Lords Sitting of 16 July 1999

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

North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order before us today is entirely of a technical nature. As I announced in your Lordships' House yesterday, the Government will be taking steps, with the Irish Government, to institute a formal review of the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. We nonetheless consider that before we embark on the review we should be in a position whereby all of the Good Friday agreement is capable of being implemented in full. This means ensuring that all the institutions are able to fulfil the functions for which they were established. The order is necessary to ensure that the north/south implementation bodies, an important aspect of the Good Friday agreement, are able to operate in the manner agreed by the political leaders north and south and endorsed by the Assembly and the Dail.
The Implementation Bodies Agreement between the Government and the Irish Government, signed in Dublin on 8th March 1999, provided for the establishment of north/south implementation bodies as proposed under Strand II of the Good Friday agreement. The North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which gives effect in domestic law to that agreement, was approved by your Lordships' House on 9th March and subsequently made on 10th March 1999.
The agreement provided for the establishment of six bodies, including an implementation body for special EU programmes. It is to have a number of functions in relation to the structural funds' community initiative programmes which benefit Northern Ireland, including the new round of community initiatives post-1999. As detailed in the agreement, it was expected that any successor to the current peace programme would be in the form of a community initiative and would fall within the terms of the treaty and the order. However, at the Berlin European Council of 25th and 26th March 1999, provision was made for the continuation of the peace programme, but not as a community initiative.
The European Commission's draft regulations for implementation of the Berlin conclusions of 29th March 1999 showed that the proposed allocation of 500 million euros for the new peace programme will come from the EU's mainstream Objective 1 budget as opposed to its separate and distinct Community initiatives budget.
To ensure the implementation body has the authority to fulfil the relevant functions for the post-1999 peace programme, as was the clear intention of both governments, it has been necessary to clarify the interpretation of the original treaty agreement in respect of the establishment of implementation bodies. This was done by means of an exchange of letters between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Ireland on 18th June 1999, confirming that the treaty should be construed as including any successor to the peace programme established within the framework of the European Community's structural funds. The text of the exchange of letters is set out in Schedule IA to the draft order before your Lordships' House today.
The next and final step in this clarification is for both governments to bring the exchange of letters within the terms of their associated domestic legislation. Hence the order we are considering today. The equivalent Irish Government amendment Bill was passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas on 24th June 1999.
As I said at the outset, we want to ensure that the Good Friday agreement can be implemented in full. It is therefore important that this technical matter should be resolved satisfactorily. That is the purpose of this short order. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this order today and explaining it so clearly, as he always does. I do not intend to take up a great deal of your Lordships' time. I should like to put on record that I have read Hansard from the other place where various matters were challenged by my honourable friends. I am perfectly satisfied by the responses given by the Minister in that place.
I am, however, slightly unsure of one area, which may be due to my own ignorance. While devolution has not yet taken place, I am a little concerned as to how these cross-border implementation bodies will come under scrutiny. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten me. Apart from that, I thank the Government, and in particular the Government Chief Whip's office, for all the assistance we, as the Opposition, have had during this difficult and fast-moving week.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those comments. I am happy to hear that the Government Whips' office is co-operative, as usual. I do not think there is any doubt about that on our side. The cross-border implementation bodies will not come into existence until devolution has taken place. They will be one of the immediate consequences of a transfer of power to the Assembly. As that has not yet taken place and they do not exist, there is nothing for them to do. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (Procedural Rules) Order 1999 Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (Guidelines) Order 1999 Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (Code of Conduct) Order 1999
11.12 a.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 30th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move en bloc the three orders before the House today. Under the terms of the 1998 Act, the Parades Commission is required to issue a code of conduct, procedural rules and guidelines. It is also required to keep those documents under review and has discretion to revise them from time to time, subject to the consideration of this House. The three orders we are considering this morning are a consequence of such a review.
The original documents issued by the commission were laid before Parliament on 23rd February 1998, only days after the commission assumed its full statutory powers. The commission has the 1998 marching season behind it and many major parades in the 1999 season have now also passed. With the benefit of that experience, the commission believes that the original documents can be improved upon.
As all your Lordships will be aware, parades in Northern Ireland are the subject of strongly held views on both sides of the community and consequently the commission works in a highly charged environment. Inevitably, it has been much criticised, particularly, but not exclusively, by the Orange Order. Those criticisms are well known and it is not for me to rehearse them for the benefit of the House. Indeed, I consider the criticisms to be ill-judged and ill-founded.
The Government are clear that the members of the commission have an extremely difficult task which they strive to carry out even-handedly in the best interests of all the people in Northern Ireland. To put this matter in context, it is important to stress that 97 per cent of all parades proceed without the intervention of the commission. Since 1st April 1998, the Commission has received notification of over 6,000 parades. It has found it necessary to issue route restrictions in respect of fewer than 200.
There were 616 parades notified to take place between 10th and 15th July this year. The commission issued 46 decisions in respect of these, of which only 26 consisted of route restrictions. Those are significant statistics and are usually overlooked by those commenting on the work of the Commission.
The reality is that the commission's first year with full powers was undoubtedly a difficult one. All of us will remember the scenes at Drumcree last year. Particularly tragic was the murder of the three young
630
Quinn boys, which was associated with events at Portadown and Drumcree. Our thoughts are with the Quinn family who, particularly at this time of year, must feel that senseless loss.
In the year that followed, because of the stand-off at Drumcree, RUC officer Frankie O'Reilly was murdered, over 200 other RUC officers were injured and 73 officers were forced to leave their homes. That does not include the four families who had to flee their homes because they had a son or daughter who was a member of the RUC.
Many on both sides of the community in Portadown are prevented from leading a normal day-to-day life and the residents of the Garvaghy Road have had to endure a wholly unacceptable living environment because of the level of sectarian threat against them. The cost in human terms is appalling and is a damning indictment of the actions of a small minority of extremists who do not represent the wishes of the overwhelming decent majority of people in Northern Ireland.
However, against that, many parades passed off peacefully last year, and a different climate prevailed this summer, bringing with it a markedly different outcome. This outcome has owed much to the dignified and disciplined behaviour of the Orange Order and the restraint of the local residents. Having said that, the order still declines to engage with the commission or, in the main, to talk face-to-face with residents.
However, it has, under protest, abided by the commission's determinations and has urged its membership and supporters to uphold the law. That is reflected in the security statistics which, comparing this year with last, make striking reading. Perhaps I may quote a few, covering the period 4th to 13th July 1998 and for this year from 2nd to 13th July, which are roughly comparable periods. In 1998 there were 614 public order incidents; in 1999 there were 43. In 1998 there were 625 petrol bombing incidents; this year there were 17. In 1998 there were 137 instances of criminal damage to homes; this year 29. In terms of baton rounds fired by the security forces, 823 had to be fired last year and one was fired this year.
This outcome is due in large part to the painstaking and responsible way in which the commission, under its chairman, Alistair Graham, carried out its responsibilities, and he and his colleagues have our gratitude. As Mr Graham recently stated, it is important that the peaceful atmosphere so far this year should be built upon for the future.
I turn specifically to the orders before us. In the light of the experience to date, the commission believes that procedural changes are necessary. The orders in front of us give effect to their considered opinion on changes which are designed to enhance their operational effectiveness.
The orders deal with the commission's code of conduct, its procedural rules and guidelines orders and will give effect to the revised versions of the commission's statutory documents which were also laid before this House on 30th June. As the three orders are so closely related, it is appropriate to consider all three together.
I stress to the House that many of the amendments in the revised documents are simply good housekeeping on the part of the commission. As it is under an obligation to review and revise the documents, it has taken the opportunity to update them, where necessary, and make minor grammatical changes which would not, by themselves, merit revision of the documents. I do not propose to take up the time of the House with these changes. However, having said that, there are some important amendments which are intended to streamline the existing system.
For example, changes to the procedural rules reflect the commission's experience of the limitations of the formal evidence-gathering procedure. Considerable effort was expended initially in arranging evidence-gathering sessions, with sometimes only two or three people attending to give evidence. The revised procedural rules provide for this procedure to be retained, but only as an option and where appropriate. The commission will continue to welcome all evidence, information and advice which would assist it in arriving at its final decisions. Those changes of greatest substance reflect the experience of the past year.
Paragraph 4.2 of the guidelines for commission members originally provided that, as a general rule, the commission would regard the commercial centres of towns and cities as neutral zones, and would be inclined to support the case for processions. Experience has shown this to be factually inaccurate. Commercial premises have owners and employees, all of whom come from one tradition or the other, and town centres are evenly balanced in sufficiently few cases for this to be unsafe as even a general rule. Under the revised procedures, the commission will consider the demographic balance among the residents in the immediate area surrounding any contested parts of a route and, if the area is genuinely neutral, its determination will reflect that.
Section 4 of the procedural rules originally provided for the commission to express a preliminary view about parades in a particular location. However, by the end of the 1998 marching season, the commission had issued determinations in respect of all the areas in which contentious parades take place. Its view for each location is therefore known: in addition, its annual report effectively provides a de facto preliminary view. A formal preliminary view, as originally envisaged, is now deemed to be unnecessary.
Paragraph 1.2 of the introduction to the guidelines lists factors to which the commission shall have regard in determining whether or not to impose conditions upon a parade. A new paragraph inserted after that list reflects an Appeal Court ruling that the commission is not restricted to having regard exclusively to those factors.
Having produced its amendments in draft form at the end of January, the Parades Commission engaged in an extensive consultation exercise. It was originally intended that Parliament should consider these orders in April of this year. The commission, however, agreed to defer submission of its documents at the request of several of its consultees so that they might give a fuller response. We believe it is now appropriate to take
632
forward the revisions to these documents. One factor is the considerable increase in the number of parades, being notified.
On average the commission has recorded a 50 per cent increase this year over last. Between 1st April 1998 and 31st March 1999, the commission received notification of 3,211 parades. Already this year since 1st April there have been over 2,900 parades notified to take place. If that trend continues, it can expect to receive notification of approximately 2,400 parades in the period between 1st August this year and 31st March next year.
These documents provide for a system which is even handed and impartial, to the benefit of both sides of the community. As many of the amendments are designed to streamline the system, they will be of benefit both to the commission and to those who organise and take part in parades. It is in everyone's interest that the amendments are made at the earliest opportunity. I commend these three orders to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 30th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Lord Dubs, for bringing these orders before us. I entirely agree that the Parades Commission has an extremely difficult task, as he outlined.
A few years ago we debated at some length the Bill) bringing into being the Parades Commission and I am pleased to recall that we cut out some of the peripheral duties suggested and kept it focused on this tremendous task of trying to manage parades in Northern Ireland I must own up to the fact that I had a meeting with the Parades Commission wearing my hat as a member of the Anglo-Irish inter-parliamentary body, so I have had time to discuss its work with its members. I am certain that they are committed to doing the best job they can.
I am sure that Alistair Graham, the chairman, as a trade unionist from the North-East, had a steep learning curve in trying to come to terms and understand the traditions, the feelings and the emotions of the summer season and marching seasons of Northern Ireland. He moved up that learning curve quickly with his team and it is a positive sign that we have these amendments coming through with changes to the codes. I sincerely hope that the commission's learning will increase; that its relations and understanding will continue to improve. I particularly hope and want to put on record that the loyal orders, the Orange Order, will eventually come round to meeting and discussing formally with the government-introduced Parades Commission what it wishes to do. The Parades Commission is part of the democratic process. It is important that the; Orange Order wakes up to that and starts to talk and work with it.
Having said that, I wish the Parades Commission an easier time—I doubt that it will get it. I wish it good luck and all speed in its work.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I echo the sentiments shared by all sides of the House in commending the work of the Parades Commission. Its success must be

633
shown in the decrease in violence indicated. I commend also the restraint shown by the Orange Order at the difficult parades over the past two weeks. I call on its members to heed the call by all sides that restraint should be shown throughout the rest of the marching season.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, does the Minister have any indication whether the number of parades requested will diminish in view of the successful outcome of Drumcree and the Ormeau Road? Many of the parades were going to take place because of the "aggro" occasioned by the banning of the parade in Garvaghy Road.
I want to ask the Minister an important question. So far we have only been able to read about this matter in reports and in leaks that have come out of the so-called "proximity" meetings between the residents of Garvaghy Road and others involved. When legislation was going through this House and even today, we were told that the Parades Commission is an independent commission; that it will take decisions irrespective of the Government's viewpoint. But it has been regularly rumoured since last year's Garvaghy Road incident, that the residents of Garvaghy Road, through their representative Brendan McKenna, have been asking for government assistance to help with the overall economic plight of what he regards as his constituency in Garvaghy Road and Portadown. We heard that many members of the business community and with banking interests met Mr. McKenna. The figure of £30 million and £15 million has been rumoured as a form of blackmail: that he might be prepared to grant permission to the Orange Order provided that money of that order is given over.
I feel that it would be very bad for the Parades Commission to allow itself to be blackmailed into a position of allowing a march by the giving of money. On the other hand, if economic assistance is needed in that area, it should be up to the Government to provide it irrespective of the parades issue.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I wish to make one correction. I referred to the Anglo-Irish inter-parliamentary body; I should have stated the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the words of support for the Parades Commission, and particularly for Alistair Graham its chairman. That is extremely helpful and I am sure that in the difficult task the Parades Commission has, it will be much encouraged by the words of support from your Lordships' House for its work. It has been a success story, despite the difficulties and despite the disappointment that there are people in Northern Ireland who ought to co-operate with it—I hope that they will co-operate with it in the future—so that we can move forward in a better and more co-operative manner.
My noble friend Lord Fitt asked whether there were any statistics about a possible decline in parades following the more peaceful marches that took place at the beginning of this month. I have to tell him that I do
634
not have any such statistics to hand, but perhaps I may write to my noble friend if I am able to obtain such figures and give him that information.
My noble friend also asked about economic assistance for the Portadown area. I would certainly refute any suggestion that the Parades Commission is being blackmailed. The members of the commission make their decisions independently; that is to say, independent of other considerations. They work in accordance with the statutory basis under which the commission was established. It is those considerations that the commission takes into account, not any others.
There have, of course, been a large number of parades directly related to the Drumcree protest, but I do not think that there is any validity in the suggestion that economic aid is linked to that. However, there are certainly parts of Portadown which require economic help, as is the case in other towns. The Government will consider that help on the merits of the case for economic health in particular towns, and not on those other factors.
As I said, I am grateful for the support that noble Lords have expressed and commend the orders to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Aeroplane Noise (Amendment) Regulations 1999
11.31 a.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move. These regulations are made under the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972 and implement Commission Directive 1999/28/EC. In accordance with these procedures introduced by Council Directive 98/20/EC of 30th March 1998, this is the first action to amend the schedule of exempted aeroplanes from the developing nations attached to the directive.
The Commission has removed 11 aeroplanes from the schedule because they no longer qualify for exemption. Some have been damaged beyond economic repair, while others have moved from the register on which the exemption was granted. The effect of the Aeroplane Noise (Amendment) Regulations is to align exemptions in the UK with Directive 98/20/EC by removing those 11 aeroplanes from the schedule attached to the Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999.
From the point of view of noise at UK airports, this measure will be beneficial. It will reduce the number of older, noisier aeroplanes allowed to fly into the UK. There are no other effects. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have looked at the regulations and can see no objection to them. Therefore, I give them my support.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we equally support the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Highway Functions) Order 1999
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move. This contracting-out order seeks to allow local highway authorities to delegate, where they wish to do so, a wide range of operational decisions about road maintenance to private sector contractors. Such delegation is most likely to occur in local authority private finance initiative roads projects, although the order does not specify this as a limitation.
The order before the House today should benefit local authorities and their private contractors alike. This order will reduce the bureaucracy and improve efficiency by giving private sector contractors powers that they need to carry out the responsibilities for managing their contracts effectively. For example, a private contractor will no longer have to ask the local highway authority to get a badly positioned builder's skip removed or re-positioned. The order gives the contractor the power to deal directly with the owner of the skip. This should be particularly helpful in providing value for money in contracts, such as PFI contracts with the private sector. The additional flexibility should feed back the cost of the operation and be reflected in the contract price.
The order is permissive. It gives local highway authorities the power to delegate functions. Although the order provides a menu of powers, the authority will delegate only those functions it sees as appropriate and will not be under any obligation to delegate functions should it not wish to do so. This will ensure that local authorities retain all the responsibility and control that they require in order to ensure good service to the local population, while giving them flexibility when they choose.
The order will have major benefits for the maintenance of local roads operating under a PFI contract. It will allow PFI contractors to assume a local highway authority's statutory responsibility for the functions which the local authority has delegated for the duration of the contract, which could be 25 to 30 years. These are not novel powers; the powers in this order are similar to those in the 1995 statutory instrument No. 1986, which enables the Secretary of State to contract out certain of his statutory functions as the highway authority for the trunk road and motorway
636
network. The corresponding order before the House today will allow local highway authorities to enjoy similar benefits.
As a consequence of this order, the local highway authority will remain responsible for its network. Nothing in the order reduces the range of those responsibilities. The underlying purpose of our approach is to widen the range of options available to local highway authorities for managing and maintaining their networks effectively and efficiently. The order under consideration today will help that process forward. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we very much welcome the order on this side of the House. Indeed, judging by the words that the noble Baroness used when introducing the order, it could have come from a Conservative Minister—encouraging, as it does, the private sector to work with local authorities, contracting out, and so on. Therefore, I am very pleased that the noble Baroness and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions now see the sense in encouraging private sector involvement in this area.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit (Amendment) Order 1999
11.37 a.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that it will be helpful to noble Lords if I set out why Stansted, alone among UK airports, is subject to a limit on passenger air transport movements.
In 1985, following public inquiries into the proposals for development at Heathrow and Stansted, the then government produced an airports policy White Paper setting out their response to the inspector's report. The government accepted the inspector's recommendation that Stansted airport be granted planning permission to cater for about 15 million passengers each year, but recognised local concerns about the rate of expansion.
The planning permission, therefore, had conditions attached. One required the phased expansion of the airport, the first phase restricting the size of the terminal to cater for 7 to 8 million passengers per year. The Airports Act 1986 provided a power enabling a limit: to be set on the number of air transport movements. This was to control the rate of development at Stansted so that it did not outpace the ability of local road and rail links and housing to cope with it, and to assure residents that a balance would be struck between aviation and local interests in the use of the airport.
In 1987, an order came into force accommodating the first phase of development by setting a limit of 78,(KX) passenger air transport movements. In 1996, the limit

637
was increased to 120,000 movements. The recent increases in traffic growth at Stansted mean that passenger numbers are now approaching the 8 million provided for in phase 1 and air transport movements are close to the current limit.
Given the long lead time which major development requires, British Airports Authority plc applied last October for detailed planning permission for phase 2 to develop the airport terminal for about 15 million passengers. At the same time an application to increase air passenger movements was made. Permission for the phase 2 expansion of the airport was granted in April by Uttlesford District Council, leaving the movement limit to be decided.
The Government issued a consultation paper seeking comments on BAA's application in January this year. Over 130 responses were received from a wide variety of interests. Having carefully considered these, together with BAA's case for an increase, the Government decided to recommend to the House an amending order which sets the limit at 185,000 movements. The draft amending order contains two articles. The first determines when the order shall come into effect. The second substitutes, from 1st March 2000, the figure of 185,000 movements in Article 2 of the Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit Order 1987, as amended in 1996. Article 2 also sets an interim limit of 120,000 movements from when the order comes into force until 29th February 2000.
The new movement limit will provide BAA with sufficient assurance to proceed with the necessary investments in the airport, facilitate investment by airlines and other service providers including bus and rail companies and help the local and regional economy. It will also enable the airport to reach the capacity envisaged in its planning permission which the Government are satisfied can be done without overburdening the local infrastructure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the order to the House. However, I must say that I have been somewhat surprised by the reaction to this order in certain quarters, which I do not share. It was always envisaged—going back to the Airports Act 1986—that Stansted would expand in its second phase to 15 million passengers, and that that expansion would come into effect by an increase in air transport movements. It would also require planning permission from the local authority for the development of the terminal. I should declare an interest in that I am a director of a small airline which has just started a service into Stansted. But as only a 34-seat aircraft is being used at the moment it will not make a big impact on the figures that we are talking about today.
There has also been criticism, or questions, about whether the Clacton sector of air traffic control can cope with this increase. I am under the impression—perhaps
638
the Minister can confirm this—that the Clacton sector has recently been divided into two to give it extra capacity. In any case there is absolutely no possibility that more aircraft would be allowed into the Clacton sector than air traffic control can cope with. That is the way it works and that, as far as I am aware, is the way that it will continue to work. Therefore I am surprised at some of the reaction there has been to this order. The Minister has stated that the infrastructure on the ground is being improved to take into account the increase in numbers. I gather that the train service will be increased from twice an hour to four times an hour and that the roads in the area will also be brought up to a higher standard in order to accommodate the extra number of passengers.
There is only one slight query which is perhaps legitimate; namely, that of the ATM limit being raised to 185,000, which is probably rather more than was originally envisaged to cope with 15 million passengers, but that is probably because the size of the aircraft in use has been somewhat less than was predicted at the beginning. From these Benches I fully support the order. As I say, I am somewhat surprised at the reaction to it that has occurred in certain quarters.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the British Air Line Pilots Association. I wish to raise in this context an ancillary point which is causing some concern. Apparently the increased number of flights that will be available from Stansted will include certain flights from overseas operators, including those who operate from Ireland. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that point, but I assume that it flows directly from the way in which the draft order is submitted.
The development to which I wish to draw attention is the following. The Irish authorities have quite recently validated the licences of Yugoslav pilots and issued them with Irish work permits, enabling them to operate aircraft out of Stansted for an Irish operator. The latest information that is available to me on the validation of foreign licences is for the year up to March 1996. In that period Ireland validated 280 and Portugal 960, yet neither country can sustain that number of foreign licence holders. The reason for that is that their own industry is simply not large enough to do that. Both are effectively dumping their surplus on to other EU countries and operating what I might call a "back door" into Europe. Further, I believe that a number of additional validations have been issued by the CAA. I say frankly that this has not been confirmed to me, but perhaps my noble friend can confirm or deny that or provide information on that point.
In addition to 215 European licences validated, the CAA has, I believe, validated 94 licences from various countries, 22 of which are from the United States. The sponsoring operators are refusing to give information as to how they intend to train resident employees to fill these positions in the longer term. I believe that this used to be a requirement, which is now being ignored. Why is it being ignored? The only conclusion I can draw is that these operators have simply no intention of

639
replacing foreign labour in the longer term. What they want to do is to avoid the cost in time, effort and money of training resident labour.
I believe that these developments are disturbing. Left unchecked they will damage employment prospects for pilots in this country and indeed in the EU as a whole. Other operators, who currently have a more responsible approach to the recruitment and training of UK/EU pilots, will be forced to follow in the steps of their less scrupulous competitors. In addition therefore to the problem that may arise in relation to this draft order, this will operate as an incentive to such activities. I am sorry that I was not able to give my noble friend notice of the point that I proposed to raise. If she is not in a position to reply, perhaps she will write to me. However, I express concern on behalf of the British Air Line Pilots Association and myself about this development.
I believe that the problems to which I have alluded would not arise in other EU countries. Such practices would not be permitted in France and Germany for example. I raise that point because, in a way, it is convenient to do so as an ancillary point to this draft order. As I say, I hope that if my noble friend cannot reply to this point today she will write to me.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we on these Benches have no objection to the principle of the order. I think that our concern is a rather broader one; namely, that of government airport policy as a whole.
We sometimes gain the impression that the Government view the growth in passenger and flight numbers as analogous with that of a teenager who has reached a growth spurt and whose clothes no longer fit. Being short of resources, instead of buying a new suit of clothes or having a coherent view on how to deal with the issue, they let out a seam here and a seam there. In this case a seam is being let out to deal with an immediate problem with which Stansted can cope. However, we are far from satisfied that at the end of the day we will end up with anything other than an ill-fitting suit of clothes.
I do not believe that this is an opportunity for a long speech or debate on airport policy. Again, we support the order.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, it may be of interest to draw attention to the fact that some days ago, in one hour, there were 98 movements at Heathrow—that is, one take off or landing every 36.7 seconds. It is no wonder that there is said to be congestion, which could be eased by increasing movements from Stansted.
Many years ago, I believe that it was intended that Stansted might take over from Heathrow as the prime airport for southern England. Although some local residents under the flightpath may disagree, this proposed increase in traffic is understandable, and I support the draft order. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, I should like to ask my noble friend whether there will be any problem for the air traffic controllers at West Drayton, who will
640
have to bear the brunt of the increased traffic. As the safety of aircraft passengers and those on the ground underneath an aircraft is of paramount importance, will my noble friend confirm that any additional pressure on the aircraft traffic controllers can be met? Furthermore, can she confirm that safeguards exist to overcome any systems failures, in addition to or in place of the paper strip method?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, produced an evocative image for me. Having had three sons, I learnt very early on not to buy school trousers for the following September at the end of the school year, because the children grew so quickly and the trousers did not fit. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall have careful regard to the point which he raised.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for his support. He is more knowledgeable than I am, because he was the Minister concerned from the beginning of the issue. The noble Lord raised the question of the Clacton sector. With the rapid growth of air traffic over the past few years, national air traffic services realised that more airspace capacity was required in the busy Clacton sector to reduce delays and enhance safety. Therefore, NATS decided to re-sectorise the Clacton sector. That involved the introduction of two new sectors and required an additional 15 controllers at LATCC. The resectorisation was a complex project which involved a series of simulations and the retraining and revalidation of controllers in conjunction with the reconfiguration of equipment at LATCC. As always, safety was a priority in designing the new sectors. The resectorisation took place on 3rd December 1998 and increased airspace capacity by over 40 per cent in the Clacton sector. As a result, delays in the Clacton sector since the resectorisation have reduced noticeably.
My noble friend Lord Simon also raised that issue. NATS was consulted about the proposed increase. It is satisfied that it can be handled without disruption to operations at other London airports. An increase in the total number of flights at Stansted does not in itself mean an increase in the number of aircraft in the air at peak times. NATS will continue to set hourly limits which ensure the safety of the travelling public. Most of the growth will take place in what are currently off-peak periods.
As regards the point raised by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, there will be no discrimination on grounds of nationality of carriers using Stansted. Ryanair uses Stansted and hopes to expand. All carriers must be licensed by the CAA, meeting standards of air worthiness. My noble friend raised some very detailed questions, on which I should prefer to write to him. I shall ensure that a copy is placed in the Library for the benefit of other noble Lords. I hope that the House will feel able to support the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Miscellaneous Provisions Order 1999
11.55 a.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this order, for the convenience of the House, I shall speak briefly also to the related INTELSAT (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1999.
The miscellaneous provisions order provides for refunds of insurance premium tax (IPT) and air and passenger duty (APD) to 26 international organisations listed in the schedule to the order. The insurance and premium tax and the air and passenger duty were both introduced in 1994. The proposed refunds are to meet our present international obligations. Established international practice is that one state should not tax other states through the intermediary of an international organisation, and that the host state should not derive undue fiscal advantage from the presence on its soil of an international organisation. Insurance premium taxes are levied on a building's household contents and on vehicle insurance policies. I am sure that your Lordships will know that life policies, pensions and permanent health insurance are among the types that are exempt. The order also includes some minor amendments to some of the 26 orders, updating names of organisations and the titles of some high officers.
The second order, INTELSAT (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1999, in addition to providing for refunds of insurance premium tax and the air passenger duty, provides for relief from non-domestic rates and exemption from the UK social security provisions for members of staff participating in INTELSAT'S social security scheme. The draft orders confer only the privileges and immunities which the Government are internationally obliged to confer. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have one question to ask my noble friend in connection with the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Miscellaneous Provisions Order 1999. Around 20 organisations appear to be affected. What is the net cost ultimately to the Exchequer as a result of those changes? It may well be that they balance out, in which case I shall be reassured that there is no charge to public funds. If, on the other hand, there is an extra cost involved, I should be glad to have my noble friend's view as to what money will be ultimately borne, either now or later, by the British taxpayer.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the question raised by the noble Lord is a legitimate one. It prompts me to ask whether the list of organisations specified in the schedule to the miscellaneous provisions order is
642
complete, or are there other organisations which have already gained the exemptions from the particular taxes set out in the schedule? Quite apart from the amending orders which must be made to comply with our obligations, as the Minister has explained, to exempt all the international organisations from taxes and customs duties, it would be useful to have an annual report listing all the organisations specified under the 1968 Act which gives details of the amounts of revenue forfeited by the tax concessions. The 1968 Act gives unlimited power to specify these organisations. As has already been explained, we have to extend the exemptions to every one of them, so that the loss of revenue could be progressive and increasing.
The order shortly to be debated, the International Copper Study Group (Legal Capacities) Order 1999, seems to extend the list even further. However, I note that that order does not confer exemptions or privileges on that group, but only specifies it as a body corporate within the meaning of the 1968 Act. It might have been useful if the Minister had explained the difference between the International Copper Study Group and all the other organisations mentioned in the schedule to the miscellaneous provisions legislation, some of which appear to be very similar, being study groups themselves, such as the one on rubber. Why is the copper organisation being dealt with differently from the rubber organisation?
There is one other minor point. Why was it necessary to make a separate order in respect of INTELSAT instead of including it in the provisions in the schedule to the miscellaneous provisions legislation? Although it deals with rates as well as airport taxes, there surely could have been some minor change in the wording in the miscellaneous provisions legislation to enable all of the organisations to be dealt with in a single order.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that we cannot give the same welcome to these orders as we gave to the earlier orders today. If the general public were aware of the orders, they would rightly be resentful of the fact that a lot of faceless bureaucrats from 26 organisations of which they had never heard would not have to pay air passenger duty. Of course, no tax is popular, but air passenger duty is particularly unpopular because it is a flat rate tax: £20 on intercontinental and non-European Union flights, regardless of whether it is a £49 easyJet flight to Zurich or a Concorde flight to New York.
I do not criticise air passenger duty as it was, of course, the previous government who introduced it, but I wonder how many people based in this country will claim the exemption, and how much money we are talking about. I understood the Minister to say that we would pay back these organisations the sums that they had paid since 1994. That may be quite a lot of money. Presumably there is also an ongoing commitment.
I also hope that these people will have to pay their air passenger duty when they buy their tickets and then reclaim the money afterwards. I presume that someone

643
in the Foreign Office will check the claims thoroughly to ensure that they relate only to official business and not to their personal travel arrangements. There is a danger that the scheme could be abused in that way. The same applies to the insurance premium tax. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked, how much will all this cost? How many people are involved, working in this country for these organisations? If it were not for the fact that we have an international obligation to do this, I would very much prefer not to.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we welcome these orders in so far as they represent an international obligation which we can hardly avoid. However, I wonder whether the immunities and privileges granted under these orders are being kept to the minimum within our international obligations. I also wonder whether they will be fully reciprocated by other states, where appropriate.
It may be outside the remit of these orders, but does the Minister agree that the levels of taxation paid by international civil servants should be not lower than the local levels being set? I am also tempted to raise the thorny issue of parking, but as it is not contained within these orders, I feel obliged not to.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps; the number of questions asked is what happens when one agrees to move an order that is apparently simple and technical. There have been many questions, but I shall deal first with that asked about the total amounts involved by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. We estimate £700,000 in the financial year 1999 to 2000 to meet claims for this and past years, and thereafter the estimate is an annual sum of £260,000.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, asked about the claims. They are submitted and have to be repaid. The provisions apply not to the personal travel arrangements of staff but only to official duties.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked why there was a separate draft order for INTELSAT. The INTELSAT order, in addition to providing for refunds of IPT and APD, provides for relief from non-domestic rates and for members of staff participating in INTELSAT'S social security scheme exemption from the United Kingdom's social security provisions. It was felt that a second order was appropriate as the exchange of notes with INTELSAT went beyond simply providing refunds of IPT and APD, as in the first two orders.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also asked about the number of organisations involved. Headquarters agreements of some international organisations already cover exemption from IPT and APD. Seventeen exchanges of notes were necessary to provide a refund of taxes to those organisations which were not entitled to them under the wording of their existing agreements. It is proposed that the relief will apply to 43 international organisations, although only 26 are specified in this order. The legal complexities are being
644
addressed, and amendments to headquarters agreements and legislation as necessary will follow in due course for the other organisations.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does that mean that the £700,000 will have to be increased to cover the difference between the 26 organisations mentioned in the schedule to this order, and the total number of 43?
Lord Carter: My Lords, one has to be frank in these matters, and I do not know the answer to that, but I see that there is a note on its way. The answer appears to be that the sum covers all 43 organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, appeared hostile to these orders, and I shall enjoy reading this part of my brief.
Ministers in the previous government approved the protocol department's recommendation in December 1996 that we should refund IPT and APD to all international organisations of which the: United Kingdom is a member and which have headquarters or offices in the United Kingdom and to those others, although not based here, to which we are legally obliged to give relief from such taxes and duties. According to our international obligations, we are continuing a policy approved by the previous government.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I should add that the International Copper Study Group is not based in the United Kingdom. The only obligation on the United Kingdom under the terms of reference of the organisation is to confer the legal capacity, and to compile a list of all refunds would be a complex and lengthy task. However, I shall write to him on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was kind enough to tell me that he would ask me whether the tax benefits are reciprocal. International organisations do not function on the basis of the principle of reciprocity. It is established international practice that one state should not derive undue fiscal benefit from the funds subscribed to an international organisation by its members or other states as a result of the presence on its soil of the organisation. Thus international organisations that are based in other states also benefit from refunds on taxes and duties of this nature.
I was also asked about the tax rates paid by international civil servants. None of these orders provides for exemption from income tax for staff of international organisations. The orders which the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Miscellaneous Provisions Order amend mostly provide for exemption from income tax for staff who are participating in the internal tax system for the benefit of the organisation concerned. This is in accordance with established international practice, and of course it benefits all the members of the organisation by resulting in lower financial contributions.
I think I have answered all the questions that I was asked. If I have not, I shall write to noble Lords concerned. I am extremely grateful for the interest that has been taken.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INTELSAT (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1999
12.10 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Copper Study Group (Legal Capacities) Order 1999
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order confers a legal capacity as required to fulfil our obligations under the terms of reference of the ICSG, which the Government provisionally accepted on 5th June 1998. ICGS is an inter-governmental organisation formed in 1989 under the auspices of the United Nations. There are currently 17 member states—including France, Germany and Italy—and the European Union. The headquarters are in Lisbon, where the study group meets formally twice a year. My brief helpfully informs me that Lisbon is in Portugal.
UK industry firmly believes that there is considerable value in membership of the group; indeed, it says that it is enormous. It provides market transparency and is a forum to bring together industry and governments. The UK is among the world's top 10 consumers of copper, so it is logical that we should be members. Membership will ensure that the UK and the copper industry are not disadvantaged by the activities of the ICSG, and will be able to influence the future direction of the study group, which provides a useful vehicle for regular dialogue on a wide variety of issues affecting copper.
It is a straightforward order, just to deal with the legal capacity. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Genetically Modified Crops Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
Clause 1 [Consents for genetically modified organisms for agricultural purposes.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert (", and

(b) shall be deemed to be subject to automatic revocation in the event of the planting of the genetically modified organism concerned or genetically modified organisms generally being subsequently prohibited by any Directive of the
646
European Commission, and the provisions of subsections (8E) and (8F) shall apply to such revocation as well as to a revocation pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, last Friday my noble friend Lord Kimball moved an amendment in which he proposed that the Secretary of State should postpone the granting of any licences for the planting of herbicide tolerant crops until after 31st December 2001. He had also put down an amendment proposing deferment of any licences for insect tolerant crops until after 31st December 2003. My noble friend subsequently withdrew the first and did not move the second.
The significance of the two dates I have mentioned is as follows. The pressure group called Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops, known by the acronym SCIMAC, recently gave a presentation in which it announced that the first GM herbicide resistant crops would be ready for planting in 2000 and the insect resistant ones by 2002. The year 2000 is now only 168 days away.
The agro-chemicals industry may be ready to plant next year, but it would seem that public opinion is most certainly not. The Government claimed in their 1997 manifesto that no government could afford to take risks with the future. Therefore, we believe that the Government should not be ready for the industry to do so.
The Government have received conflicting advice from various sources about the possible risks of these products. Negative advice has been received in particular from their own advisers, English Nature. Yet the Government seem to be ready to go ahead.
The important point is this. The European Commission is now giving urgent consideration to the early formulation of new regulations about the planting of these crops, regulations which will protect the environment and possibly our health, regulations that will ensure that Europe in general and the United Kingdom in particular shall not become the laboratory for multinational companies, which for some reason are not conducting their tests in their own backyard, where we believe United States-based companies have, as I am sure they would agree, far more space than we have.
My noble friend's two amendments were designed just to put matters on hold until the new directives were propagated. I do not understand why the Government seem so reluctant not to guarantee that they will not withhold the licences just for the time being.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, persuaded my noble friend to withdraw one amendment and not to move the other by saying,
"unilateral action by the United Kingdom would be completely contrary to European law".— [Official Report, 9/7/99; col. 1185.]
The French Government and the European Commission are in dispute over the licensing of genetically modified organisms because of France's alleged failure to stick to EU licensing laws. Two oilseed rape varieties are being withheld from the French market, despite having cleared all legal hurdles for approval in 1997. This is due to a moratorium imposed on GMOs last July, which Brussels claims breaches EU legislation regarding the release of

647
such organisms. Brussels has also given the French what it calls a final warning over their alleged failure—I might have said "refusal"—to process fresh applications for GMOs, which EU rules say should be forwarded to the Commission within 90 days. Apparently, France has not done this for over a year.
The EU is now threatening to take; France to court over these alleged defaults if it does not respond satisfactorily in yet another two months. I must admit that I have no idea of the rights and wrongs of the dispute, but if the matter is to go to court there is no basis at this stage for us to prejudge the outcome. It certainly seems that the French take a more robust attitude to defending their interests against EU orders with which they disagree than our Government do.
Suppose the French are entirely wrong and Brussels is entirely right. What is happening is that the French are stalling until the law is changed, as it will be shortly. "Shortly" is an entirely relative term in relation to the manoeuvres of the Brussels bureaucracy. What is the point, however, in our Government granting licences and then being faced with having to revoke them if the European law changes, possibly after irreversible damage has been done to our environment?
I should like to stress at this point something that I said on Second Reading, which is that I do not contend that any damage will be done. We simply do not know enough at this time. There is no rush, except for the commercial interests of the agro-chemical companies. We should wait until the Government can give Parliament and the public clear and transparent evidence that these products are indeed safe.
What will happen if GMOs are licensed by the Government and are subsequently banned by the EC? How long will it take the Government to pass the necessary legislation or make the necessary regulations to carry the ban into effect? What will happen to any growing crops? Will there be a danger of an application to our courts for an order to challenge any regulations? Will there be any claims for compensation, and if so, who should pay?
The amendment answers all those questions. In the event of all GMOs, or any of them, being banned, any licence is automatically revoked, not even after the 40-day delay that is normal under statutory instruments. The amendment requires that any growing crops be destroyed and, if necessary, that the ground be sterilised. It also stipulates that no compensation should be payable, so that the loss falls where it belongs: on the producers of the products and the farmers who use them, in both cases for their own commercial benefit. Perhaps the amendment, with its admittedly stringent provisions, will be a discouragement to them to chance their arms in the premature marketing and planting of these products.
The amendment does not seem to infringe the legal point that caused the noble Lord, Lord Carter, so much worry last week. On the contrary, Brussels should be delighted that we shall be so well prepared to comply with its intended change in the law.
I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite correct that in Committee her noble friend Lord Kimball
648
moved an amendment which I advised him was contrary to European law. He therefore withdrew it, which has provoked the Report stage.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear me say that there is no need for the amendment, because the current Act and regulations already provide the Secretary of State with powers to revoke or restrict release consent without notice and at any time. The control of genetically modified organisms is; under a wider European regulatory framework set out in Directive 90/220, which secures the protection of human health and the environment before the release and marketing of GMOs and establishes a single market for GMO products.
The UK would take a leading role in the event of a European Community-wide decision to prohibit GMOs. The existing regulatory framework already deals adequately with the possibility of it being judged that prohibition was justified. An individual member state may also prohibit the use or sale of a GMO on its territory. The legislation already requires that once agreement has been reached at European level to revoke consent all member states shall comply with the ruling. Revocation of consent would follow automatically.
To bring together the remarks that I made about a number of the noble Baroness's amendments in Committee, this amendment is unnecessary, inappropriate and otiose. Otherwise I see no objection to it. If the noble Baroness wishes to add to the length of her Bill, she is free to do so.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for adding a further word. We started with unnecessary, then we had inappropriate and now we have something else.
Lord Carter: Otiose.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Yes, my Lords, otiose. I was not sure because I did not quite hear the word, but I knew that there was a third. I am delighted that, unlike last week, the noble Lord did not say that my amendments contravened any laws. I am pleased that he is happy for me to put the amendment in my Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Road Traffic (Enforcement Powers) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Road Traffic (Use of Mobile Telephones) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Lord Annan: My Lords, on Second Reading I urged the Government to have the courage to impose a ban on driving and speaking at the same time with a hand-held telephone. As an example of the courage needed, I cited the case of Mrs Barbara Castle, as she then was, and the legislation that she introduced on seat belts. I subsequently received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who, with his customary courtesy, said that it was he who, in the 1980s, had been responsible for the Bill that enforced the wearing of seat belts.
I am afraid that I was held up by traffic jams and did not have time to check as I should have done before I came into the Chamber. Of course, the courageous act
650
of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, was the introduction of the breathalyser in 1967, which required even more courage than enforcing the wearing of seat belts. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and reiterate my admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Castle.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I do not know whether it is in order for me to describe what I met on my way here this morning. I saw a lady talking into a telephone in her right hand, while with her left hand—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wonder whether I might explain that if noble Lords wish to speak, the House will have to go into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past midday.