cent. of all the participation cannot be in the best overall interests of the European Union itself and cries out for examination by Brussels to see what can be done. For all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, mentioned, I think we must recognise that we shall continue to attract vast numbers but somehow we need to contrive systems which relieve the pressure. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to the financial pressures, which are real, but we must also understand that the Erasmus programme is under-financed and under-capitalised. The unit of resource is getting lower and lower as Brussels endeavours to stretch it further and further. Therefore there are real financial and economic issues to be addressed.
      The most important recommendation is Recommendation 196 which calls upon the Government to provide funds for language classes for would-be participants in the Socrates programme. My noble friend Lord Carlisle referred to his own experiences in language acquisition. It is important that we should get away from the notion that you have to be absolutely fluent in a language to be able to participate. Opportunities must be created and seized to enable our intending students to have that basic confidence which may result in their applying in greater numbers than has hitherto been the case.
      The noble Lord, Lord Elibank, referred to a hypothetical engineering student who might think twice about going to Italy. The University of Ulster has the largest single Erasmus programme for environmental scientists. We take in 90, and send out 70 on average per year. Environmental scientists, by definition, would benefit from going almost anywhere. As regards engineering where resources are scarce, we should not be so supremely confident that our own engineering facilities both in industry and in the universities are of such a state of the art quality that our students cannot learn from engineering best practice in member states of the Union. It is a foolish and parochial attitude to nurture such ideas. My noble friend Lady Sharp referred to her own experience of teaching students. A student who spends a good length of time in one of the member states comes back two inches taller. Such students have an immense confidence and if they never visit that country again they will nevertheless be equipped with lifetime skills which will hold them in good stead.
      I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, sought to persuade the Minister to punish, kick or force the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to give due recognition to qualifications and time spent abroad. The United Kingdom is in the vanguard of credit accumulation and transfer schemes. We bend over backwards in this regard. Many universities, including my own, award additional certificates and diplomas to those who have participated in such schemes. Therefore I do not believe we are slouches as regards trying to facilitate this kind of student mobility and interchange.
      2136
      From my perspective, I believe that the United Kingdom is extremely well served by the work of the director of the UK Socrates-Erasmus Council, Mr. John Reilly, whose comprehensive evidence to the committee must be seen for what it is. Not only do he and his staff manage a complex national programme with great efficiency but he is also the acknowledged doyen amongst the European Union core of national organisers. He has a real passion for promoting the idea of European student mobility while being ever diligent about the UK's interests. The higher educational world is fortunate to have his energy and expertise at its disposal.
      6.37 p.m.
      Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I begin by offering apologies for my noble friend Lady Blatch, who has an unavoidable engagement. I also offer apologies for my noble friends Lord Pilkington and Lord Inglewood, both of whom served on the committee. My noble friend Lord Pilkington is away in the country organising the placing of his wife's gravestone. My noble friend Lord Inglewood is out of the country.
      This has been an excellent and fascinating debate. We on these Benches are delighted to welcome the report and take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and his committee, for their dedicated and detailed work. We also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the Government for finding the time to hold this debate. The report will make an important contribution towards the development of a new programme to replace the Socrates-Erasmus programme, which comes to an end in 1999.
      I believe the committee was wise to focus its attention on two important strands. First, it addressed questions of principle rather than detail. It is right to consider some analysis of the aims and achievements of the programme as well as examining, through British interest groups, the hope for, the aspirations of, and indeed the commitment to, the new programme. The second strand, of course, addressed more detailed questions from the standpoint of the UK. It is clear from the report that the issue of imbalance created by the movement of students into and out of the UK occupied much of the committee's attention. As is customary for committees of this House, the structured way in which the committee approached its task was commendable.
      The flow of questions set out on page 9 chart a constructive course from the strategic to the detailed issues that needed to be considered if the analysis, conclusions and recommendations were to be sufficiently forward looking and at the same time to be capable of being delivered by participating countries in a way that was both affordable and achieved the stated aims and objectives. The committee was also right in taking account of those students who study abroad outside the Socrates-Erasmus programme.
      In the Commission communication, Building a Europe of Knowledge, I was pleased to see the stated aims of linking policies of innovation, research, education and training to boosting economic activities

      2137
      as well as bringing personal fulfilment and increasing the employability of young people. Unemployment throughout the Community, although at lower levels in the UK, is unacceptably high. The focus of the communication embraced not only the physical mobility of students and staff but also "virtual mobility", as it is known in the jargon, achieved by a more imaginative use of new technology. Co-operation between institutions was addressed by the report, in addition to the vexed issue of language skills—a point of particular significance for the UK.
      Like my noble friend Lord Elibank, I believe that there is a world of difference between students from most parts of the world, not just from European countries, coming to the UK to study and UK students leaving these shores to study abroad. The obvious point is made well: that the universality of the English language brings with it a confidence to undertake study in the UK using English as a second language.
      Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, I welcome students from abroad, and I have a particular reason for so doing. The bold step taken by a young Ukrainian woman has given my family a much-loved and wonderful daughter-in-law. It was with great pleasure, delight and pride that we heard that she had been awarded her doctorate in linguistics at Lancaster University a couple of weeks ago. Sadly, there is as yet not a large enough cohort in the UK of young people who are sufficiently proficient and confident in a second language to take the step of studying abroad.
      The report, however, points out that language was not the only attraction of British higher education to overseas students. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that foreign students appreciate many aspects of our higher education system, including our shorter three-year degree courses, less crowded campuses, generally better staff-student ratios and, as mentioned, more effective pastoral care for students.
      The language problem for UK students is dealt with in some detail in the report. The introduction of a foreign language as a compulsory subject in the national curriculum is producing an increase in the number of young people reaching the age of 16 with some competence and skill. However, the number of students taking a language at A-level continues to fall. That is worrying. One factor appears to be the decline in foreign language assistants. Noble Lords will see that the committee firmly recommends an increase in their numbers. As an aside, I was interested to see that the fall was mainly across the state sector; there was an increase in the independent and grant-maintained schools. That is another very strong argument for schools to enjoy as much financial responsibility as is possible.
      The issue of teaching languages in the primary schools is difficult. However, it needs to be said that many primary schools do in fact either teach a foreign language or run foreign language clubs as an extra-curricular activity. That is to be welcomed. However, until there is a large enough pool of students leaving school competent in a foreign language at both GCSE and A-level from which language teachers can be
      2138
      recruited, it will not be possible formally to include a foreign language in the primary curriculum. There are approximately 20,000 primary schools, and that requires large numbers of staff. In spite of that, it remained a policy aim of the previous government to extend language teaching to the primary schools.
      Another welcome sign is the growing number of higher education institutions which offer students the opportunity to learn a language irrespective of their primary course of study. Perhaps HEFCE could focus more attention on that aspect of higher education funding.
      The committee concluded that the Erasmus programme had benefited the UK. It regarded such education interaction as an investment. It rightly warns the EU that to propose ambitious programmes without commensurate funding would be,
      "to build castles in the air".
      The committee makes the interesting point that, although there is an imbalance of students in and out of the UK, nevertheless we are fortunate to attract high numbers of overseas students. The issue as seen by the committee is to increase the number of UK students leaving these shores for study abroad. More use of periods of study abroad was encouraged by the committee, with a call on HEFCE to consider that and to press universities to be more proactive in encouraging students to learn foreign languages.
      Recommendation 198 takes a tough line on whether the UK should be compensated for the net inflow of students. The committee concludes that the answer lies in the improvement of language teaching and increasing the number of UK students studying abroad. However, that is a long-term solution and, meanwhile, our universities carry a substantial financial burden. That problem is here and now.
      The committee makes reference to the perverse effect of tuition fees and the funding structure, a point to be considered by the government and HEFCE. Pressures for the new programme to diversify are challenged in Recommendation 208. I hope the government will give weight to the concerns expressed by the committee on that issue.
      There is an almost insoluble tension between the preservation of the viability of minority languages and the natural inclination towards studying in English. Persuading UK students to study in, for example, France, Germany and Spain is proving difficult enough; but to extend the numbers who study in, for example, Greek, Polish or Latvian calls for specially targeted projects.
      It is clear from the excellent work done by the committee that the programme should continue. The committee concludes that the increased and more effective use of technology; better co-operation and co-ordination between and across participating institutions; improved language teaching; and some restructuring of funding by HEFCE will combine to increase the effectiveness of the new programme which will be put in place in 1999.

      2139
      I am sure that the noble Baroness will have received the briefing from the CVCP. I hope that she will take special note of its first point for subsequent action and its wish to take an active role in taking the committee's recommendations forward.
      Finally, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallis of Saltaire, and all the members of his committee. The report that they have produced is an important document, as the development of the next stage of Erasmus is considered. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the exchange of students should be encouraged, as we all benefit from it. We on these Benches wish all those concerned well as they make their decisions to carry this initiative forward.
      6.49 p.m.
      The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we have had an interesting debate and I know that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for having introduced it and for giving your Lordships the opportunity to discuss the issue. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, I thank the noble Lord and all the members of the Committee for their report into Student Mobility in the European Union. It is a complicated issue, but the report is a model of clarity and extremely timely. It has helped the Government to prepare their position for discussion of the proposed Socrates II programme. It has been helpful in that respect.
      I start by saying that I share the committee's view that the international dimension in higher education is important. It deserves the attention that the committee's report and this debate give it. It is a worthwhile aspect of higher education, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I shall not comment on the special value study abroad for British students of economics, although I have a little sympathy with what the noble Lord said.
      I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that students benefit from a period abroad, not just in order to continue their studies in whatever subject it may be and learn about the culture of the country they are in, but also to learn about different systems of higher education. Similarly, incoming students from around the world, including the European Union, can learn from our system. It is very different from some of the systems they experience in their studies.
      At the beginning of this month I was particularly pleased to be able to lead a delegation of representatives of UK higher education to the UNESCO world conference on higher education. I was able to put forward our view that higher education is increasingly an international enterprise. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development stressed the important role that higher education can play in creating sustainable development. That is again a very important role. The UK sponsored the student debate which enabled students from all over the world to play a part in that important conference. I was delighted to chair what turned out to be an
      2140
      extremely lively and stimulating exchange of views. In some ways, it was more lively and stimulating than the rest of the conference.
      Before turning to Erasmus, it may be helpful to set it in the wider context of the Government's international higher education policy and, along the way, to pick up some of the points made during the debate that do not strictly fall within the remit of the report.
      First, many British students study outside Europe under bilateral agreements between institutions. The UK Government have in place mechanisms for supporting such activity, particularly by offering those studying in high cost countries additional support towards their costs.
      Secondly, there are those students who come to the United Kingdom from elsewhere in the European Union for a complete higher education course for a whole three years or in some cases four years. We must, under EU law, treat these students no less favourably than students from the UK as far as tuition fees and institutional grants are concerned but not loans for their living costs. There are significantly more students who choose to come to the UK than there are UK students who choose to study a complete course elsewhere in the EU or around the world. I am aware that some have argued that this imbalance is unsatisfactory.
      On the positive side, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Elibank said, it is a vote of confidence in the quality of UK higher education, both by our own students and by others in the European Union. It encourages the European dimension to develop in institutions and exposes those students who do not themselves travel to an international atmosphere. It undoubtedly gives many future decision-makers a positive experience in the UK which they carry with them throughout their lives. There is much in what the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, said about it, but a great deal is being done to promote the value of British higher education and British further education around the world, not just in the European Union but outside. It is being carried out directly by vice-chancellors and principals and academic staff of British universities. But the Government too are involved. I have particular responsibility for the international aspect of my department's work and have made a number of trips abroad carrying out that form of export promotion.
      Finally, there is the growing group of students from outside the European Union who are designated as "overseas" students, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred. The Government unreservedly welcome the students to the UK for their contribution to academic life in our institutions and for their contribution to the internationalisation of UK higher education. I do not think it unreasonable to expect that these students should fund the full cost of their higher education. However, the Government fund various schemes to support such students such as the Chevening

      2141
      scholarships. Many more students are, of course, sponsored by their own governments or by industry. Sometimes they pay for their studies in the UK themselves.
      The Government recognise the long-term benefits for the United Kingdom from hosting these different kinds of students in the UK. The Government also welcome the initiative taken by Claude Allegre, the French Minister of Education, now known as the Sorbonne Declaration. This sets out in very broad terms the benefits that the signatories believe would accrue from adopting a similar broad "architecture" of higher education: bachelors or first degrees, masters degrees and then a doctorate. In this perhaps we in the UK are fortunate because the architecture proposed looks remarkably similar to the one already in place. The declaration does not prescribe course length and certainly not content of curricula.
      The broad aim of a common architecture is to increase understanding of the signatories' higher education qualifications, making student, researcher and teacher mobility easier. It will also improve universities' opportunities to develop closer links with their counterparts in other countries.
      I now turn to the substance of the report which is about Erasmus and the European dimension in higher education. I wish to respond to those recommendations that concern the Government. I shall not pick up those specifically directed at the Commission. We can, I think, all agree with the committee that the programmes have been successful and that the new programmes, when they emerge, will continue to play an important role. We can also agree that the United Kingdom has benefited from them.
      The key point of the debate is the fact that more students come to the UK than go out from the UK, not just generally, but also on particular programmes. The committee rightly focused on the causes and effects of the imbalance and made some helpful suggestions as to action to tackle it. I wish to deal with three key areas: funding and student flows, external factors and the new programme itself.
      As to funding of student flows and what some have called "bean counting", because of the reciprocal nature of Erasmus our institutions do not receive funding for incoming students. But they receive funding for their own outgoing students. In short, it is the institutions that bear the cost of the student imbalance through teaching more students for the same money. It is therefore in the end for the institutions to decide what level of imbalance is acceptable to them when weighed against the undoubted benefits of hosting students from elsewhere in Europe. The institutional contracts are freely entered into and institutions must, of course, fulfil their obligations.
      The UK Government also pay a contribution to the European Union towards the cost of Erasmus. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington agrees when I say that for those reasons I believe it is right to seek maximum benefit for our students and institutions. The key point is whether or not the imbalance should be tackled. I agree with the committee that perhaps a
      2142
      little more can be done. I also agree that in some ways the imbalance represents a lost opportunity for UK students. However it is important to be realistic. Here I make two points. First, demand for places in the UK is very high for a number of reasons. The UK offers world class higher education and also has the benefit of the English language which is increasingly the lingua franca in many fields. For many young people around the world it is the first language they learn after their own. For those reasons—the quality of our institutions and the fact that we speak English—we believe it is unlikely that the high demand will diminish.
      Secondly, UK students already participate broadly in proportion to the numbers that one would expect for our population. In that sense the imbalance is not as bad as one may imagine. Taken together this means that complete parity is unlikely to be achievable. But that is not to say that we cannot do more to encourage our institutions and students to take part in Erasmus. I agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who spoke for vice-chancellors and his colleagues, that a great deal is already being done by our universities although I am sure many accept that other things can be done. However, I do not agree with the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, that UK students studying abroad were being penalised. I know of no evidence of that. The noble Earl spoke a great deal about Estonia. Perhaps he is not aware that Estonia is not part of the Erasmus programme, at least not yet. It may be in future.
      As evidence of the Government's positive attitude I was able to announce to the committee a concession on fees for UK Erasmus students who undertook a full academic year of study abroad. This concession provides an incentive for students who pay no fee in that year and for the institutions who receive the full £1,000 towards the tuition of the incoming student. I believe that to be a significant concession. We shall monitor its effect closely. I say to the noble Earl that no further financial incentives are currently planned because this is a significant development.
      I point out to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington that the Government are aware of the costs involved in supporting these programmes. We shall weigh the costs and benefits of those programmes when we consider the new Socrates programme and how much money should be spent on Socrates II. I shall not enter into the larger issue of the European Union budget which I believe is a debate for another time.
      I turn to the external factors that affect participation rates. Certainly, a positive atmosphere is important. During our presidency of the European Union in the first half of this year the Government stressed the importance of employability in a European context and, within that, the vital role to be played by education. Our approach in presenting the positive opportunities available in Europe and in providing supporting material for schools won many plaudits as well as some criticism from those who want nothing to do with Europe.

      2143
      The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and other noble Lords referred to the vexed issue of languages. Much is made of our students' inability or lack of confidence in another language. I accept that that exists. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, suggested that not enough young people studied languages at A-level. I accept that the numbers are not as high as they might be and that there have been declines in some but not all modern languages. But I recently announced changes that will broaden the A-level curriculum to allow more subjects to be studied, including languages. I hope that when we have a system where students can study five subjects in the first year of their sixth form schools will encourage them and that those who at the moment do not take a language will do so at least to A-level.
      I am encouraged by the spread of "languages for all" strategies in many and universities and colleges. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges, which organises the foreign language assistants programme for schools, has been concerned about the use of foreign language assistants in our schools. It undertook a survey a couple of years ago and is now taking action to try to arrest and reverse the decline in the use of foreign language assistants in our schools. It is promoting them and disseminating good practice with outreach of various kinds. We hope that there will be some restoration of those numbers.
      We need to do more to make the programme better known. I welcome very much the input from the UK Socrates Erasmus Council and the work that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, is doing with that council. We have discussed several ideas, including a high profile relaunch to coincide with the introduction of the new programmes in January 2000, to which the noble Lord referred. We shall continue to support the work of the council in raising awareness and encouraging participation. I can confirm that the department will also publish an updated guide to the opportunities available, including all of the new participating countries. This will be available to all students and to everyone who is on the internet.
      I should like to deal now with the structure and operation of Erasmus. We recognise, as does the committee, that there is scope for improvement and that that improvement can benefit UK students and institutions. We have been playing an active part in negotiations with our partners in Europe in the structure of the new programmes, including Socrates II which contains Erasmus. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, who asked about the Commission, that we are vigorously pursuing the principles of responsiveness, decentralisation and flexibility that the committee rightly stresses in its recommendations. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington will also be glad to hear that. We also hope to see greater stability and less paperwork for the institutions and more decisions taken at national level. We also need to see better provision for people with disabilities. I endorse very much what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has said about this, although he is not in his place at the moment. I have also asked my officials to send a copy of the
      2144
      committee's report to the European Commission and to seek a bilateral meeting in order to discuss its content and recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who is an expert on Whitehall, has drawn attention to the spirit of Jeremy Bentham which he detects in the drafting of the Government's reply. But I hope he will agree that it is a thoughtful and balanced reply that may even gain the support of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. If it does that I believe that it will have achieved something.
      I conclude by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and the committee for its authoritative report.
      7.9 p.m.
      Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I, too, thank all those who have taken part in the debate, in particular the Minister, not only for her constructive speech but her helpful attitude throughout the inquiry and the evidence that she gave to the committee during the course of that inquiry.
      The purpose of the Select Committee's report is to fuel the European Union debate and to alert Her Majesty's Government to some of the underlying issues, which Ministers, who are always immensely pre-occupied, may perhaps not otherwise have grasped. It is necessary to investigate the consistency of Government policy and to stir things up a little. We may possibly have stirred things up a little in London and Brussels, and perhaps even in a number of Britain's higher education institutions. If we have achieved that, we have done our job.
      A number of useful comments have been made. I would like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, that next week I shall be going to Frankfurt to lecture to banking students from across the European Union. Quite often, when I am in Frankfurt, I am pained by how much less international the young people from British banks are compared with their colleagues on the Continent. If we wish to be an international financial centre and to have international companies flourishing in Britain, it is important that we have young people, not just teachers, but also financiers, professionals and company executives, who understand the world outside Britain.
      I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for her remarks about the European studies course at Sussex University. I declare an interest. My wife is a professor in that faculty. From what she has told me, I am conscious that the number of applicants to study those combined courses is currently falling. That is another area that ought to concern us. Students learn from each other. British students who go abroad expand their horizons, and that can feed back into this country's prosperity. Therefore, it is a public policy priority to encourage more British students to study abroad. That is part of our underlying message. Having said that, I commend this Motion to the House.
      On Question, Motion agreed to.

      Northern Ireland: A.5 Road Upgrade
      7.13 p.m.
      The Duke of Abercorn The Duke of Abercorn rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are considering a request to the European Union for additional funding to ensure that the Londonderry-Strabane-Ballygawley A.5 road is upgraded to the required modern standard.
      The noble Duke said: My Lords, I should like to declare all interests that may, in any way, be connected with the Question. I am president of Strabane Chamber of Commerce; a consistent, indeed persistent, traveller along the A.5 route; chairman of Amey (Belfast), a subsidiary of Amey PLC; and my family owns a disused quarry in County Tyrone, where a local quarrymaster pays a modest rent in order to ensure that the quarry remains closed.
      I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, is participating in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Eames, was hoping to be present in order to support the Question, but commitments on the other side of the Irish Sea have prevented his attendance this evening.
      I am delighted to have the opportunity, not only to raise this Question, but also to highlight and emphasise the vital, indeed critical, importance of the A.5 road, not only to the counties of Londonderry, Tyrone and Fermanagh, but also to the neighbouring county of Donegal. Although there are some inherent advantages in the north west, such as a rapidly growing labour force and a good third-level education infrastructure, economic progress in the region has not matched the experience elsewhere, for the reasons that I shall raise in my Question.
      The commercial, industrial and social lifeline of the west of the Province and Donegal depends directly on the A.5 road as the sole route to the eastern ports of Belfast, Larne and Dublin. This has resulted in it being designated with trans-European network status. That is imposing terminology. However, at present the current condition of the road in no way justifies that status.
      Much of the road is characterised by its twisty, undulating alignments, with poor forward visibility and, for long stretches, a complete lack of overtaking opportunities. Average vehicle speeds during peak hours on the 12-mile stretch between Londonderry and Strabane are 35 miles an hour, and on the 34 mile stretch between Strabane and Ballygawley only 39 miles an hour. Those average speeds fall well below what is expected on one of Northern Ireland's major, strategic routes. Those factors also lead to long tailbacks of traffic, and the resultant driver frustration is one of the reasons for the high accident rates on several parts of the route. Yet all the products of industry, the raw materials for that industry, and all consumer goods have to travel along the A.5 route since there is no alternative method of transport.
      Furthermore, I am convinced that the present condition of the road has a detrimental, psychological impact on those of us living in the west of the Province and Donegal because it accentuates the feeling of remoteness of those western counties from the
      2146
      considerably more prosperous counties east of the Bann, where employment opportunities are far more prevalent and obtainable.
      Again, the condition of the A.5 road deters potential mobile investment from locating in the west. For instance, the Industrial Development Board's advanced factory in Strabane remains vacant following completion some 24 months ago. Surely regional development policies are first and foremost directed towards removing the problems of consistent unemployment and low incomes and to improving the quality of life. To achieve those basic objectives it is necessary to arrest the contraction of the industrial and service sectors and then to restore and enhance the attractions of the region as a location for new investment and to realise fully the tourist potential of the area.
      Therefore, it is widely accepted that development of industries and tourism is tied closely to the creation of infrastructure facilities, such as roads, railways, ports and airports. Again, it is widely recognised that there is a direct link between lack of economic activity and the lack of efficient transport.
      In the case of Tyrone, Donegal and Fermanagh, there are no port facilities, no railways, no motorways and two modest, small airports. Thus the A.5 road remains the critical link with the rest of Ireland, both north and south, as well as the east coast gateway ports to Great Britain and Europe. The region's dependence upon this transport corridor is demonstrated by the high levels of heavy commercial vehicles (up to 19 per cent.) using the A.5 route. In other words, access to those counties is appalling.
      Surely, if the region's transport is totally dependent upon road transport, then good modern roads are a fundamental requirement. During the past 20 years, due to budget restrictions, investment on major roads in Northern Ireland has been severely curtailed, and this is especially the case in the north west of the Province. Therefore, the May announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of £12 million expenditure in four key locations along the A.5 route was of real significance and a tremendous morale boost to the west of the Province and Donegal.
      The proposed bypass extension of Strabane, Newtownstewart and Omagh, along with the scheduled works at Ballymagorry, without doubt, will improve the standard of this route, avoiding tailbacks, possible accidents and constant driver frustration in those four important locations.
      It is accepted that a complete reconstruction of the route to modern standards is not presently an option. However, a recent survey by Coopers and Lybrand, commissioned by the north west region cross-border group consisting of Limavady, Strabane, Deny and Donegal councils, concluded that if a further £10 million were invested on this trans-European network, with emphasis on the establishment of climbing lanes where necessary, the route would be upgraded to modern required standards. It would thus provide the region, which has a population of 690,000, with a level playing field situation at long last, resulting in the north west no longer being in the rearguard in terms of economic development.
      Therefore, at today's costs, a modest road investment of £10 million should have a major impact and lasting benefit on the daily lives and prospects of those living in this region. It is considered that these further improvements will be required to achieve noticeable change in traffic flow to allow efficient travel along this route. Again, the upgrading of the A.5 will significantly reduce transport costs to ports and airports, thus making the area more attractive to potential investors.
      Although by nature a considerable optimist, I am really concerned that this region is far too dependent on a number of vulnerable sectors. For instance, the agriculture industry is in real and deep recession at present, while the manufacturing industry in the area has a high concentration of clothing and textile firms which will inevitably come under increasing pressure from imports in the future. Indeed, our economy in the west is already precarious. For example, the Strabane area is the highest unemployment blackspot in the European Union. In fact, successive generations of some families have failed to gain employment in the Strabane area.
      Again, according to the Irish Times of 17th August, IDA Ireland stated that County Donegal is a priority location for new inward investments. However, it stated:
      "In spite of our efforts, few companies have chosen to locate in the North West region. It is the investor who decides the location, not IDA Ireland. Our experience of dealing with clients who have located elsewhere has shown us that poor access by air and road, Northern troubles, etc, have made the region unattractive in comparison with other locations".
      The future of Fruit of the Loom, employing several thousand people in both Donegal and Derry, is causing deep concern in the north west. The Industrial Development Board of Northern Ireland is experiencing the same practical difficulties as the IDA Ireland.
      Tourism is an important part of the Donegal economy, coming mostly from Belfast, the east of the Province or indeed from Dublin. Incoming tourists converge at the Ballygawley roundabout and then travel along the A.5 route. There is no alternative.
      The rebuilding of Omagh, which must be regarded as a matter of the utmost urgency following that act of raw evil last August, will require every ounce of sensitivity, creativity, drive and determination and must in no way be hampered by poor transportation and communications. Again, if Northern Ireland is to achieve lasting and permanent peace there will be an inevitable increase in tourism, commerce and, it is to be hoped, industry.
      This situation will obviously impose yet further pressure on this lifeline route. Increased economic activity in Belfast has resulted in long, early morning tailbacks on the M.1 motorway and, likewise, a huge increase in Dublin traffic has created severe traffic problems.
      I remain totally convinced that the most effective monetary assistance from the European Union to those living in the west would be a £10 million grant in aid from the roads measure of the transport sub-programme. Therefore, I trust that the Government will make an urgent request to this authority, probably in conjunction
      2148
      with the Irish Government, in order to equal the Chancellor's recognition of the importance of the A.5 route.
      I am only too aware that transport infrastructure investment is expensive and public expenditure resources are not easily accessible. However, no one can deny or counter-argue that a further provision for an improved A.5 route would play a critical role in enhancing the economic development of the region.
      Therefore, there really is a chance for a generation of the population living in the west of the Province and Donegal to realise at long, long last the real potential of the area. It would be nothing but tragic if this opportunity were not taken up by both governments and Brussels.
      7.26 p.m.
      The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, who has brought before your Lordships this important Unstarred Question. I had a difficult decision to make today; whether to take part in this debate or whether to be in Northern Ireland as a member of the all-party defence group visiting the Province this weekend. Both events run concurrently and I cannot be in two places at once. I regard this debate to be of the utmost importance and will listen to the Minister's reply with the closest attention, as I am sure will the 280,000 people in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland whose lives are affected by his decision or his indecision.
      We all owe a great debt to the noble Duke, especially those who live, work and have served in the Province. Perhaps I may give an example of what I mean. In August last year a bomb exploded in Omagh. I happened to be in Estonia at the time staying with a former staff sergeant of the Greenjackets who has dual citizenship, Staff Sergeant Krepka. He, like me, had spent a happy two years in Northern Ireland serving the people there. We were fortunate to be watching the memorial service on Sky television. When my host saw the important and unimportant people in front of the town hall, he asked me whether I knew any of them. He asked, "Who is the tall man wearing the Guards tie?". I said, "That is his Grace the Duke of Abercorn, who is attending the service as Lord Lieutenant". I was asked what he was doing there, and I said that he was representing the Sovereign. I was asked, "What else does he do?". I said, "He has done an enormous amount of good for the Province, not only County Tyrone but the whole Province. We thank him.".
      I declare an interest. Twenty-six years ago last month I was serving as a soldier in Northern Ireland. I was in a civilian car bought locally. I was undertaking the kind of job where the number plates needed to be changed every two to three months. I was driving quite slowly, at about 40 miles per hour, from Omagh to Ballygawley. Suddenly, there was a bump. I lost control of the car. It slewed over to the right and a car coming in the opposite direction crashed into me. Fortunately, nobody was killed. Given the nature of my duties, it would have been ironic had I been wiped out by a car and not a terrorist.

      2149
      I was not prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving. It transpired that a similar accident had happened only a week before. It was the quality of the road which was at fault, so decided the police authorities.
      Therefore, I have a question for the Minister. Will he tell the House how many people, over the past one year, five or 10 years, have died on that road? I cannot ask him, nor would I, the cost of that because death to families, relations, friends and the economy is incalculable. But perhaps the Minister can tell me how many much-valued police hours, especially in the Province, are spent dealing with accidents as a result of the poor quality of the A.5 Londonderry-Strabane-Ballygawley road. Has he received any representations from the various chief constables of the counties affected who have urged him either to supply funds from the Treasury to repair the road or exhorted him to go elsewhere, to the European Union, for funds?
      I cannot regard the £10 million as a large sum of money in proportion to the Northern Ireland budget. I should like to know whether—if there is a correlation—the cost of accidents and police time, which is costed, is near the £10 million that upgrading would cost. I believe that we should be saving money if we improved that road.
      Unlike the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, I do not have all the statistics and facts. I was grateful for the document by Coopers & Lybrand from which the noble Duke quoted. I shall reinforce what he said without giving the quotations from that document.
      However, I wonder whether the Minister has studied the report entitled Transportation Infrastructure Strategy. That report was commissioned by the Irish Central Border Network and the North West Region Cross Border Group. The objectives are most laudable. They are to improve cross-border co-operation in transportation infrastructure and to provide an analysis so that the European and central government funding authorities can be advised on the most appropriate approaches. That report, dated 1998, from four months ago, must have landed on the Minister's desk. Does he agree with the priorities? The priorities are, first, the Sligo-Enniskillen-Belfast road, secondly, the Londonderry-Belfast road, the A.6, and, thirdly and fourthly, the A.5. Are those the correct priorities?
      If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as reported, is giving £12 million, when will the repairs to that road start and how long will they take? Northern Ireland enjoys the prospect of relative stability and peace. One of the reasons or factors of the instability has been the lack of job opportunities. In part that has been caused by the lack of modern, upgraded transport infrastructure.
      Through my mailbag came two brochures. One was entitled Shaping our Future which was produced by the North West Region Cross Border Group. The second was produced by the Irish Central Border Area Network. In the first there is a section in which we are informed that in 1977, the two central governments jointly funded a study on cross border communication. That was 21 years ago. It is of interest to me that a heading in the glossy brochure is
      2150
      entitled "Initiating momentum". Will the Minister assure us this evening that he will not only initiate momentum but will take action and generate action to ensure that the A.5 road, the major artery between the north and south of Ireland in the west, is upgraded so that it is able to be an asset rather than a handicap to the economic well-being of all the people of Ireland?
      7.34 p.m.
      Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn has done a great deal over many years for the economic progress of the Province. Therefore, he speaks with a special authority on this matter and has raised this evening a most important subject. I support everything that he said about the importance of the A.5 road and the very strong case that there is for European Union investment assistance to upgrade it.
      All of us who have spent any time in Northern Ireland know what an important link it is. We have all spent a good deal of time being driven backwards and forwards along it. As the noble Duke said, it is important not only to the west of Northern Ireland itself but also to Donegal. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us of the Government's support for assistance from the trans-European network programme.
      It is important as economic progress is always important to every part of the United Kingdom but I believe it has an importance too to the political process. The unemployment and the economic difficulties of parts of the Province have undoubtedly been exacerbated by the troubles of the past 30 years. There is no doubt in my mind that the achievement of a peaceful Province and a peaceful future for Northern Ireland depends on economic progress and on bringing down unemployment as well as on the more obviously political events which we have spent some time discussing in the past few days.
      It is important for political reasons and for reasons of the so-called peace process as well as the economy generally. But the trans-European network programme was brought into being in recognition of the difficulty of the most distant areas of the European Union in economic terms. It is no accident that any map showing the high unemployment regions of the European Union that has been drawn at any time in the past few decades shows that unemployment is higher around the edges of the European Union. That should not surprise us. However, it is an obvious fact. It can be seen that the south of Italy, parts of the Iberian peninsula as well as the west of France, Ireland and Northern Ireland as well as the north of our own country are all areas of the highest unemployment. That leads to the inevitable conclusion that roads and transport infrastructure are extremely important to economic prosperity. The debate this evening is one very sharp example of that fact in action in one part of our country.
      The other aspect of this debate is that the timing is particularly well chosen. It is both the right year and also the right time of year. It is the right year because we have now the Belfast agreement and all that flows from it. That means that we can expect even more help

      2151
      from the Republic of Ireland in pressing the case for assistance in the European Union. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government are working closely with the Republic in support of this project. I hope too, as the noble Duke said, that it receives every assistance from the Republic of Ireland in supporting the project within the European Union.
      It is also the right time of year. The EU budget process is in full swing. The details of the budget will be settled by Christmas, so now is the time to push for this project to be included in the budget for 1999. That push can come not only at government level but also within the European Parliament. The European Parliament plays a big part in settling the details of the budget.
      We need to count on the support of the three Northern Ireland Members of the European Parliament to push this issue hard on their colleagues and particularly on the members of the Budget Committee. I am sure that our new colleague—the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson—who is not only a senior member of the European Parliament, but a senior member of the Budget Committee, will be seized of that point.
      I hope also that, for example, Mr. John McCartin, Member of the European Parliament from Leitrim, will be able to help. He too is a member of the Budget Committee. Just as important is the Irish substitute member of that committee, Mr. Pat Gallagher, who is the MEP for Donegal. I am sure he is an ally in what we are trying to achieve tonight. He has the nickname "the Cope" and has long been known as "Pat, the Cope Gallagher". So I feel additional confidence in hoping for his support for this specific proposition.
      The noble Duke drew our attention to an important matter in a timely way and I support everything he said.
      7.41 p.m.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter. Before dealing with some of the specific points he made, I should like to set the debate in a slightly wider context.
      I shall shortly be publishing a statement on transport policy in Northern Ireland. That will not contain any indication of extra money, but I hope it will indicate what the Government's thinking is as regards the development of transport in all its facets in Northern Ireland and that it will be seen as a development of a White Paper published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions a few weeks ago.
      In approaching the need for roads there are three criteria, most of which have been mentioned. They are, first, the need of the economy, the need to have a transport system that is efficient to help industry and business and to encourage inward investment and tourism; secondly, to help and protect the environment by providing bypasses around towns; and, thirdly, the important question of road safety to which the noble Earl referred from his own experience.
      2152
      I am also aware that there is a great deal of pressure throughout Northern Ireland for more expenditure on roads. It has always been thus and it is felt wherever I go in Northern Ireland. Every district council I visit asks for more money to be spent on roads. I am sensitive to the feeling in some parts of Northern Ireland that those who live in the western part urge that more resources should be devoted to their area as opposed to the eastern part, including Belfast. Most of those comments have been referred to this evening.
      I fully appreciate the noble Duke's desire to have the A.5 upgraded to modern day standards and I can assure the House that the Government fully share that aspiration. The A.5 is a major strategic route. From a local perspective it is the major traffic artery in the west of Northern Ireland linking the area to Belfast; from an island of Ireland perspective it forms part of the link between Londonderry and Dublin; and from an even wider perspective it is included in the European Union's trans-European road network.
      The Government recognise that some sections of the route fall below modern-day standards in terms of alignment and that some sections have few overtaking opportunities. I know that there are many who would like to see the entire route brought up to dual carriageway standard but, regrettably, current and indeed projected traffic flows indicate that the expenditure required to achieve this could simply not be justified.
      In appreciation of the importance of the route, the previous government looked at more realistic ways of upgrading it and a number of years ago a strategy of phased improvement works was drawn up. This strategy included major schemes to bypass the towns along the route—Strabane, Omagh and Newtownstewart—and also the provision of a number of climbing lanes located along the entire route. Indeed, the previous government made a significant start with the construction of the first stage of the Strabane bypass, the first two stages of the Omagh through-pass and the construction of a climbing lane at Magheramason near Strabane. Other lesser schemes to improve sight lines and provide right-turning lanes at a number of busy junctions along the route were also carried out. In all, over £12 million was invested in the route in recent years and part funding from the European Union was secured for all of the major schemes.
      The cross-border dimension is very important and the need for a co-ordinated approach towards the future upgrading of the route has become more apparent in recent times. This need was first identified in February 1995 when the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Conference agreed that a joint cross-border study should be undertaken to determine a future programme for the improvement of the main Londonderry to Dublin Road. This study, which involved officials from the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland working together with representatives from the National Road Authority in the Republic of Ireland and Louth and Monaghan county councils, endorsed the previous government's strategy to upgrade the route through the

      2153
      provision of bypasses of the towns and improved overtaking opportunities which were to be carried out at a pace dictated by the availability of finance.
      However, the situation changed in 1996 when, under the previous government, funding for major road schemes was substantially reduced because of other spending priorities in Northern Ireland. At that time two of the proposed improvement schemes were postponed. This situation had a considerable impact on the proposed improvement strategy and the position was further exacerbated the following year when two further schemes were postponed.
      At that stage the future prospects for the upgrading of the route looked bleak with just one scheme at Magheramason proposed for the five-year period between 1997 and 2002. However, on 12th May this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, visited Northern Ireland to unveil his economic strategy for Northern Ireland which included a package of measures to upgrade the strategic road network. Those measures provided for £12 million to be allocated towards the upgrading of the A.5. The Government decided that those funds should be directed to the construction of a bypass of Newtownstewart, the completion of stage 3 of the Omagh through-pass, stage 2 of the Strabane bypass and the provision of a section of road realignment and widening at Leckpatrick.
      This programme of work represents the most important development in the roads infrastructure for many years in this part of Northern Ireland and will bring about significant benefits for all those who travel on the route. The intention is to complete all the work within the timescale of the present Parliament and, while this is a very challenging deadline, officials are confident that it can be achieved. Preparatory work is well under way and it is hoped that construction work on the first scheme at Leckpatrick will commence next spring. I believe and hope that the remainder of the schemes I outlined will be completed by the end of 2002.
      Looking further ahead with regard to the European Union funding aspect, negotiations are currently under way regarding the post-1999 structural funds package; that is to say, the future of objective one status which at present benefits Northern Ireland. The detailed requirements for the next round of the structural funds are still fairly uncertain as the regulations are not yet finalised. As the overall structural funds budget has not yet been agreed, it is too early to make an accurate assessment of the amount of funding which Northern Ireland might receive. However, work on the Northern Ireland structural funds plan needs to start so that it can be finalised and submitted before too long.
      Negotiations are currently taking place in Brussels regarding the position for structural funds after 1999. It is therefore too early to be definite, but the Government are well aware of the important part that objective one status has played for Northern Ireland and clearly we are looking to the future to see what arrangements can be made with Brussels which will go on being helpful. However, the negotiations will not be easy because Northern Ireland now has above the percentage of GDP which qualifies for Objective 1 status on present plans. As I said, that is still the subject of negotiations in Brussels.
      2154
      Against that background, the views of a wide variety of organisations have been sought. They include local authorities and statutory bodies. They have been asked to state in broad terms the priorities that should be addressed in the new plan and the types of activity that should be funded. I shall ensure that the Department of the Environment is aware of the concerns about the A.5 that have been expressed tonight and that those concerns are taken fully into account as part of the consultation exercise.
      Perhaps I may deal with a few deal of the specific questions that have been asked. The noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, mentioned the Coopers & Lybrand report. I understand that that report has not yet been received by the department.
      The noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, asked me about the number of accidents. Between 1994 and 1997, there were seven fatal accidents on that stretch of road. I am not aware that any representations have been made by the chief constable, although it may be that such representations have been made but have not been drawn to my attention. I advise the noble Earl that every district council that I have visited in the western part of Northern Ireland has made representations to me about the need to improve the A.5. I am afraid that no figures are available either in respect of the costs of policing of road accidents or in terms of the other costs associated with road accidents. The noble Earl will appreciate that that is quite a difficult exercise and would be based on certain assumptions. Regrettably, road accidents can be caused by factors other than the quality of the road.
      Noble Lords will be aware that the road accident rate in Northern Ireland is higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom in relation to the size of the population. That continues to concern me. Other causes of accidents include people not always wearing seatbelts, excessive speed, and alcohol consumption. However, I accept that from the point of view of road safety, some roads are not as well designed or aligned as they should be. That is bound to be a contributory factor. If such figures can subsequently be made available, I shall pass them on to the noble Earl.
      I assure the House that we are certainly not going to hold back in our discussions in Brussels. I have indicated the basis of our co-operation with the government in Dublin on road schemes and many other matters. I have also indicated the measures to improve the road that are already in the pipeline. However, I am well aware that noble Lords would like more money to be spent on it. We can spend only the money that is available, and, although noble Lords may well want more money to be spent than I have indicated is possible, I believe that what the Government are proposing will make a significant difference and will improve the A.5.
      I reassure the noble Duke that we shall do everything possible to ensure that the A.5 between Londonderry and Ballygawley is upgraded to modern standards within a reasonable and achievable timescale. I have indicated the steps that will be taken within the next two or three years.
      House adjourned at six minutes before eight o'clock.