Lords Sitting of 30 November 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
Kenneth William, Lord Bishop of Portsmouth—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Birmingham and the Lord Bishop of Guildford.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
Jonathan Sansbury, Lord Bishop of Derby—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Lichfield and the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Elections: Turn-out
2.43 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether low voter turn-outs at all levels of election are a cause of concern and, if so, what steps they are taking to improve them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, of course we are concerned, about low turn-outs. The Queen's Speech contains three Bills concerned with electoral matters. The first, which will modernise our electoral procedures, is having its Second Reading in another place this afternoon. Bills to create an electoral commission and to allow for directly elected mayors will follow shortly.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, it does not convey the degree of urgency demanded by the political situation. We have had turn-outs of under 10 per cent in local government by-elections; our score has been the lowest in the European elections, with only a 24 per cent turn-out; and in October, a MORI poll indicated that over 50 per cent of those under 35 do not intend to vote. The situation requires greater remedy than this. Should not a task force be set up, as many have been in regard to other matters, to examine this urgent question and report back with speed?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we share the noble Lord's concern about low turn-outs. It is a problem that currently afflicts many democracies across the world, but it cannot be cured overnight. Responsibility rests with political parties and candidates to ensure that people feel engaged and want
714
to participate in elections. We in government believe that we are playing our part. For that reason we are introducing three Bills which will have considerable bearing on the electoral process. The Representation of the People Bill will modernise procedures and lead to a rolling electoral register, giving homeless people, remand prisoners and mental health patients the opportunity to vote more easily. It will be made easier for people to cast postal votes and local authorities will be entitled to run pilot schemes to encourage innovative electoral procedures.
The Government take the issue seriously. We want the maximum co-operation and participation from parties in Parliament to put our legislation on to the statute book. I believe that, as a result, we shall see turn-out and interest in elections increased. All those in politics would be much impressed by that, and would benefit from it.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the number of times that the electorate is being asked to vote may have some bearing on the matter? Are not people fed up with being asked to vote so often, whether it be in European parliamentary, local or regional elections, as well as general elections? Perhaps rarity might lead to an increased turn-out rather than enforcing elections so often.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that the purpose of a mature democracy such as ours was to enable people to express their opinion on matters of the day and to take part in elections. I do not think that electoral fatigue is the only explanation. This is a complex issue. We can all play our part in politics to encourage people to join in the political process. That is one of the reasons why we want to see, for example, citizenship courses encouraged in schools to encourage and engage young people in particular as they appear to be less engaged in electoral politics than are older generations.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, surely the noble Lord will agree that there is something very obvious and direct that can be done; namely, the European Parliamentary Elections Act could be amended to get rid of the fundamentally repugnant and anti-democratic closed list/regional list system which all sides of this House had the good sense to send back to the Commons five times, and on which the nation has delivered its judgment by turning out in the smallest number ever in a national election, when only 23 per cent voted. Does the Minister agree that that requires immediate action and that the Government should take the lead?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I realise that I am in danger of arguing a difficult case. The wisest course of action is to let the electoral system that was

715
used in the European elections bed in. It is in use in 70 per cent of European democracies. It must be given time to work through.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree—
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords—
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Does the Minister recall that his right honourable friend the Home Secretary told another place during the passage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill that after the election there would be a review of how the procedures had worked? Is it not time, in the light of the other legislation that is to be laid before the House, for the Government to reconsider their decision to impose the closed party list system on this country? For the first time in our history, the electorate has been denied the right to vote for individual candidates and has been forced to vote for political parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Shore, said, does not that help to explain the dismal turn-out in this year's European elections?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am confident that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that the electoral process used would be subject to review. However, I remind your Lordships that the system used in the elections for the Welsh Assembly and for the Scottish Parliament was a PR system on a closed list. Participation in those elections was far higher.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if any of the three Bills to which he referred actually does anything to cure the problem, that will set a precedent? It is most unlikely that the load of legislation which we now face will do anything but add to the deep dullness which affects the electorate. Perhaps he could also reflect on the fact that not everything that happens in politics is intrinsically entertaining. In a world that craves entertainment, we must resign ourselves to some dullness and particularly to the fact that the presentation of politics by some of the candidates is abysmal.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I may be forgiven for saying that I find the world of politics endlessly interesting and entertaining. So long as noble Lords like the noble Lord opposite are involved, politics will continue to be endlessly entertaining to me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the difficulty of engaging young people in politics. Is he aware that from the nature of my job I spend a great deal of time listening to them? What I hear from them shows as much concern about political problems as
716
there has ever been, but a deep lack of faith in the possibility of political solutions. Does that indicate a problem which is wider than the answers so far given by the Minister, welcome though many of those answers have been?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am well aware that the noble Earl is in regular contact with young people, as are many Members of your Lordships' House. As to speculating on whether younger people are disengaging from the political process, all I can honestly say is that my 10 year-old son takes a great interest in politics. I hope that many more of his generation continue to do so. We in this House have a part to play in ensuring stimulating debate among younger generations.

Belarus: Political Repression
2.52 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the subject of political repression in Belarus was discussed at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Istanbul summit meeting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Belarusian political situation was discussed at the Istanbul Summit. The summit declaration emphasised the need for real political dialogue in Belarus to pave the way for free and democratic elections and real democracy. Senior Finnish officials, representing the presidency of the European Union, met Belarusian Foreign Minister Latypov in the margins of the summit and underlined the European Union's continuing concerns about political repression in Belarus.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. Can she confirm that since last April no fewer than three prominent men and one prominent woman have disappeared in that country without trace? The former prime minister and two parliamentarians are currently in prison, while other opposition members face prosecution. Is that not an unacceptable situation in a country that has been a member of the OSCE since 1993?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is, and Her Majesty's Government are aware of the situation detailed by the noble Lord. The European Union issued a declaration on 23rd September calling on the Belarusian authorities to investigate the disappearance of Mr Gonchar, the deputy chairman of the 13th Supreme Soviet, and all other cases in which politically active figures have disappeared. Unfortunately, Her Majesty' Government have no information about the whereabouts of these people, but we are pursuing the

717
matter with vigour. We hope that we may have some good news about Mr Chigir later today, but I am unable to say what it may be.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the noble Baroness received any reports from the OSCE delegation which saw leaders of the trade union movement in Belarus recently? I think it was on 24th November. The leaders asked the OSCE to convey to the rest of Europe and to the world outside their dismay at the repression of trade union rights in that country and their hope that the OSCE would do something about it. Was anything said on that in Istanbul? Are there any concrete measures to restore trade union rights in Belarus?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Belarus was discussed at the margins at Istanbul and was included in the communiqué made in relation to that matter. I cannot directly advise your Lordships about whether the trade union movement featured in particular. However, human rights and political repression in Belarus are serious problems. As your Lordships know, the EU has effectively frozen the relationship. We are pursuing surrounding issues as vigorously as we can to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the EU's abhorrence of the general approach being taken by the Belarusian Administration.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government accept that the referendum of 1996, from which President Lukashenko is currently claiming his mandate, was subject to irregularities? As such, it demonstrates some of the dangers of relying on referendums as a mechanism for testing the will of an electorate. Will Her Majesty's Government make representations to authorities in Belarus about the situation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have been, and are, concerned about that referendum. Noble Lords know that it took place in 1996 and sought to change the basis on which the presidency could continue. That matter was raised on behalf of the EU and formed the basis of the GAC conclusions in February 1997. So the efficacy of the movement was underlined clearly as being unacceptable in terms of structure. The issue was raised and continues to be raised.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government discussing the issue actively with Poland and the Baltic states, given that if those countries join the EU within the next five years, Belarus will have a direct border with the European Union?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the matter has been discussed generally, particularly within the EU. As noble Lords may recall, the EU framed a démarche to the Belarusian authorities on 14th October 1996 concerning the referendum and other matters. It is obviously of great concern, and the discussions continue.

South East England: Development
2.58 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they reconcile their intention to build many more residential homes in south east England with the relative absence of brownfield sites and the creation of new national parks in the area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government will consider carefully the recommendations of the independent panel into the draft regional planning guidance for the south east, particularly the recommendations on the numbers of additional dwellings needed between 1996 and 2016 and the proportion which should be built on previously developed land. We will consider the recommendations and all the representations made on the draft RPG before consulting widely in the new year. The Government are introducing new planning policies and will shortly publish revised planning guidance on planning for housing. The proposed designation of the new national parks will have little effect on the total capacity of the region to accommodate new residential development.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my interest as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. I thank the noble Lord for that reply. But is it not a fact that the Government seek to reconcile the irreconcilable? When will they decide that perhaps they should stop encouraging business and people to migrate to south east England? Has the Minister read the recent report of the South-East England Economic Development Agency that wishes to see the south east develop as one of the economic hot spots of the world? That is all very well. However, is not the end result likely to be too many houses, too many cars, even too many jobs, in the south east at the expense and impoverishment of other regions of Britain?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we believe that the total position of the south east needs to be assessed in terms of economic development, housing and transport. That is why this is a very difficult problem. We have to consider different estimates of housing need in the region. Various projections, some of which end up with different numbers, all indicate an increase in both population and inward migration to the south east. Most of the inward migration is not from the north of England, as alleged, but from London itself. The rest of the increased demand for dwellings in the south east arises from internal issues such as population growth and changes in household formation.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in the light of the acute water shortages suffered in the south east during the long hot summers of the past few years, can the

719
Minister say how the Government intend to supply water to an extra 1 million homes, especially as the aquifers are so low?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand that the appropriate water companies are taking measures to address that question. Clearly, natural resources as well as housing and road-building are very much part of a holistic approach to the future of the south east region, its position in relation to the rest of the country and the question of where development is most appropriate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in view of the fact that the issue is the proportion of brownfield sites to greenfield sites, can the Minister inform the House what success he and his officials have had in persuading councils and planning authorities to be more positive, even militant, in ensuring that a greater proportion of development in their areas takes place on brownfield rather than greenfield sites?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend will be familiar with the fact that the Government have a national target of 60 per cent of all new developments taking place on brownfield sites. We believe that within the south east, as in other regions, there is scope for a more substantial concentration of these developments on brownfield sites. It is the case that the south east has the lowest density of housing provision. There are also issues about density of provision, particularly the new provisions required within the urban areas of the south east.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the large number of houses in serious disrepair, as revealed by the latest house condition survey, does the Minister agree that high priority should be given to the repair of houses to meet future housing need and to make housing conditions better for people who presently inhabit those dwellings? Will the Minister try to persuade his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to alter the VAT rules which at the moment encourage new house building and deter people from improving existing houses?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's latter point, and no doubt I can relay it to the Chancellor. As to the state of repair of the housing stock within the south east, the noble Lord is right. We have provided substantial additional resources to local authorities and others in both the public and private social housing sectors to improve the state of household repair where there are existing inhabitants. The number of vacancies within the south east is very limited and will make only a small contribution to meet the total of new housing demand.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when the Minister looks at the new policy will he also consider a point that I have raised with him in earlier debate; namely, that in the 40 per cent of greenfield sites to be
720
used it is perhaps wise to use up small in-fill sites where the services and infrastructure already exist rather than take virgin fields?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in general the noble Baroness is correct. Guidance on development that takes place on greenfield sites needs to be geared to services and transport and water infrastructure, as the noble Countess just reminded us. Therefore, in general terms, although not in every case, the noble Baroness is right.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, do the Government acknowledge that this is not just a matter of numbers but whether the housing is affordable?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. One of the problems of housing in the south east is that as a result of pressures prices are now beyond the reach of many people on average and below average incomes. That has a further distorting effect, and it is one of the aspects we must address. It is related to my earlier point about density of housing.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that this residential development will be in areas where there is work? If not, the amount of traffic engendered will considerably increase congestion on the roads in the south east.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is important that all these matters are taken together. Industrial and commercial development needs to be considered together with transport and housing development, thereby minimising the degree of pressure on transport infrastructure as well as housing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in many areas of the south east, particularly the Thames Valley, there is so much demand for every service at the present time that life is becoming a positive hell and traffic management utterly impossible? Do the Government not understand that to imply and give planning permission for even more housing will only encourage development in the south east, which will cause further problems? That development should be located in other regions of the country where jobs and housing are badly needed. Will the Government do something centrally to enable this decantation of population and jobs to take place?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that lying behind my noble friend's question is the importance of recognising the pressure on resources in the south east. Development of regional policy in other parts of the country should be seen to complement whatever we do to relieve pressure in the south east. It is, however, possible to envisage a benign scenario for the south east where prosperity is still engendered, as the regional development agency wants, without adding to pressures in an unsustainable way. A more positive

721
and rational approach to planning in the south-east region can be achieved through consensus among local authorities and businesses without the rather dire predictions suggested by my noble friend.

Benefit Entitlement
3.8 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that disentitlement to means-tested benefits is a form of social exclusion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I am not sure that I entirely understand the Question. If I do, I am afraid that I do not agree with it. Anyone who has an underlying entitlement to a means-tested benefit may draw that benefit if he or she complies with its conditions, such as seeking work. Therefore, the issue of social exclusion does not arise.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the definition of "social exclusion" from which this process is itself excluded?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, social exclusion is a multi-layered problem. To quote the words of the Prirne Minister, it is,
"A short-hand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a contribution of linked problems—such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown";
in other words, social exclusion is "joined-up problems".
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I appreciate the substance of her response to the noble Earl? However, we should be very careful indeed about disentitling anyone. If that person has no money whatever, it means that the safety net has been snatched away arid he or she can no longer participate in society. That creates both a sad and an explosive situation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Government do not wish to disentitle anyone from benefit to which he or she is entitled. The Government seek compliance. For example, we want young people to work with personal advisers to obtain and hold down a reasonable job. We want lone parents to co-operate with us in naming the father of the child so that the child gains in maintenance. We want offenders to observe their community sentences. But clearly, if they fail to comply with the conditions and therefore compliance fails, ultimately enforcement and sanctions kick in. However, we seek to change the culture.
Any such sanctions are on the individual. There is a complete network of hardship payments so that those who are vulnerable—they may have poor mental or
722
physical health, suffer from disability, be pregnant or have dependent children—have entitlement. So I am confident that the situation my noble friend describes will not arise.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the Minister saying that, if those people do not have any of these mitigating circumstances, they will be starved into submission?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may give an example. Jobseeker's allowance is a benefit for those who are unemployed. The entitlement to that benefit is matched by a concomitant responsibility to seek and hold down a job. If someone can sign on for benefit, he or she can come in simultaneously for an interview. That is what we seek to do. It is no kindness never to allow young people of 18 or 19 to come into the labour market. If they d o not do so, they will remain forever socially excluded because they are poor.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the Minister's answer mean that those disabled people who have been excluded from incapacity benefits under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act, although they have contributed to them, will not as a category be regarded as socially included? Does the noble Baroness agree that many of them should be regarded as socially excluded and referred to the Social Exclusion Unit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, hardly. For example, those who will not be eligible for incapacity benefit will be disqualified only because they already enjoy a healthy occupational pension of 12,000, £14,000 or more. As a result, I hardly think that they would fit the definition of the noble Lord, or anyone else, of socially excluded.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. Does the noble Baroness accept that many of those who serve our community by working with some of the most vulnerable people in our society are nevertheless anxious that a fundamental principle is at stake in public policy; namely, our common duty to defend and provide for those who do not have the means to participate in the system? Those people are anxious about the drift in public policy lest it leaves people inadvertently excluded.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is the Government's policy that no one should be inadvertently excluded. I share the position of the right reverend Prelate on that. Having said that., the entitlement to a benefit is matched by a responsibility for observing the conditions that go with it—for example, the willingness to seek work.
The right reverend Prelate is right. I am sure that for too long too many people—they may include lone parents, some ethnic minority communities, or young lads with little formal education and a history of

723
truancy—have been consigned to the margins and the twilight of our society. They have received an inadequate Giro cheque; and they can expect the next 40 years in poverty. They were born in poverty; they live in poverty; they will die in poverty. It seems to me that society imposes social exclusion on them because we are not willing to stand shoulder to shoulder and tackle their problems alongside them. It is government policy to tackle problems so that we bring such groups from the twilight into mainstream society where they can enjoy the richness of life. That is what we are determined to achieve.

Benefit Entitlement

  Business
  3.14 p.m.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, after the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Appointed Day) Order 1999, my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the beef-on-the-bone ban.

  Statutory Nuisances (Hedgerows in Residential Areas) Bill [H.L.]
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for hedgerows in residential areas to be a statutory nuisance. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
  On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Appointed Day) Order 1999
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th November be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Appointed Day) Order 1999, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.
I believe that this debate is a great occasion for Northern Ireland, in a week which will see enormous change for the better in that Province. For the past 30 years, Northern Ireland has been known throughout the world as a place of conflict, of deep-rooted division, prejudice and sectarian violence. That is changing, and today we take another step along the road to peace and a new partnership.
The Good Friday agreement reached on 10th April last year in Belfast is the solid foundation for that partnership, and the appointment of new Assembly Ministers last night is a further expression of the desire
724
of the Northern Ireland political parties to build upon it. The people of Northern Ireland can look forward to the new century with fresh hope and confidence, and to the opportunity to build a stable and prosperous future.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has now determined, as he is required to do by Section 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, that sufficient progress has been made to set the date for the devolution of power to the new Northern Ireland Assembly.
It is therefore my very great privilege to present to the House an order which will bring into effect devolution for Northern Ireland, based on the Good Friday agreement. This order specifies 2nd December as the day on which devolution will take place in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will also bring into effect, by a separate order, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Commencement NI) Order, the remaining provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. From midnight tomorrow night power over a wide range of matters will be transferred to new Northern Ireland Ministers, accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The Secretary of State today signed two orders which established the ten new departments of the Assembly and transferred functions to them. The orders will come into force tomorrow. The departments will deal with matters such as health, education and training, agriculture, social and regional development, environment, trade, culture, arts and leisure. They will be led by the ten new Northern Ireland Assembly Ministers elected at Stormont yesterday. From Thursday the Assembly will be able to legislate freely on these areas of responsibility enabling people to make decisions, in partnership, about the administration of public services in Northern Ireland. Consequently, I will no longer have the responsibility of bringing legislation in these areas before this House.
Some areas of responsibility, for example policing, parades, prisons and criminal justice will, for the time being, remain reserved matters and the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
A new British-Irish Treaty will come into force on the same day, which will bring into being significant new North-South institutions, in place and functioning from 2nd December. And, most fundamentally of all, we shall have a settlement of the constitutional argument that has been at the root of the conflict in Northern Ireland: a settlement which provides for the question to be decided according to the principle of consent.
This principle does not require anyone to give up their legitimate political aspirations about the constitutional future of Northern Ireland, but places the decision on Northern Ireland's future firmly in the hands of the people who live there.
Devolution on 2nd December will allow Northern Ireland to follow Scotland and Wales along the path to accountable regional government. It has taken longer than we hoped, but devolution is now finally in sight. Yesterday the Northern Ireland Assembly took

725
another step on that path. Those Ministers appointed yesterday represent both main traditions in Northern Ireland; five are Unionist and five are Nationalist. I am sure the House will join me in wishing them all well in their task of managing the new Northern Ireland departments.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Dubs: My Lords, also on 2nd December, the new British-Irish agreement will also come into effect, following an exchange of notifications between the Governments. There will be a new North-South Ministerial Council and six new implementation bodies to handle specified North-South matters accountable to the Dail and the new Northern Ireland Assembly.
The Irish Government will immediately make a declaration that will bring into effect the amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution and our own amendments to the law on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland will also come into force. The principle of consent will therefore be enshrined in the constitutional law of both countries.
Working together has been the key to securing the Good Friday agreement and to resolving the difficulties in its implementation. The fact that I am able to bring this order before the House today represents a real political achievement by the political leaders and parties in Northern Ireland. A year ago, some of those leaders would not meet, let alone co-operate in finding a way forward for Northern Ireland; yet in the recent review of the implementation of the Good Friday agreement, they met face to face, debated and negotiated intensively for 11 weeks.
The debates were friendly, and issues were often argued with conviction, but they were also, at the end of the day, real political negotiations between responsible politicians whose first concern was to find the best way forward for Northern Ireland. The new and better relationships between those political leaders show how much has changed for the better in Northern Ireland, and demonstrates that politics works; violence does not.
I know that there are those in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, including possibly some in this House, who remain sceptical. There is particular scepticism about decommissioning and concern about what the Government will do if it does not happen. I believe that it will happen. We have said throughout that we want devolution and decommissioning and we hold to that view. That is why the Secretary of State has said, publicly and in another place, that if there is default either in operating the devolved institutions or in decommissioning, the new institutions will be suspended. We shall ensure that no one profits by default.
If the institutions are suspended, our objective would be to restore the situation as quickly as possible, guided by the Good Friday agreement. During a period of suspension, direct rule would have to resume, but we would operate it sensibly, taking into
726
account the views of the parties. But I believe that this will not be necessary. I believe that we have the support and good will of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland to make devolution work. Let us give it a chance. I hope that, whatever their misgivings, people, whether members of the public or political representatives, will now join in operating the new institutions for the common benefit.
Many people deserve gratitude for their part in creating this new opportunity for Northern Ireland. We must, first and foremost, acknowledge the vision and courage of the political leaders in Northern Ireland who have taken great risks to come this far. I believe that history will vindicate their judgment and their commitment. David Trimble has achieved for Unionism the approval of the Irish territorial claim, being sought by Unionists. As First Minister in the Assembly, he will continue to lead Unionism in the new devolved administration. Seamus Mallon rightly deserves the office of Deputy First Minister and will bring to that job the same qualities of vision and practical wisdom he demonstrated as leader of the SDLP negotiating team. John Hume has worked tirelessly to remove violence from Northern Ireland politics, and has seen that achieved in the Good Friday agreement. Gerry Adams, with political courage, has brought republicanism into inclusive power-sharing government and deserves credit for his effective leadership in achieving this.
The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have both invested enormous time and effort in resolving the political problems of Northern Ireland, and their close working relationship has been an important factor in our success. President Clinton, too, has provided unfailing support and assistance throughout the process. His involvement has been invaluable.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the contributions made by the previous Prime Minister and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Most of all, we owe an enormous debt to Senator Mitchell, who agreed to take on the role of independent facilitator for the review of the implementation of the agreement. Senator Mitchell brought infinite patience, wisdom, determination and political skill, and it is due largely to his energy and commitment that I am able today to tell the House that devolution for Northern Ireland will at last become a reality and that the other aspects of the agreement will proceed. I am sure that the House will join me in expressing our gratitude for his dedicated effort on our behalf. With the permission of the House, I should like to extend the gratitude to his wife Heather and young son Andrew, who have had to endure his absence in our service, often at short notice and great inconvenience, over a very long period.
Finally, perhaps I may make special mention of the Secretary of State and his predecessor, Mo Mowlam. Both have worked tirelessly to achieve peace in Northern Ireland and have endured much frustration and political criticism. This Thursday, 2nd December, will see their efforts crowned with success.

727
I can tell the House that if the order is approved tonight in this House and in another place, Her Majesty has agreed to hold a special Privy Council tomorrow when the order may be made.
Northern Ireland's history, although a short span of years, is not short of political events. Many of them will be familiar to this House. This order, although one of the shorter pieces of legislation I have brought to the House, marks one of the most significant of all these. It represents the triumph of normal democratic politics over violence as a means of accommodating different traditions and viewpoints in Northern Ireland; a new commitment, entrenched in the pledge of office taken by the new Northern Ireland Ministers, to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods.
There will of course be difficulties ahead. However, I am confident that the political representatives in the new Northern Ireland Assembly, working together, will overcome them and deliver peace and prosperity to the people of Northern Ireland. I am sure that this House will join me in wishing the new administration in Northern Ireland every success as it takes on its new responsibilities. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th November be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I sincerely thank the Minister for moving this historic order. Today, we are taking another momentous step forward down the road to the culmination of the peace process in Northern Ireland, which was started by my right honourable friend John Major many years ago. Thanks to the patience and dexterity of Senator Mitchell, the support of President Clinton, various Prime Ministers and the determined courage and leadership of David Trimble and other party leaders, a political balance has been reached which allows the setting up of the Northern Ireland Executive and the devolution of power to the Province.
However, this is not the end of the process but, I suggest, the end only of phase one; and I am not convinced that the most difficult phase has yet been completed. David Trimble and the Unionists have jumped, but will Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams decommission? I suggest that the world is watching and waiting—hopefully. It is now for the British and Irish Governments to ensure that the decommissioning of all paramilitaries takes place as soon as possible.
The Conservative Party strongly supports the Belfast agreement, which we see as offering the best chance for lasting peace and stability in Northern Ireland. We have always made it clear that we want to see the agreement, which builds on a process we started in government, implemented in full. As a result, we warmly welcome the order. It finally brings to an end the system of direct rule from Westminster and once again enables Northern Ireland's priorities to be determined by locally elected representatives. In short, it returns the democratic principle to the people of Northern Ireland.
728
We now look forward to the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, including the establishment of an inclusive, devolved government and the decommissioning of all illegally-held arms and explosives by May 2000.
The Conservative Party continues to believe that it is fundamentally wrong for democrats to be expected to sit in government with representatives of fully-armed terrorist groups. However, as my right honourable friend William Hague made clear in the debate on the Queen's Speech, we have always said that we could accept,
"the formation of an inclusive Executive alongside the beginning of a credible and verifiable process of decommissioning, leading to complete decommissioning by May 2000 in accordance with the Belfast Agreement".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/99; col. 17.]
We believe that the statements made by the Northern Ireland parties and the Provisional IRA now offer the prospect of achieving the twin goals of decommissioning and devolution. In our view the formation of the Executive and the beginning of the process of decommissioning should begin virtually simultaneously.
However, there is a note of caution. The terrorist threat has not yet gone away and organised crime flourishes under cover of the various paramilitaries. A high level of security, policing and vigilance must remain in the Province, and, I suggest, on the mainland, despite the political problems that that may create. We must hope that Sinn Fein will encourage its constituents to support the forces of law and order in the Province for which it now shares responsibility in government.
I do not wish today to anticipate the debate on the Patten report, except to say that while many of the recommendations are not in dispute, there are some which are—such as the cap badge insignia and the name, to which we would not have recommended changes. However, there is a third category which, in our opinion, it would be dangerous folly to consider before there is a lasting peace. Those familiar with the report will know what those are and will be glad to hear that I do not intend to enunciate them today. We sincerely hope, however, that the Minister will reassure the House that the Patten report will be treated with the utmost sensitivity and caution. I suggest that the two fundamentals to be addressed are the need to maintain control of law and order and the need to win the support of the republican community to support the forces of law and order of the Province.
We passionately want the process to succeed and agree with the Secretary of State that we should be preparing for success not failure. However, in the event of any terrorist not delivering, we believe that the Secretary of State should give his full backing to the First Minister, David Trimble. Mr Mandelson told the House of Commons on 22nd November that,
"if there is default, either in implementing decommissioning, or indeed for that matter devolution, it is understood that the two Governments, British and Irish, will take the steps necessary to cease immediately the operation of the institutions—the Executive, the Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council,

729
the British-Irish Council, the Civic Forum and the north-south implementation bodies".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/99; col. 346.]
We believe that in that situation the democratic process should not he allowed to cease and that the democrats should not be made to suffer. Will the Minister assure the House that that is the Government's intention?
In summary, we support the bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland; we support the Good Friday agreement; we support the Government's decision to devolve power to the Northern Ireland Assembly; and, while we support the Secretary of State's approach to the default mechanism, we ask him to ensure that in the event of a default—from wherever it may come—it will not be the democrats who suffer.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to express our full support for the order and for the process which it implements. I should like greatly to join the tributes given already to Senator Mitchell and to the political leaders in Belfast, at Westminster, in Dublin and in the USA. I add one name to those already mentioned; that is, my noble friend Lord Alderdice, who is now the presiding officer of the Assembly. His Alliance Party is unfortunately not represented in the Executive, but it has for many years been a quiet and effective voice for peace, justice and sanity amid the fury and the shouting.
This is not an occasion for celebration. The time for celebration will come if and when we are ever able to get rid of the Byzantine complexities of Part III of the Northern Ireland Act and allow an executive to be formed on a more usual basis such as we know in this country. However, if this is not an occasion for celebration, it is certainly one for relief: relief that the peace process has got as far as it has in its voyage and has escaped the rocks which could so easily have smashed it. It is an occasion also for hope; hope that the process will continue and that the Act will provide and prove to provide a workable solution which will lead ultimately to the end not only of the violence which has scarred both Northern Ireland and Great Britain for the past 30 years but an end also to the hatreds which have divided Northern Ireland for four centuries.
Some concern has been felt about the holding of important offices by Martin McGuinness, in the case of the education department, and Peter Robinson in the case of the Department for Regional Development. I hope that the Minister will be able to say which checks and balances are in position to allay people's fears about actions by Ministers representing parties whose views are highly controversial. For example, is it correct that a cross-community committee will work with each Minister and that such a committee will have to approve secondary legislation? That is one matter on which I hope that we shall be able to obtain clarification. Broadly, we believe that these provisions are to be greatly
730
welcomed as a step, and perhaps a crucial step, although clearly not the final step, towards a final settlement of the problems of that unhappy Province.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I, too, welcome this order and the constitutional changes that it brings to our Province. We are where we are today as a result of the courage and the amazing efforts of successive governments. I, too, wish to pay tribute to past governments, the present Government, Secretaries of State and the people of Northern Ireland. I pay tribute not least to Mr Mandelson, David Trimble and those who supported him last Saturday, which was all important. It is now up to Sinn Fein/IRA to come up with the goods—namely, decommissioning. It is wrong to dwell on that matter at this moment. Suffice to say that it is as easy for them to give up weapons as it is for them to refuse, and they should get on with it.
It is not only the Unionist politicians who have had to swallow the unpalatable and concede principle time and time again while Sinn Fein/IRA concede nothing. No one should underestimate what the ordinary people of the Province have had to put up with for so long. In addition, we now have Martin McGuinness as Minister of Education. It is often said, and it is right and true to say, that our future lies in the hands of the younger generation. Imagine the effect in Great Britain if such a post in Westminster were to be held by a terrorist godfather who has yet to prove that he has turned away from his past.
That is only one example among many of the extraordinary courage and trust being shown by the citizens of the Province in their fervent hope of a peaceful future. Remember that the loyalist and republican terrorists are only on ceasefire; they are not yet at peace for ever.
The future will be a difficult and hard road. I should like to mention one of the key issues which will affect how the future develops. In order to move forward we need to maintain a peaceful environment, although we must remember one essential fact: the terrorists still exist. Some observe the ceasefire and some do not; some are mainstream and some are dissidents.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Viscount. Does he agree that in recent times more Catholics have been killed by Protestants than Protestants have been killed by Catholics?
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl knows better than I. I do not have the facts at my fingertips.
We know the potential of the mainstream terrorists, but we must realise the potential of the dissidents. They are more sophisticated than they have ever been and in my view they are as strong in numbers as they were in 1972, the early days of the campaign. Your Lordships can see the potential problem, even if the mainstream on both sides decommission. What stands between us and catastrophe is the RUC, backed up by other security forces in the North and South of Ireland.

731
I congratulate the RUC on the award of the George Cross. That is a tremendous tribute to the outstanding service of members both past and present. I declare an interest in that my mother and elder sister were among the first to join the Women's Police Reserves.
Everyone knows something about the Patten report on policing in Northern Ireland. I do not want to go into it in great depth, but perhaps I can put a few things into perspective. First, Sinn Fein/IRA have demanded the dismantling of the RUC. Is that a surprise? If one asked the criminal underworld in any part of Great Britain for an opinion on their local police force, it would not be difficult to guess what their answer would be.
Secondly, there is the possibility of the change of name, badge and the times when the flag may be flown. Taken as a whole, changes of the kind suggested will simply lower the morale and operational efficiency to combat the known terrorist threat, let alone the everyday crime and law and order issues that continue at present and will continue even if there is peace.
Will such matters help recruitment? I think not. Even without those changes, recruitment from the Nationalist community is already rising at a remarkable speed. The percentage of Roman Catholics applying to join the RUC in the last competition—apparently it is called a competition—was 22.3 per cent. The competition is not yet complete so we do not know how many will get through, but in my opinion the Roman Catholic police officers in Northern Ireland are among the very best. I have no doubt that many of them will get through.
What is wrong with the word "Royal"? The Royal Victoria Hospital is in Nationalist West Belfast and is known, affectionately, by the Nationalists as "the Royal". There are many other examples. In Dublin the Royal Dublin Society is the largest and most respected cultural society in the republic. The RNLI operates in waters both North and South. The badge already contains the Irish harp and the shamrock. Nationalists, other than the extreme, are relatively happy with the Union flag. For your interest, the genuine calls to the RUC for help from Nationalist areas have increased dramatically: Newry, up 24 per cent; Waterside, up 22.7 per cent; and Woodburn, up 12.6 per cent. Those are examples of what the peace process is beginning to yield without the dismantling of the RUC. On those issues I ask the Government to halt the pandering to the violent, terrorist and criminal underworld.
There are those who say that we cannot cherry-pick at the report. However, the parts of the report that are not so good must be dropped or amended. I have three important general points to make on the recommendations in the body of the Patten report. First, in 1995 the Chief Constable of the RUC instigated a review and I believe that over 100 of the recommendations from that review are his or emanate from the police themselves.
732
Secondly, some recommendations have been shown not to work elsewhere in the United Kingdom. An example is the limit of tenure in certain posts such as Special Branch. On 21st October this year the last Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said, in a speech to the Police Federation, that the tenure policy had not worked. I quote from the Mail on Sunday of 21st November:
"Scotland Yard's new Commissioner John Stevens is to scrap the controversial policy blamed for plunging standards among detectives.
"The 'tenure' scheme, which forces specialist police officers to change jobs every few years, was introduced by Sir Paul Condon but it will be seen as the biggest mistake in his seven years as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police".
I do not damn him for that. Sir Paul Condon admitted that to the Police Federation, so the view is not just that of the new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
Thirdly, every change costs money. Among such costs would be new uniforms at £3 million and replacing armoured vehicles with new civilian standard vehicles at £13 million. From where will that money come? Is the Treasury ready to put it forward? Now is not the time to discuss the detail. No doubt we shall have a debate later. I ask the Government not to be too hasty in their implementation of all the Patten reforms.
In conclusion, I support the order and wish our Assembly and new Executive well in the future.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I share to the full the evident feeling with which the Minister introduced this order. He introduced it in words that were characteristically generous towards his predecessors.
From the beginning of direct rule in Northern Ireland it has been the hope and the ambition of succeeding administrations that democratic, devolved government would be restored, but restored only on terms that were fair and just to everybody living in the Province.
For long periods of time that elusive objective seemed remote indeed. Now we have an agreement which represents not so much a step as an enormous leap towards that objective. I want to express my gratitude for and admiration of the way in which it has been prepared and for the courage with which it has been executed.
It is a leap which has saved the people of Northern Ireland, for a short time at least, from a poisonous political stalemate. It offers them an enormous opportunity. Of course, it is not without risk. I believe that the risks are manageable and justified. The potential gains are enormous, not least in the development of cross-border organisations.
I have felt that surely it must make sense to make common cause in areas where there is an undoubted common interest. I believe that, as that process develops—it has already been established in some instances—it will have an important effect on the development of confidence.

733
In my humble opinion Mr David Trimble has shown himself equal to the most testing demands of leadership. The Secretary of State, building upon and fortified no doubt by the Good Friday agreement that was achieved in his predecessor's time, has firmly, perceptively and constructively rekindled confidence and the willingness and readiness in others to take risks. I gladly pay tribute to him for that.
I cannot know, but perhaps the greatest part in this momentous development has been played by that extraordinary man, Senator Mitchell. I warmly endorse what has already been said about him. He thought he had taken on a three-month task, but he stayed with it for five years. I hope that in future, when people are tempted into a generic denunciation of the motives of all politicians, they will remember George Mitchell and desist.
If this leap of faith had to be taken, and if devolved government had to be shared with Sinn Fein in today's dangerously unsatisfactory circumstances, I can see that it was necessary that a final decision by the Ulster Unionist Party should be postponed. But I have no doubt that the spirit and the intent of the Good Friday agreement require at the very least an immediate start to the decommissioning of arms to the independent commission headed by General de Chastelain. If that unprecedented act of faith were to be spurned, then the whole world would know where the responsibility for the result lay and would recognise the true character of those carrying that responsibility.
I wish God speed to the arrangements which this order will set in place. But as I do so I cannot avoid reflecting on how much they will owe to the RUC's heroically staunch resistance to violence and terror over all these years. As the Minister said, it has been shown that politics work and violence does not. It was the RUC in the main, though not exclusively, which created the circumstances in which politics have been able to show that they work. The RUC was always in the front line, upholding the law to which it too was always subject; and it acted for all the people in Northern Ireland. It is important that its sacrifice and achievement shall never be seen to be devalued in the days which lie ahead.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, this is a great day in the history of both Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. I speak as someone whose home is in County Westmeath, southern Ireland, but I wear an Irish Rugby Union tie given to me by an Ulster Protestant. When I was Leader of this House I went to Lansdowne Road and saw a United Ireland team play England. I cheered for Ireland. It was said, "You cannot do that. You are paid by the Brits." I said, "No, I am afraid I am Irish." So I speak as an Irishman.
It is a great day. There are a number of heroes, not least the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, who did wonderful work for peace in Northern Ireland. But the highest praise goes to the Prime Minister. I am not always uncritical of this Government, although I am a loyal and obsequious supporter. This is his finest achievement. No one but Tony Blair could have brought it off, though Mo Mowlam, Peter Mandelson
734
and others have done much of the work. Above all, when I pray about all this—and I pray about it constantly—I pray for Mr Trimble. I do not know him, but his task has been the hardest of all. I therefore salute him and the many others concerned.
When all that is said and done, this is a great opportunity. People say how marvellous it is for Mr Trimble to be sitting down with a representative of terror. I read a book on the Irish treaty of 1921. It said that when Michael Collins, who became what they liked to call a great "terrorist" leader, came to Downing Street with a delegation, it was doubtful whether the British delegation would shake hands with him. Lloyd George solved the problem by shaking hands himself with the Irish delegation and introducing its members to the others.
Those were the tensions at that time. Southern Ireland has been a colossal success by any possible standard. When I was a boy the children attending the school in front of our house were in rags; now their standard of life has risen to that of the British. It has been a wonderful achievement and I look forward to similar success for Northern Ireland.
We hear a great deal about decommissioning. There was reference by the speaker for the Opposition to decommissioning all round. There is to be pressure on the IRA to give up some of its arms; I hope that it succeeds. But is any pressure being placed on the Protestants to give up their arms? They have just as many. I leave that question with the Minister.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, showed characteristic courage in mentioning the place of prayer in his own participation and concern in this process. I want to add that many people on both sides have prayed for peace. The Church and many outside the Church will be committed to continuing to pray for the new arrangements as they have prayed for peace up to this point.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, this is either a great day for the future of the Province of Northern Ireland, for the island of Ireland and for the United Kingdom, or it is a tragedy. If it turns out to be a great day, we can look forward at long last, as many speakers have said, to a period of peace and prosperity after 800 years of agony, of which the past 30 have been a leitmotiv behind the political lives of every Member of your Lordships' House.
As we all recognise, this agreement is an enormous prize and one emphatically worth taking risks for. It has been made clear during the course of today's contributions that risks have been taken everywhere; no more perhaps than by the Ulster Unionist Party. Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to Mr David Trimble for his outstanding courage and leadership.
The biggest risk that all of us are taking in supporting the order today—it is certainly one that I support—is that terrorists on both sides, in spite of all that has happened over the past few years, are still prepared to hold the Armalite and Semtex in reserve in

735
case they cannot achieve their objectives through the ballot box alone. It is "belt and braces" of a particularly horrific kind which all those who take part in the political day-to-day lives of this country do not even begin to think is an option open to the rest of us. The least we can ask is that those taking part in parliamentary government in the Province for the first time should abjure that option if we are to look them in the face and deal with them on equal terms in our political day-to-day transactions.
If decommissioning does not take place; if a timetable is not established and adhered to; and if the process is not certified as being complete by General de Chastelain by the May deadline, today will turn out not to have been a great day in the history of our country and of Ireland, but to have been a tragedy, not least because we will once again have raised expectations in the hearts of the people of the Province only for them to be dashed. I am therefore wholly in agreement with those noble Lords who have made it plain that the matter now rests firmly in the hands of terrorist organisations on both sides of the sectarian divide, and in particular with IRA/Sinn Fein. If they do indeed show that they have given up the Armalite in favour of the ballot box, we will welcome them unreservedly into the councils of the devolved Assembly; if they do not, then those who have said that the risk was not worth taking will have been tragically vindicated.
I hope that the Minister, who has always been extremely patient in his dealings with the House on Northern Ireland matters, can give us an undertaking in his reply that, if the paramilitaries do not begin to decommission according to a timetable established by General de Chastelain, the Government will not yield to what I am sure would be an overwhelming temptation to try to appease a little more and to stretch the elastic of tolerance a little further. They have asked an enormous amount of those of us who have always doubted whether in fact the paramilitaries on both sides really intended to give up their weapons and abide by the same political rules as the best of us. If they fail to do so this time, unless the Government support those who have taken the risks that all of us have recognised this afternoon, surely they will letting us and the system down—a system by which we hope that everyone will abide. If they do that, I hope that they will also recognise that there is a possibility that the risks we are all taking this afternoon will not be seen in the event to be justified.
If that tragically turns out to be so, I trust that the Minister will also be able to give us an assurance that, until decommissioning has taken place and the paramilitary organisations on both sides are seen to have given up the option of the Armalite in favour of the ballot box, the security services both here and in the Province will be kept in a finely-honed state of repair so that they are able to counter what will, unfortunately, certainly turn out to be a resurgence of the terror that we all fear.
736
In that respect, I also hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which was awarded the George Cross—so richly earned, we all agree—will continue to be recognised as the first line of defence against terrorists on both sides of the sectarian divide, not only for those in the Province but also for those of us on this side of the water. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to repeat the undertakings given by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in that respect, which were quoted by my noble friend Lord Glentoran.
This could be a great day. With the benefit of hindsight in six months' time, I hope that it will indeed have turned out to be so. If so, no one will be more delighted than I finally to pay tribute to all those who played such a part in taking the risks which brought about that success.
4 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I add my voice to the words of welcome and support that have been expressed for this order, so excellently introduced by my noble friend the Minister. A new page in the troubled history of Northern Ireland was vividly presented yesterday and has been suitably processed in this House today. In searching for, strengthening and establishing a democratic political framework suitable for the situation in Northern Ireland, this order now seeks to provide the elements that will regularise the situation. In that framework, elected representatives of the Assembly may promote, uphold and effectively pursue policies and programmes for social justice and equitable human relationships.
There are now some 21 Peers in this House who have, over the past 30 years, held and experienced ministerial office in Northern Ireland. We heard earlier from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, about his experience. I wholeheartedly support and welcome the words with which he presented the framework for this piece of legislation. At this time, it is invaluable for us to understand that we in party politics—that is, assuming that we are all involved in the political arena—are not suitable for presenting the forms of reconciliation that are necessary in an ecclesiastical framework. I hope that we are engaged in the role of providing accommodation for the building of co-operation between political organisations; in other words, building on the establishment of a framework of co-operation, which can progressively bring about new understandings in political life.
The framework in this particular order is restricted to the situation in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly will not be dealing with many of the matters that have been mentioned here today. During the initial proceedings of the Assembly yesterday, I feel sure that noble Lords will have noted that the Presiding Officer, Lord Alderdice, conducted the business with studied expertise, understanding and much sensitivity. His name has already been mentioned, but I believe that he undertook an outstanding piece of work yesterday in

737
reconciling—if that is the proper word to use in such a situation—the various interests involved in those discussions.
We should also note that there are many effective, trained and knowledgeable civil servants and other personnel who are available to undertake the duties of the devolved Assembly. The matters devolved to the Assembly and the procedures for implementation have been set out in strict terms. Issues arising from the Patten report and various other matters will be debated at Westminster in due course. They will not be allowed to present themselves, in the first instance, during the Assembly's discussions. Finally, I join other noble Lords in giving this order suit able support.
Lord Renton: My Lords, should we not gratefully acknowledge the encouragement and support given by the Government of the Republic of Ireland in this matter? Indeed, does the Minister agree that, without their help, this agreement would not have been achieved and that decommissioning can succeed only with their co-operation?
Lord Laird: M y Lords, I am delighted to be able to support this order today. I am from Belfast and I have been a member of the Ulster Unionist Party for 35 years. I have spent all my life living in the Province and have many relations there. I should like to underline the remarks that have been made in the House this afternoon about the turmoil inside the Unionist community that has been caused in the past few months, especially in the past few days, by the very difficult and courageous decision that Mr Trimble and his official Unionist Party have taken.
As I said, I have been a member of the UUP for 35 years. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the turmoil and the difficulty that has been caused. I have lived through arid witnessed sights that I would not wish to describe to anyone in this House. I have lost work colleagues, relations, friends and next-door neighbours in tragic circumstances. Yet it is to the great credit of the party to which I belong, and to the inspirational leadership of David Trimble, that we have reached the position in which we find ourselves today.
I should like to think that Her Majesty's Government will recognise fully the courageous stand taken by Mr Trimble. I hope that they will also recognise that as regards anything that is likely to happen in the future if Mr Trimble's courageous stand is not matched by terrorists of all hues over the next few months, those of us who believe in the democratic process and have striven hard to return Northern Ireland to the democratic rails and to get that society back on the rails should not be penalised in some way. I support and identify with those noble Lords who have said that it is important that those democrats do not pay the penalty for the failure of terrorists to decommission.
I also identify with the tributes that have been paid to those noble Lords who have played a role in the affairs of Northern Ireland over the past 25 years. In
738
that regard I do not wish to leave out the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, whom I am glad to see present today. The noble Lord played a significant role in the affairs of Northern Ireland at a difficult time. He performed his task tremendously well in difficult circumstances.
I also wish to pay tribute to the Minister, who is, and will be for the next few hours, an extremely good Minister who has been well received in Northern Ireland. Yesterday I heard an agriculture correspondent on a local radio station describe the Minister as a very popular Minister. I wonder how many agriculture Ministers can be described as popular in the current climate! That is a tribute to the noble Lord. I ask the House to recognise the role that he has played and his popularity. We are excited at the prospect of having affairs in Northern Ireland back in our own hands but there is a sadness at losing old friends such as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
I wish to underline the remarks that have been made about the Patten report and the difficulties that may lie ahead if the totality of that report is implemented with regard to the police force. This could constitute a major problem which could stand in the way of the future development of Northern Ireland. Again refer to the turmoil in which the Loyalist and Unionist community has found itself over the past few months. We do not wish to push those good people, to whom I belong, any further through unnecessary, ill calculated and ill judged reforms on important aspects of policing in Northern Ireland.
We all appreciate that the days ahead will be difficult. We are only at the start of a long and turbulent voyage. However, there is much goodwill. I appreciate the remarks that noble Lords have made about the future. I wish the process well and I shall certainly support the order.
4.15 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I believe that the whole House will be extremely grateful for the words of the noble Lord who has just spoken on behalf of the Ulster Unionists. They are typical of the constructive part the Ulster Unionists have played at this crucial time.
We have heard mentioned the prayers of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and of the right reverend Prelate. One should always be grateful for prayers and I hope that they will include me in them. However, I hope that I may suggest a subject for more general prayer; namely, one of the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. I refer to hope. There has been so much gloom and caution expressed in this debate. However, this is a great day for Northern Ireland and for the United Kingdom. It is a great day for the Republic.
Of course it is not the end of the novel, but it is the end of a splendid and hopeful chapter. Without this chapter the story could not possibly have gone on. The event which has taken place yesterday and today

739
represents not merely the best chance of having peace and justice in Ireland for 30 years but the best chance since the settlement of 1922. There has never been a moment like this. Although there has been a Stormont in the past, it has been a Stormont composed of a majority imposing their will on the minority. This is a very different kind of Stormont. It is an amazing achievement and one which we should welcome.
I speak as an old-fashioned Tory, Catholic, Unionist. I can make that plain without fear because as a breed we are practically extinct. I have taken the keenest interest in the Irish question. I was sent by Mr Heath to Long Kesh in 1973 to see the conditions there and to report back to him. The lesson I learnt from that visit was that this was not primarily a religious struggle. The religious labels were there but this was a racial struggle between two different sets of people struggling for a piece of territory and with one set not willing to allow for the difficulties which existed and with the other set not willing to afford justice to the minority. As a result of the breakdown between Mr Heath and Mr Faulkner, Stormont was abolished. I thought that was an error then and it is not with hindsight that I say that I think it is an error now.
But now we have a new start. Of course there will be difficulties. There will be difficulties all the time. There is a great cultural difficulty which we should not forget; namely—if I may put it in this way—the English can remember nothing and the Irish can forget nothing. How does one get out of that impasse? The only way to get out of it and to move forward is to have hope in the future. That is why I reiterate the need for hope at this junction in our affairs.
Many have contributed to this process and many have sacrificed their lives. The noble Lord who represents the Ulster Unionists referred to that in his moving speech. People from every side have made the supreme sacrifice. They should never be forgotten, but we do them no service unless we are prepared to use their memory to advance, not to bear resentment and grudges. Forgiveness is a difficult thing. It is difficult, above all, for those who have suffered wrong.
Different Prime Ministers have played different parts in this process. Let us not forget the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who sent the British troops into Northern Ireland. What was the purpose of that? It was to protect the Northern Ireland Catholics from intolerable threats and dangers. That was his contribution and it was a real contribution, although it brought other problems in its wake.
My right honourable friends Mr Heath and Mr Major have both given of their best in this effort. They have been able to carry the torch—as in a relay race—that bit further forward. The present Prime Minister, Mr Blair, has made his contribution to this process. I shall not mince my words. I shall say what I believe; namely, that no other Prime Minister has shown such dedication, spent so much time and tried so hard over a long period to bring the parties together.
740
He has given the matter a priority that we have not seen a Prime Minister give it since the times of Mr Gladstone. That is the historical truth of the matter.
A noble Lord: That is a bit over the top.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, it may be a bit over the top—but it is better to be over the top than under the bottom.
I want also to pay tribute to Mr Trimble and Mr Adams. They have done something extremely difficult; they have transcended the sectarianism of their own followers. One can transcend other people's sectarianism easily enough. But when they are the people on whose support one relies, that is a true test of statesmanship.
I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Glentoran reiterate the bipartisan nature of support in the House for the policy on Northern Ireland. The Conservative Party is under a moral and political obligation to maintain that bipartisan support. He did so nobly, as did my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, who knows more from experience about this subject than most Members of the House, including myself.
Bipartisanship does not rule out the possibility of criticism; it does not rule out the right to advise, the right to warn and the right to delay, if necessary. But it does rule out irresponsibility, carping, mean-mindedness and any desire to exploit the situation for partisan purposes. To play an effective part in this process requires from the Opposition a certain generosity of spirit. The debate has shown that that generosity of spirit is there. It will be fully needed if we are to resolve the challenges and gain the great prizes now within our grasp.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned bipartisanship. Full praise should be given to the late Lord Whitelaw who started the process from 1972 onwards. We all learned from him and the process has gone on ever since. He should not be forgotten.
The noble Lord also referred to the question of whether it was a religious battle in Northern Ireland. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I gave a dinner party for Conor Cruise O'Brien and invited a number of people. A lady at the table asked him, "Is it a religious question, Mr O'Brien?". I think he taught in Belfast before the war. He replied "When I taught, there was a blues team and a greens team. One of the greens players, the Catholic players, fell in the penalty area and writhed like Lawrence Olivier. The crowd shouted from the stand 'Send him to Lourdes. Send him to Lourdes-. He then said, "No, it is not a religious problem."
Congratulations have been widely and freely given—as they should be—to all those who have been involved in the Northern Ireland question over the years. I place particular emphasis on the part played by Northern Ireland politicians. At times they were infuriating. Sometimes we asked ourselves, "What do

741
they want?" But they lived in an area where they needed a police guard, where their homes needed a police guard, where they were met off an aeroplane by armed policemen. It should not be forgotten that they live a different political life from most of us on this side of the water.
We have been in this position once before—at Sunningdale in December 1973—when a devolved administration came into effect. My noble friend was a deputy leader at that time. However, it failed. It failed because the party of Mr Brian Faulkner—who also showed great courage—deserted it. Mr Trimble last week very much reversed that development against Brian Faulkner. When I first got to Northern Ireland there was a violence campaign in Belfast. The place was aflame every night. There was also the Ulster workers' strike, which showed what a divided part of the United Kingdom Northern Ireland was. Anyway, the Sunningdale Executive collapsed.
I have often thought about what we should learn from that time of devolved administration. Perhaps two points should be taken into account. I am not denying the greatness of today, but there is the question of money. As my noble friend will remember, it is easy enough for people to sit around—not a coalition, but a Cabinet table—and talk about money they do not have to provide and to devise schemes without thinking of the wherewithal to provide for them. Money does not grow on trees—and money was beginning to be a problem. It needs wise politicians and skilled civil servants to get over that hurdle. This is not a coalition. We are not forming a coalition government in Northern Ireland—I will come to that in a moment—and government will not be easy. It easy to stand in front of a television camera and be feted, but the actual day-to-day administration is a difficult task.
After the Ulster workers' strike in 1974, it required only an Order in Council by the Westminster Parliament to end the power-sharing executive. I believe it requires more than that now. If the arrangements in Northern Ireland are to be ended, it will require primary legislation on the Floors of both Houses. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm whether I am right in that belief. One never knows what will happen in the months ahead.
As to the question of a Secretary of State, we need a Secretary of State to deal with the responsibilities of Northern Ireland. One of the failures in the past has been that for 50 years Northern Ireland worked to a small general department in the Home Office. It will require a Secretary of State to deal with reserved matters, not a Secretary of State shared with Scotland and with Wales.
There are problems are ahead. Today and the rest of the week will be great for Northern Ireland. We must all do our best to help in every possible way. I congratulate the present Government and Mr Major and his Secretary of State. It is all of a one. There are times in the political scene when we are gloomy and think of all the things that can go wrong. Let us not
742
think of the things that may go wrong. Let us think of what might happen and let us congratulate ourselves on a good day.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in a notable speech—which was not too far over the top—my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley rightly said that the confrontation is not a religious one. It is a racial, tribal confrontation. However, there are areas where the religious and tribal boundaries coincide quite importantly. One of those areas is in education. It is now 20 years and six months since I found myself sitting at one end of a table with Humphrey Atkins, as he then was, at the other end dishing out ministerial jobs in Northern Ireland. The very last one to be called was education. I was a teacher and it was given to me.
Yesterday, in the Assembly, I understand that the various ministerial responsibilities were dished out, and very nearly the last one was education. There was a qualified teacher there but the post was given to Mr Martin McGuinness. Whatever the reason for that choice, it will be thought to have been intended to be a signal.
Further on in his speech, my noble friend said that while bipartisanship restricted one in various ways, it did allow one to warn and to advise. With great humility, I should like to do that in this context. If this frail craft is to succeed, we have to wish all the crew the best that they can possibly have, and we have to support them. If the crew want it to succeed, they should listen to what help we can give.
My perception of an incoming Minister for Education in Northern Ireland is that he or she is regarded with the deepest suspicion by all people who do not share precisely his or her background. I believe that it took me between 18 months and two years to convince the Roman Catholic hierarchy that I was not secretly in the business of seeking to dismantle their control of their section of education. At the time that was furthest from my thoughts.
If my, I hope, fairly gentle exterior and modest past were sufficient to alarm that experienced and elderly community, think what the effect of the appointment of Mr Martin McGuinness must do to the confidence of the parents of Protestant children in Protestant schools, whether secular or otherwise. With great diffidence, I offer to Mr McGuinness the advice that if he wants to play a constructive role in the building of a self-confident and democratically governed Northern Ireland, it will take a great effort of persuasion and some kind of significant gesture on his part to show that his heart really is on the side of the children of all backgrounds. They are the future, and I believe their parents think that they are at risk. After all, the parents are the electorate and it is they who, in the end, will have the say on what happens. Therefore, it is down to Mr McGuinness, as it is down to other members of the Executive, to convince those of other persuasions that they are unquestionably intent on the benefit of all members of the society which they govern and of children of all persuasions.

743
I am sorry to have broken nearly 20 years' silence on this subject but it seemed to me too important to let the opportunity pass.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, no one who has not suffered 30 years of murder, mutilation, bombing, arson and intimidation has any right to criticise those who have so suffered and who now opt for peace at almost any price. No doubt those of us on this side of the water would act in much the same way if we had the misfortune to find ourselves in a similar position. That was indeed the case in 1938 when the people of Britain as a whole had the horrors of the Great War still etched deeply into their minds. Let us hope that the euphoria of 1999 is not dashed as was that of 1938.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, last week in this House the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in his capacity as Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, invited me to go there yesterday because of the connotations between the setting up of the executive yesterday and the setting up of the executive on 1st January 1974. I did so, and I am glad that I did. For me, yesterday was a day laden with emotion from the time that I entered the Assembly until I left yesterday evening.
I recall vividly that on 1st January 1974 when I became a member of the Sunningdale Executive I believed that I had reached the apex of my political career. I had striven over many years to bring together the warring factions in Northern Ireland—the unionists and nationalists. On that day, I believed that I had achieved that ambition. For the next five months, every day was a horror to me. It was not only the Ulster workers' strikes which brought the Sunningdale Executive to an end; they were ably aided and abetted by the IRA, some of whose members spoke in Stormont yesterday afternoon.
I remember in February 1974 coming along Donegall Place and Royal Avenue. During the lifetime of the executive, a bomb went off in a taxi and killed people at the bottom of Divis Street. A crowd immediately gathered. When they saw me, they said, "You said that this would all stop if the executive came into being—if we agreed with what you did." I could give them no answer. From then on, we had the Ulster workers' strike led by some very distinguished people.
Yesterday, I congratulated David Trimble on the courage he showed last Saturday. Had David Trimble not been successful in bringing his party with him last Saturday morning, the whole experience of the past two or three years of negotiations would have toppled in on him. His party and the people of Northern Ireland would have been subjected to a criticism untold and unheard of before. Very courageously, he brought his party with him, enabling the debate to take place here today on the devolution of power. However, in 1974 David Trimble was opposed to the Sunningdale executive; Bill Craig was opposed to the Sunningdale executive; and Ian Paisley was opposed to the Sunningdale executive, as he is opposed to this Executive.
744
However, this time there is a difference. In 1974, for the first time, there existed in these islands the concept of power-sharing, which no one before had ever thought possible, between the main parties, Conservative and Labour, with the adversarial system of "You win one time, you lose the next." Sunningdale was a very noble experiment under the tutelage of the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, and the Secretary of State, Willy Whitelaw.
I now want to express some optimism. At that time, the concept of trying to bring together different factions was a new one. We tried, despite the terrible, turbulent history of religious and warring divisions. And we were very nearly successful. During the five months we sat in the executive—the Unionists from Northern Ireland, the Alliance Party and the SDLP—I discovered that every day we found something on which we could agree. Every day we sat there as Northern Ireland people—as Ulster men—and we tried our damnedest to find agreement, while outside the bombs were going off on the Upper Newtownards Road and all over Northern Ireland. It was an impossible task. The then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, and I sensed it on the Labour Benches. My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees was the Secretary of State. It was the first time they had been faced with such opposition. And it was called the Ulster workers' strike. It was not the Ulster workers' strike; it was a fascist strike, led by fascists and supported by fascists and by loyalist and IRA murder gangs. It was not carried out by workers. Yet my colleagues in the other part of this building, as Members of Parliament, were taken in. Even trade unionists in Britain said to me, "But they are Ulster workers. We cannot be seen to be opposing the Ulster workers." I remember very well when the then leader of the trade union movement was brought over to Northern Ireland to tell them it was not a workers' strike. He received a very hostile reception at the Queen's Bridge in Northern Ireland.
This time is different. There are four parties. Four parties will make it more difficult to find agreement. However, yesterday I went into the Members' bar, the Members' tea rooms and the committee rooms where I saw Sinn Fein people talking with official Unionists; I saw Alliance people supporting the re-election of Seamus Mallon as deputy chief. I questioned many of them and came away with the distinct impression that they would fight tenaciously to keep the Executive in existence. The difference is that when Brian Faulkner met with violent opposition, he did not have anyone to support him. This time the Executive has the support of the British Government, the Irish Government, Irish America and the President of the United States. All those people have contributed over many years to bring this Executive into existence.
I said yesterday in a TV broadcast—and I hope that I did not offend too many people—that I have found it very difficult over the past two or three years to agree with legislation in this House which actually made my stomach churn: the release of murderers, the release of prisoners, and concession after concession made to paramilitary organisations.

745
I well remember the debate on the crisis that has arisen in relation to the return of the bodies of the disappeared, when I supported the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. We very nearly carried a vote in the House. No one talks any more about the disappeared, but it is still a burning issue to those who have lost their loved ones. I said yesterday on two or three occasions, and I say it again in this House, that a book entitled Lost Lives has been written by four distinguished journalists in Northern Ireland. It illustrates in great detail every murder that has taken place in Northern Ireland since the onset of the present troubles. It sets out who the people were, their religion, their marital status and the effect of the murders on the wider community from which they came.
I particularly interested myself in the murders that took place after the breakdown of the Sunningdale executive in May 1974. I was able to say yesterday—and many people supported me—that all those deaths were totally unnecessary. People were going into the Executive yesterday and they could have had exactly the same thing 25 years ago. Instead we have had the terrible tragedy of all those deaths. I do not think that those in the Executive will allow that to happen again. I have the distinct impression—and there are some in the Executive with whom I have never had any political relationship—that they will go in there and do everything they can to make it work.
I left Northern Ireland this morning. I know that great fear and suspicion exists there about some of the appointments made yesterday. It seems out of this world that Martin McGuinness is Minister of Education in Northern Ireland. I know that there is now great fear within the Protestant community. But let me say this—and I do not speak lightly in support of terrorists. I do not believe that Martin McGuinness would discriminate in any way in favour of any religious sect in Northern Ireland. I believe that he will accept his responsibility. I cannot see him discriminating against Protestants. The whole Northern Ireland community, Catholic and Protestant, would rise up in anger if he attempted to do so. But I do not believe that he will do so.
Therefore, I say that we could have had this 25 years ago. We have it now. It has the support of major political parties and four different governments. I believe that it will work. At the time of the 1974 executive no one ever mentioned the word "millennium". We certainly did not hear about websites and e-mail. The world has advanced tremendously since then. I regarded 1st January 1974 as the most important political day in the millennium of Northern Ireland. That has been superseded by yesterday. All I can do is to call in as much support as I can from everyone of good will to wish Northern Ireland into the new millennium when we will all try our damnedest to forget what has happened to us through so many years.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall be very brief, but I was forestalled by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches in saying how much we owe to the
746
noble Lord the Minister for his integrity, decency, care, patience and good humour. I do not think that he has had nearly enough credit.
That said, I am afraid that I am going to be a little Cassandra-like, although I passionately want to believe that the Executive will work. I think that it has a much better chance than before. But we have to remember that for the IRA decommissioning means the weakening and destruction of the Armed Forces and the police. It does not put the same meaning on the word as we do. The Belfast agreement expressly refers to the decommissioning of illegally held arms in the possession of paramilitary groups. The previous Secretary of State refused to negotiate the release of prisoners against the beginning of decommissioning, and so I feel sure that the present Secretary of State will be equally clear that the IRA must not be allowed to try to trade giving up some arms for troop withdrawals and for the weakening of the security apparatus before Northern Ireland enjoys the hoped for normal, peaceful society which was also foreseen in the Belfast agreement. Under the terms of the agreement decommissioning by the paramilitaries—I mean all paramilitaries—must be non-negotiable. We are perhaps deceiving ourselves in thinking that because it is going to be handled, as far as concerns the procedures, by General de Chastelain, that will be the end of the story. There is bound to be pressure for negotiation and horse trading behind the scenes.
I have a second point. Although the end of the review and consultation period for the Patten report is due only at the end of November, and as we may not discuss it for some time, we must make sure that we hold our horses on any decisions, particularly on any proposal either to weaken the capacity of the RUC to protect the security of the realm or to devolve responsibility for policing and justice issues. I should be interested to know the status of the Irish Government on that. To whom are they intending to devolve control of the Gardi? It would he a fatal mistake to take or promise any action which could at this delicate moment encourage the IRA, like Oliver, to ask for more.
I remember the disgraceful Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill and I think about the three bodies—there were only three—that were yielded up. I know, too, many victims on both sides of the political spectrum. They all long for the end of paramilitary violence in their communities—right down in the street and in their homes. That has mysteriously ceased lately. The tap was turned off at the time of the election. The tap seems to have been turned off by both sets of paramilitaries recently. So it proves that it can be done. I hope therefore that at this crucial political moment we shall see that tap turned off finally. There is no excuse for it. It seems to me that we are in honour bound to consider the interests of the people right down at the bottom of the heap. Having said that, I passionately hope that we shall be having good news this year and next.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, virtually everything that I wanted to say has been said by one or other

747
speaker on all sides of the House. Therefore, I shall not detain the House for more than a very few minutes except to say that it is my belief that Mr Trimble's actions on Saturday constituted a very brave act indeed. He and his party have delivered their side of the deal secured by Senator Mitchell. But as I understand the matter, the Sinn Fein/IRA part of the bargain is to deliver a member of the IRA to liaise with General de Chastelain's decommissioning commission—no more, no less. I believe that that will happen and in the next few weeks. Up to now the Government's target has been to get Stormont up and running. They will achieve that this week—and all credit to them and all the parties in Northern Ireland.
It has been a long and hard road with, as we have seen, many tortuous twists and turns. But that is as nothing compared with the future. Of course I wish everyone involved the best, but I have to agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew that the assembly, which starts business on Thursday, is on approval from the Ulster Unionist Council. I am very much afraid that we have not seen the last of these orders under the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise to give the order full support and to join other noble Lords in paying tribute to all those who have participated in this process, going back many, many years. I pay tribute to the noble Lord the Minister for the hours of time that he has given in his job as Minister in Northern Ireland and for the way in which he has dealt with all of us who have had our anxieties on the way. I pay tribute to him also for the way in which he has come to the Dispatch Box on so many occasions and informed the House of the present situation.
I was returning from a conference in Birmingham on Saturday when the news came through that the Ulster Unionists had taken their decision to trigger the process today. The order is before us in the House today because of a great leap of faith that had already been taken by Mr Trimble. That was followed by him persuading his colleagues at that meeting on Saturday that this was a leap of faith worth taking and that the risks involved were worth facing.
We should not underestimate what happened that day. Those of us who are seasoned observers of the Irish scene know full well that predominantly two reasons made possible that vote on Saturday. The first reason was the promise that was given by Mr Trimble himself that unless there is measurable progress towards decommissioning, which is the key to success in what is happening today, his letter of resignation—already written and sealed—will be activated. He gave his colleagues that promise that that is what he would do.
The second reason that persuaded his colleagues to support him so wholeheartedly on that day was the promise given by the Secretary of State, Mr Mandelson, who in fact said that he would stand and support Mr Trimble if he should have to activate his resignation letter. Similar promises were given following the Good Friday agreement by the Prime
748
Minister personally. That was what secured the vote in the referendum of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland will forgive lightly if they are let down following not only the promise by the Unionists to support the setting up of the institutions, the Assembly and the Executive, but if they are let down also by the one factor which will make sense of what is happening today; that is, progress towards decommissioning.
I want to ask a straightforward question of the Minister, and I know that he will answer it unequivocally. The question is: will the Secretary of State stand shoulder to shoulder with Mr Trimble, who has acted with great courage, if by February there is no measurable progress towards decommissioning?
The only other point I want to make concerns default. I understand now, because of the way in which this whole legislation is working—both the Act of Parliament and the order that is before the House today—that should one or more paramilitary organisations default on decommissioning, all the institutions have to be stood down. The noble Lord the Minister will know that I have some reservations about that, but I accept it because that is where we are. However, I also want to say to the Minister that I do not believe that the innocent should suffer. It is absolutely right to say that no one should profit from defaulting on progress towards decommissioning, but neither should innocent people suffer. I should like to have some assurance from the Minister that should there be defaulting by one or more of the paramilitaries, causing almost simultaneously the standing down of the institutions—which has to happen because of the way in which the legislation will work—those who are innocent will find themselves being invited to re-establish an assembly and an executive that will continue to rule, parochially and locally, in Northern Ireland.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I welcome the order and join others in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Dubs. I want to say just one thing, which is that although we all wish that decommissioning will proceed as promised, we also know from the history of Northern Ireland that the IRA, as a concept, is a slippery and dynamic thing. There will be other IRAs, even if this one decommissions. The most difficult thing for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the other politicians to ascertain will be whether the IRA is decommissioning and the Real IRA is not decommissioning. I believe that the major danger is not going to be IRA/Sinn Fein but a new dissident faction that could arise whose members will continue to be terrorists. I think it will take great courage on behalf of everyone to be able to say that the more the small element can be isolated and the Assembly can be kept, the better will be the chance of finally seeking an end to the entire culture of violence in Northern Ireland.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps I may re-emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has just said.

749
Decommissioning is a very, very tricky business indeed. Let us not forget that in 19.21 when the Irish Free State was set up there was no question of decommissioning. This was accepted by Mr Lloyd George and his government. Of course, it was absurd to think that Michael Collins could form a government without arms, because immediately he did, he was, as we all know, opposed by Mr de Valera. The civil war in Ireland which then began did not end until Mr de Valera's followers were driven into the hills and, in the end, submitted. Even then, they never signed anything about decommissioning.
All I am saying is this: decommissioning is something which I very much hope will not prove to be the sticking point. It must be something which is faced with a flexible understanding of history and of possibilities.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am most grateful for what I believe is the unanimous support of all those who have spoken for what the Government have put before the House today. Admittedly, that support was sometimes couched in terms indicating some qualifications; nevertheless, I am grateful for the welcome that the Government have received for their proposal from all sides of the House.
Perhaps I may first deal with the question of the Patten report, not because it was the only issue, but because it has been mentioned so frequently. I should like to deal with that first and then deal with the other points that have been made in the debate. Concerns about the Patten report were mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Laird, the noble and learned Lord, Lo rd Mayhew, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, together with many other speakers. Of course the Government fully appreciate the sensitivities surrounding the report and we shall handle all such views and concerns very sensitively.
The maintenance of law and order must remain a priority. We shall take account of the prevailing security situation when considering the implementation of some of the recommendations in the report which deal with the level of policing and so on. The Secretary of State will be guided, as always, as was the previous Secretary of State, by the advice given by the Chief Constable, among others. We shall consider the comments made about the Patten Report. We have been listening to views right up to today, and the Secretary of State has said that he will, following the end of this month, let his views be known as soon as possible. Of course, he will take into account the comments made by many people, including those made by Members of your Lordships' House. I can give your Lordships that assurance.
We are delighted that Her Majesty has thought fit to give her recent award to the RUC: a very well-deserved award. I should like to endorse once more the many comments made over many years about the bravery of the RUC during the past 30 years; the number of lives of R UC officers that have been lost and the number of its officers who have been injured, some of whom are living to this day with very serious injuries indeed. That is right, and it is right that this should go on the
750
record at a time when the RUC is obviously sensitive and concerned about what may happen in terms of the Patten proposals.
Let me now deal with some of the more specific points that have been made during the debate. A number of noble Lords asked about the possibility of default, whether in the implementation of decommissioning or on devolution. I can give my assurance to the House that those who default will not profit from that default. The Secretary of State has set out what we will do by way of suspending the institutions in the event of any default. He went on to say that the Government will take the legislative action necessary to do so as soon as it becomes apparent that this is required. I am happy to repeat that assurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about possible checks and balances. I believe that he referred in particular to checks and balances as regards action by either DUP or Sinn Fein Ministers. Of course DUP and Sinn Fein Ministers are members of the Executive and yesterday all of them took a pledge of office. That pledge included a number of requirements. I shall mention three of them: first, to participate with colleagues in the preparation of a programme for government; secondly, to operate within the framework of that programme when agreed within the Executive Committee and endorsed by the Assembly; and, thirdly, to support, and to act in accordance with all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly. I hope that that will give some assurance to the noble Lord and to other Members of the House who queried whether the Executive would have powers over decisions by individual Ministers. Clearly, the Executive has not yet begun to operate so we shall have to wait and see how it works, but I hope that those assurances will satisfy the concerns expressed by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord also asked about the committee structure. There is to be a committee structure in the Assembly with one committee corresponding to each of the 10 government departments. The chair of each committee will be a member of a different political party from that of the Minister. That will provide an element of checks and balances in the way those procedures will operate.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, asked a number of questions about the Patten Report and the RUC. I believe that I have dealt with most of the points that he raised. I thank once again the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for the tribute he paid to the Government and others for the work that we have done, and I shall reciprocate by paying tribute to him for the work he carried out when he was Secretary of State and on which we have built. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord on the need for a quick start to decommissioning. Senator Mitchell has said that the process should begin with the appointment of authorised representatives on 2nd December. I look forward to that taking place and to rapid progress thereafter. I have full confidence in General de Chastelain and the decommissioning commission which has the responsibility of overseeing this process, including arrangements for the timing of actual

751
decommissioning with the authorised representatives. Furthermore, the independent commission will also report at intervals on the progress being made in the process.
My noble friend Lord Longford asked about decommissioning by loyalist paramilitary organisations. I can confirm to my noble friend that, in the report of the international body on decommissioning, Senator Mitchell spoke of mutual decommissioning. That is what we want to see. An obligation to decommission has been placed on all paramilitary organisations, be they republican or loyalist.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, sought an undertaking that the Government will not appease terrorists if they do not give up their arms. I believe that I made it clear in my speech, and the Secretary of State has done so in another place, that no one who defaults on decommissioning will profit from it. I am happy to repeat that undertaking. I will also repeat the undertaking I gave a few moments ago on the state of readiness of the security forces; namely, that the security of Northern Ireland and of its people remains our primary concern and responsibility. Any changes in security arrangements will reflect improvements when they occur in the security situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the contribution of the Irish Government. I am happy to join the noble Lord in commending the role of the Irish Government in securing the agreement and the positive outcome of the review. For many years we have worked very closely indeed with the Irish Government and I do not think that the Good Friday agreement or what has happened more recently would have been achieved without such very close co-operation between the two governments. It is widely recognised that the Irish Government have helped to underpin the way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, made several important comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree, that the crucial element in the settlement is the way that it provides for the expression of cross-community consent to ensure consensus and to guarantee that the minority has a say in the way in which Northern Ireland is governed. In effect, we shall see power sharing and a new partnership. That underpins both the Good Friday agreement and the way forward.
My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees asked what would be needed to collapse the institutions of the agreement if that should prove necessary. Such a move would require primary legislation. On 22nd November the Secretary of State said in another place that both the British and Irish Governments would take the necessary steps to ensure that the operation of these institutions ceases should that be necessary. It would require legislation and action by treaty on the part of both governments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred to the IRA interpretation of decommissioning. That may be what
752
that organisation says on occasion, but that is not what is set down in the Good Friday agreement, which confines itself to the decommissioning of illegally held arms by paramilitary organisations. Decommissioning is not negotiable. It is an essential part of the agreement and we are not prepared to compromise on it. Decommissioning must happen. At the end of the review recently carried out by Senator George Mitchell, Sinn Fein declared that decommissioning was essential and the IRA stated that it would appoint a representative to discuss with the decommissioning commission how this should be brought about. All parties are clear that the discussions will concern paramilitary arms. I see that that is well understood by General de Chastelain and his commission. Indeed, General de Chastelain's remit is to deal only with illegally held weapons. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness.
I believe that I have dealt with the specific points raised in our debate and I should now like to make a few general concluding remarks. I agree that David Trimble has shown enormous courage. He has had to deal with very difficult situations and he has brought forward the entire process. I should like to endorse the many tributes that have been paid to him today for the courage he has shown. I also thank noble Lords who have said kind things about me. We do our best and I am grateful for the comments that have been made. I must say that I feel that this might be almost an epitaph. I missed the comment about agriculture that was made on the radio, and I am amazed that anyone could make such a comment. Farmers in Northern Ireland have faced great difficulties.
I should like to respond to a comment made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield on the part played by the Churches. I agree that all the Churches have played an important part in the peace process and it is right that we should express our gratitude to them for their efforts.
Finally, I should like to pay tribute not just to the big names but also to the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. Over the past 30 years they have borne an enormously difficult and heavy burden. Despite that, they have shown a resilience and a positive approach and a welcome for the peace process. That, in turn, has stimulated the politicians to move forward, as they did the other day. I should like to end by paying tribute to the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. The Government will not let those people down.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bach: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on the beef on the bone ban, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Beef on the Bone Ban
5.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Statement is as follows:
"I am pleased to be able to announce the Government's intention to lift the retail ban on beef on the bone. This follows further advice from the Chief Medical Officers, who now collectively agree that it is possible to lift the ban on retail sales. I and the Secretary of State for Health have accepted this advice. I am placing a copy of the advice in the House Library today. Officials of my department will later today be consulting on draft proposals to lift in England the ban on retailing of beef on the bone. This includes lifting the ban on food prepared for direct sale to consumers in restaurants and other catering establishments. Similar consultations will be taking place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to lift the ban there also.
"As recommended by the Chief Medical Officers, the ban on the use of bones for manufacturing food products (including infant foods), which lies at the extreme end of BSE protection measures, will remain in place. This also has the effect of preserving explicit consumer choice.
"This lifting of the ban has been long awaited and I am delighted that it can now go ahead. The announcement will bring a welcome boost to the beef industry in what continue to be difficult times. I believe that we need to move forward as quickly as possible with the consultation on lifting the ban. Therefore, subject to the consent of the House, I propose to use the accelerated procedure for making the regulations to allow retail sales to take place before Christmas.
"Consultation will start today, with the aim that the amending regulations will take effect on Friday 17th December. These proposals will take effect in England only, but it is intended that similar legislation will be implemented in the other parts of the UK to lie same timetable. I know that enforcement authorities will wish to take note of my Statement today and of the Government's clear intention to implement lifting of the ban by 17th December".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We warmly welcome the intention to lift the ban. My only sorrow is that my noble friend Lord Stanley is no longer a Member of this House. He would have been very pleased to hear this news. His persistence and his hard fight on this issue were well known.
754
This ban has damaged our beef industry worldwide. Without it, beef farmers would have been spared two years of unnecessary suffering, at a cost, I believe, of some £170 million. Good butchers would not have been harassed and threatened with prosecution. Ministers would have been spared the humiliation of arguing that our beef was safe abroad while declaring it deadly at home.
I have a few questions for the Minister. First, will she confirm that when the ban was imposed two years ago it was only one of three options that were put forward by the scientific advisers? There were perfectly sensible alternatives which the Government chose not to pursue. The first option was the publication of research findings and risk assessments on beef on the bone so that consumers could decide for themselves.
Secondly, my concern is now with the ramifications of the decision. Will the Government compensate, even over a short period, those involved during the past two years, for example, with the disposal of beef bones? Will the Government pledge not to prosecute those who bought or sold beef on the bone as recently as last weekend in Cornwall?
Will the Minister confirm that, from the date of the lifting of the ban, UK producers of gelatine, soups, stock cubes and so on will be able to use British bones? The Statement referred to reservations, particularly regarding infant food, but did not make the position clear in regard to the items I have mentioned.
Will the Minister also confirm that private killings of beef will be free of the restrictions? Will she also confirm that, even if the consultations that are to take place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not confirm the Government's suggestion of the lifting of the ban, England will still go ahead with lifting it?
Will the Minister accept that the retention of the ban on beef on the bone has added to the difficulty of farmers in their negotiations to gain an overall lifting of the beef ban, particularly in France and Germany? Finally—and this point is not directed at the Minister personally—do Ministers regret not listening rather more to some of the views expressed by noble Lords in this House in January 1998?
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches warmly welcome the lifting of the beef ban. We have certainly pressed hard, both here and in another place, for this outcome in order that negotiations on the consumption of British beef abroad will have more coherence and we can speak from a position of greater strength.
I hope that now the Government's commitment will be to rebuild the export market as rapidly as they can. I gather that tomorrow the Prime Minister will hold what has been billed as a "beef summit". I hope that there will be more behind the summit than merely fine words. I hope that the Government will put in resources, in terms of both people and money, to promote British beef and help Britain regain its export markets.

755
I find the statement from the Conservative Benches slightly surprising, given that had it not been for so long a delay on the part of the Conservative government when they were in power, we should not have been in this position in the first place. The problem of BSE would never have taken off in the way that it did.
Finally, I should like to point out on behalf of the farming community that this is not only "a welcome boost in difficult times"; it is an absolute essential in impossible times. I note from an article in The Times that farmers' income, particularly that of hill farmers, has been reduced by 35 per cent. Two years ago, hill farmers received on average £7,500. Today, their income is about £2,000. It has more than halved. This decision is far more than a welcome boost. It is an essential lifeline.
I am sure that Members of this House and members of the British public will support our home farmers. I hope that the Prime Minister will take the opportunity tomorrow to push the point with British shops, particularly supermarkets, to make sure that they stock British beef, that their customers know very well which beef is British and that they look forward to eating British beef for Christmas.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses who have spoken. Our pleasure at lifting the ban should be underpinned by the fact that the advice of the Chief Medical Officers is that it can now be lifted. That reflects the reduction and decline in the epidemic of BSE. It is the reduction in the prevalence of BSE among the beef herd that we should be most grateful for.
The advice is there, both the scientific advice which has come from the figures which have been published from the Oxford Unit and the medical advice which is now uniformly shared by all four CMOs. We have always said that when the advice was there we would proceed to lift the ban. That is why I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that there has been no humiliation of Ministers in saying that they have accepted the medical advice. The advice is in terms of the perceived risk of a disease that, as we all know, has been highly erratic and invariably fatal.
We should all be particularly pleased today because the reduction in the epidemic is such that there is unanimity among the CMOs. The risk has declined to such a small figure that it is appropriate for consumers now to have choice.
On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, throughout the process all the advice received and options put to the Government have been clearly put forward. The SEAC advice on the level of risk was published, as was the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, who was then Sir Kenneth Calman. Equally, when the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, Liam Donaldson, came through it was published and made explicit. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, we have had some debate and Members of the House have taken a great interest in it. I hope noble
756
Lords will agree that throughout the debate the attitude of the Government has been that it was prudent to ascertain whether we could wait for the figures from the Oxford Unit and allow the other CMOs the opportunity to examine them so that we could take the matter forward on a UK basis. That attitude was soundly based and it allows us to avoid any confusion for the industry and the consumer. That was an important area of policy.
The noble Baroness asked me about manufactured and processed products. As I said earlier when we discussed the issue, the advice from the CMO, which has been endorsed by his fellow CMOs, is that the retention of the ban on the use of bones for manufactured and processed products would be prudent. In that area, as in others, we intend to continue to take the CMO's advice. Therefore, the lifting of the ban will concern the retail sale direct to the consumer in butchers' shops, restaurants and other catering outlets.
As for prosecutions, it is not a matter for Ministers but for the enforcement authorities. As I said in the Statement, in future enforcement authorities who decide on the action they take will wish to take note of the Statement today. But all along the policy has been based on medical advice. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to suggest to enforcement authorities that they take retrospective advice when we were acting in different circumstances when the analysis of the risk was different.
I agree that the issues of the export of beef under the date-based export scheme and beef on the bone are separate because the date-based export scheme only applies to de-boned beef in particular animals under 30 months, born after 1996. However, it can do nothing but good for the export industry that the decline in the epidemic in this country is reflected in the ability to lift the restrictions. I know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, like my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, is anxious to do everything he can to help build up the markets overseas for the export of British beef. They have been desperately damaged and we know the effect it has had on the industry.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, the noble Baroness will recall that the Government reacted to the previous advice in a more prudent way than your Lordships' House would have wished. Now, on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, the Government have removed the ban. We welcome that. Can we infer from that that it is now the Government's view that in the period ahead of us the incidence of CJD is unlikely to increase significantly from its current relatively modest levels?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not believe that the advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee as to predictions of the scale of the epidemic of CJD has changed in this period because of the uncertainty about incubation times.
What has changed in terms of the Anderson data is the predictions of the possibility of pre-clinically diagnosed beef going into the food chain. So there are

757
two separate issues. The decision that has been taken today, based on the CMO's advice, as was the original decision to impose the ban, reflects on the issue of whether the risk of allowing the sale of beef on the hone has diminished to such a point that it can be left to individual consumer choice. I do not believe one can infer from that any change in the view of the epidemiology of variant CJD in the human population. That still has all the uncertainties that we have known in the past.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, first, like all Members of the House, I welcome I he announcement of the lifting of the ban on beef on the bone. However, it seems to me that we have heard for far too long the consequences of mad cow disease. We have perhaps been critical in apportioning blame too often. That is not to say that difficulties do not exist; they do. We are not out of the wood, but the announcement shows that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
The Government have tried, in spite of criticism, not to make an extremely difficult situation even worse. I believe that they will now be proved right in waiting for unity to exist among the Chief Medical Officers before taking the final decision.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He was something of a lone voice in the past on Questions in this House in supporting the Government's view that it was sensible to take the few extra weeks to ascertain whether we could achieve unanimity on the basis of the data to be published. I believe it is in the interests of both consumers and the beef industry to have achieved that unanimity. I am grateful for my noble friend's comments.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I wish to say how grateful I am for this better-late-than-never move. In future when I have English guests I shall be able to carve the sirloin off the bone, which is so much better.
However, it has taken a little time. The nanny option was the one taken. At the time, as the noble Baroness on the Conservative Front Bench said, there was the option to inform the public. We should trust the public more. When the odds against the disease are in the millions, the public are capable of deciding. After this decision, perhaps the Minister agrees with me that we should tell the public what the risk is and leave it to them.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I have been in this job for only a few months, but it has not taken me long to find that you cannot do right by doing wrong with food safety. You are liable to criticism equally for being cavalier with dangers, however remote and, on other occasions, for over-implementing. It is sensible to rely on the professional advice. That is what we have done over the advice of the Chief Medical Officer. We must of course have proportionality—that is correct—but even when risks are remote we must take into account that the risk, however remote, is of a disease that can be fatal. It has invariably been fatal and we were dealing with it with variant CJD.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I am sure that when the Minister of Agriculture originally made his decision, which he said was marginal based on the three options mentioned earlier, he acted far more prudently than was necessary in view of the infinitesimal risk. This ban has been in place far longer than it should have been. From what the Minister said, am I correct in understanding that the ban will be lifted throughout the United Kingdom on 17th December, or will Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland still have the opportunity to opt out?
Bearing in mind the figures published today showing the catastrophic drop in farm income, what step will the Government take to help? I do not believe that the complacent attitude taken by the Government during the debate on that part of the gracious Speech concerned with agriculture gave any encouragement that something would happen in the near future not only in relation to beef but to pigs, sheep and milk. Today every agricultural product is in crisis and yet the Government appear to be saying that no further help will be offered.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, probably as early as tomorrow we shall have an opportunity to debate at further length some of the broader issues of support for the agricultural industry, which is experiencing grave difficulties, as the noble Lord points out, and for which a number of initiatives involving substantial sums of aid have been taken by the Government, while looking in the longer term particularly to the restructuring of Community support for agriculture.
As to the ban itself, the timetable that I have outlined relates to the English legislation for which MAFF Ministers will be responsible. But my understanding is that the same timetable is achievable and will be aimed for by each of the other authorities. It is hoped that we shall all be consulting as from this evening and coming to the successful end point of that consultation at the same time. As has been made clear in the past, legislative competence in these areas lies with the devolved authorities and each in turn must take through its own legislation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as one of those who was vehemently and volubly opposed to the original imposition of the ban, I welcome the fact that it has now been lifted, and I hope that it will remain so. My recollection—perhaps my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—is that the scientific advice was never that a ban on beef on the hone should be imposed. Is it not a fact that the real reason for the ban was to persuade the European Union to lift its ban on British beef? Even that now seems to have backfired since the French have used it in order to continue their illegal ban on British beef. I hope that in future my noble friends will be very careful about the imposition of restrictions to suit our European Union partners.
Perhaps I may put a question that has already been asked. Why have the English had to wait for Scotland and Wales to come into line? The English always seem to get the neck of the chicken or beef. Surely, this is a

759
case of the tail wagging the dog and it is about time we had less of it. The only people in Britain today who appear to be discriminated against are the English. I hope that in future the Government will be hesitant about the imposition of bans when the risk is minuscule. It simply makes the Government look foolish, not in the eyes of Members of this House or another place but the country generally.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who I know has taken a good deal of interest in the subject over the years. I do not believe that the English have been discriminated against and suffered during this period. Certainly, English beef producers will benefit from the fact that we have taken time to ensure that we achieve a UK approach to the problem. Frankly, I do not believe that it is sensible policy-making to show, for the sake of gesture, that it is possible to go it alone, with the uncertainties, difficulties and anomalies faced by consumers as a result of different regimes in different parts of the United Kingdom. I know that like others in this House my noble friend believes that the policy adopted on public health grounds was over-cautious. He is quite right that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee made an assessment of risk rather than a policy proposal. The policy decision was that of Ministers, but it was taken on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer. That advice was maintained by his successor when he first considered this matter.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that her announcement will be welcomed throughout Wales and that Welsh farmers regard this as a British issue to be dealt with as quickly as possible in all four parts of the United Kingdom? Does she also recognise that there is now available the very elusive jewel of the united support of the whole industry? This would be a very fine moment for the Government to take the initiative to ensure that the export marketing of British beef is addressed as a high priority.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that to go forward with the whole of the British beef industry gives us an advantage. I am grateful for the noble Lord's question. He is absolutely right. To have the platform of strong public health controls, and the confidence of our public health advisers that the safety of beef across the United Kingdom is now such that even this precautionary measure on one particular element can be lifted, gives us an important base on which to try to rebuild the export markets that have been so devastatingly damaged. I point out again that this market has been devastatingly damaged not by the policy decisions of the Government but by the reality of the BSE epidemic.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House welcomes the Statement repeated by the noble Baroness. Does she agree that as a nation we have determined the safety of British beef and beef on the bone and expended an enormous
760
amount of effort, funds and cattle to contain BSE in the hope of controlling and eventually eradicating it, although the noble Baroness will be aware that we have not yet reached that stage? Does the Minister agree it is appropriate, now that we have convinced ourselves, laboriously, that beef on the bone is no longer a risk, to mount a determined scientific and commercial programme to promote our beef to those countries which still refuse to accept it? There are many such countries, many of which are members of the Commonwealth, and it is necessary to put the scientific evidence before them in a determined way.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. It was that gruelling and well-founded scientific advice that led to the European Union lifting its controls on the export of British beef. Sadly, we have had to go through the whole process again with the French, but we have done so on the basis of the evidence that is available. We have nothing to hide in terms of the safety of British beef. We have nothing to hide in terms of labelling or people knowing what is being bought because we believe that our beef is among the safest in the world. We have been exercising that operation so far as concerns Europe. I agree with the noble Lord that we need also to look wider than Europe, to the other traditional export markets. I think in particular of South Africa. There are other parts of the Commonwealth and other countries.
The decline in the epidemic—as the noble Lord says it is not completely finished—allows us now to take forward that exercise on the basis of clear scientific advice and progress.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, this is the end of a long, sad story for the industry. I join with those who hope that the Government, and that department upon which I do not always look with favour, will think hard about what they can do.
I wish to ask the Minister one question. Is the noble Baroness satisfied that beef coming from European sources is subjected to the same stringent minute and detailed examination that British beef has now stood up to?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord slightly obliquely. Other countries with the same prevalence of BSE have to be subject to exactly the same stringent processes as this country in terms of BSE. Special regulations apply to countries with high levels of that epidemic.
On general issues of food safety, we should rightly demand a level playing field between ourselves and other beef producers.

Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill [H.L.]
5.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

761
This is a very short Bill. It is apparently only the second piece of legislation promoted by a Law Officer in over 50 years. The first was also a very short Bill and seemed to have as its only purpose the settling of the level of remuneration for any Law Officer who happened to be a Member of this House and was plainly, therefore, a piece of legislation of the utmost importance.
When the Crown Prosecution Service was established no provision was made for a body to inspect the CPS. There has been a non-statutory inspectorate within the CPS since 1996. The chief inspector and his staff are all at present either permanent members of the CPS or on loan to the CPS and therefore report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Those arrangements for the inspectorate did not guarantee independence. In opposition, we made a commitment that we should introduce an independent element into the inspectorate. The Glidewell Report, which is an admirable document for which I believe that we should all feel continuing gratitude to Sir lain and his colleagues, was published on 1st June 1998. The firm conclusion was that it is essential to retain and expand the role of the CPS inspectorate. The report acknowledged, as I am happy to do, the good work currently being carried out by the existing inspectorate. It recommended introducing an independent element to the inspectorate by way of a part-time independent chairman. Our response to this aspect of Sir Iain's report is to go significantly further.
This simple Bill establishes an inspectorate which is external to the CPS. Despite the fact that the Bill is simple, its importance is indicated by a speakers' list which demonstrates that every speaker is a Front Bench spokesman.
The chief inspector will report to me as Attorney-General. In preparation for these changes a new chief inspector was appointed late last year to plan the transition. At present he works within the infrastructure of the CPS, but is effectively autonomous. When the Bill becomes law and is implemented the financing of the inspectorate will be separated from the CPS and it will be mainly located in separate accommodation. The chief inspector will acquire management responsibility for all the functions of the inspectorate, again separate from the CPS.
Once the Bill is in force, the CPS inspectorate will enjoy the same status as other criminal justice inspectorates; namely, the inspectorates of prisons, probation, magistrates' courts and constabulary. The existing CPS inspectorate has already established good links with the other inspectorates and I very much look forward to its involvement in joint inspections on matters of common interest in the future.
The Bill achieves its purpose in a short and simple way. Clause 1 requires me to appoint a person as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the CPS. It allows the chief inspector to appoint inspectors and other staff to assist him in carrying out the work. Finally, it allows for the expenses of the inspectorate to be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
762
It is anticipated that there will be a significant "lay" element to the statutory inspectorate. By this I mean that the inspectors will not be drawn simply from the CPS as at present. Instead the chief inspector is currently conducting open competitions. That is very important, as I hope that noble Lords agree. The purpose is that a number of people with recent relevant experience in the private sector will be recruited on short-term contracts as inspectors. Such persons will be able to bring a fresh approach to the issues facing the CPS. I would welcome it if those who had practised as defence lawyers wished to put themselves forward in that open competition with a view to varying the composition of the possible inspectorate. The inspectorate is also exploring the possibility of introducing an additional element of more local public participation in the inspection of the different areas of the CPS.
Clause 2 sets out the functions. The chief inspector's primary function is to inspect the operation of the CPS. He will also be obliged to report to me on any matter connected with the operation of the service that I refer to him. He will submit an annual report to me on the operation of the CPS and I shall lay that report before Parliament. That is to say, it will be published automatically, which again is a matter of importance. It is also of importance, in my experience, that there should not be unconscionable delay between the submission of the report and its publication; and such delays in my experience sometimes occurred before May 1997 when there were hostile or critical reports by the Chief Inspector of Prisons.
Clause 2 makes provision for the chief inspector to designate another inspector to act in his place should he be absent or unable to act.
When Sir Iain's report was written, the existing inspectorate was concerned almost exclusively with matters of casework quality. The inspectorate has now broadened its approach and has a significantly wider remit. In future its inspection process will not be confined to casework but will include a substantial number of non-legal themes covering management and administration issues which support the casework process. The reports will therefore provide a more comprehensive assessment of overall performance.
I foresee that the statutory inspectorate will continue to develop within the framework contained in this Bill. Its work will include inspection on a geographic basis, thematic reviews and joint work with other criminal justice inspectorates. The importance of the thematic review cannot be overstated. I refer, for instance, to the excellent work of Sir David Ramsbotham in the prison context, for example in his thematic review of suicide in the prison estate, and the subsequent review he has begun to undertake on the problem of the remand prisoner across the whole estate. That aspect of its work is particularly important and reflects the view of the Government that the criminal justice system must operate on a more coherent basis.
Clause 3 of the Bill is the Short Title and commencement provision.

763
This simple Bill will place the CPS inspectorate on a sound independent footing and will impose specific statutory duties on the chief inspector. I commend the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am pleased to respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, by stating that we are broadly in support of the Bill. It assists in the implementation of reforms following recommendations made in a report on the review of the Crown Prosecution Service, chaired by Sir lain Glidewell. However, there are a number of points which we would like clarified and to which we may return in Committee.
The Bill is intended to facilitate the important recommendation in the Glidewell Report that the CPS inspectorate should become more independent from the CPS itself. That independence is to be realised by accommodating the inspectorate separately from the CPS, although it should be noted that the Glidewell Report does not focus upon accommodation for the inspectorate as being the key to a more independent and robust body; rather the staffing, internal or otherwise, together with the functions of the inspectorate are recommended as the focus for change.
As with most positions within an organisation, in particular those which are pivotal to the effective and efficient running of that organisation, the profile and the role of the chief inspector are key. I refer to his skills, expertise and experience together with his ability to be objective while fully understanding the internal workings of the CPS.
I believe that we would all agree that the Glidewell Report rightly pays considerable attention to the position of the chief inspector, his credentials and his relationship with the staff of the inspectorate and with the Director of Public Prosecutions and his staff. There is clearly an important balance to be struck, as highlighted in the Glidewell Report, between maintaining an appropriate degree of independence on the part of the inspectorate and having the benefit of in-house expertise, knowledge and understanding of the CPS.
I note that in a Written Answer dated 30th November 1998, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, proposed that, in addition to appointing an independent chief inspector, there should be a non-executive advisory board, which would include a lay member, and that inspectorate staff would include both CPS staff on secondment as well as some individuals from outside the CPS. The noble and learned Lord today referred to the need for a balance. We are pleased as regards open competition and we welcome his reference to a fresh approach.
The mix of in-house CPS staff and individuals employed from outside should, as the Glidewell Report recommends, provide a good balance, depending on how the internal workings of the
764
inspectorate are structured and thereby how well the individuals work together in practice. The provision of separate accommodation at a cost of £2.5 million, as set out in the explanatory notes, alone will not provide the panacea for a more independent inspectorate. However, we accept that it will help.
I turn to the functions of the chief inspector. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his Written Answer of 30th November 1998, proposed a wider remit than at present to include performance efficiency and effectiveness so that the inspectorate can examine not only the quality of casework decisions and casework decision-making processes, but also any other areas of CPS performance where they impact on issues surrounding casework.
A stark example given in the Glidewell Report relates to the effective use of CPS resources and it is hoped that it will be addressed with the benefit of this broadened remit. It is the finding that:
"the most senior lawyers are now expected to devote the majority of their time to management. We estimate that the top 400 lawyers in the CPS spend less than a third of their time on casework and advocacy".
It is hoped that in a quest for a favourable mention in the annual report to be submitted by the inspectorate as a consequence of this Bill, one form of unnecessary bureaucracy is not replaced by another.
That brings me to a further point for clarification. As regards Clause 2, will the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, draw up the annual inspection programme and therefore set the parameters of the report? Furthermore, will the Director of Public Prosecutions have any opportunity to assist in the selection of subject matter for the annual inspection programme? Will he be afforded the chance to comment on the draft inspection reports before a final version is forwarded to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn?
A further important finding in the Glidewell Report relates to the lack of co-ordination between the various types of internal inspection and it is therefore hoped that this will be corrected with a broader remit. In addition, the Glidewell Report refers to the possibility of combining the work of the CPS inspectorate with the work of inspectorates in other parts of the criminal justice system. Given the Government's proposal for an independent inspectorate separate from the CPS, this suggestion would, I believe, make economic sense and be a practical possibility, albeit one which merits consideration in the future.
In conclusion, clearly the underlying aim of this Bill is to aid further development of the CPS inspectorate, thereby improving public accountability and so build public confidence. We are keen to support that aim.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we on these Benches give a qualified welcome to the Bill. It is short, as the noble and learned Lord said. It is indeed modest. Its proposal builds upon what exists and it is interesting that no more expenditure is envisaged, save for the housing of the inspectorate in a separate building.

765
The prime recommendation in the Glidewell Report has not been followed. The Government considered two models. The first was an inspectorate under an independent chairman on a part-time basis with a board consisting of half lay members and half professionals from within the CPS. The Government adopted a model much closer to that put forward by the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Dame Barbara Mills. It means that the chief inspector will be appointed by the Attorney-General and will be responsible to him. I welcome the independence that that gives. I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in asking whether the Attorney-General will exercise even more control over the inspectorate by approving the annual inspection programme and its content, which was envisaged in the model of the former DPP.
The areas of responsibility have been outlined. The existing inspectorate is concerned with casework quality. I understand that the new inspectorate will be engaged in financial auditing and management matters. I hope that the additional lay members who are to be appointed to the inspectorate are not simply the great and the good but are people with genuine experience of auditing and management in addition to those who have a legal background.
Presumably, as a result of the government briefing, on 11th November the Daily Telegraph suggested that inspectors would investigate miscarriages of justice and could call for controversial cases to be reopened. I should find that an extraordinary extension of the powers of the inspectorate. I hope we shall hear from the Attorney-General that no such role is envisaged.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to bureaucracy. I fear an ever-extending and expanding bureaucracy. The Director of Public Prosecutions now has a chief executive and staff, and each of the 43 CPS areas, created from the previous 13 areas, has its own chief Crown prosecutor and area business manager, no doubt each with his own staff.
According to the Glidewell Report, the administration costs alone were £222 million. However, I noted that in the Attorney-General's statement of 28th June, only seven days after publication of the. Glidewell Report, those costs were said to be £300 million. Can the increase be explained? Where does the £80 million come from? Does it represent prosecution costs paid to counsel by way of fees and witness expenses which are not cash-limited? It would be useful to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General of the proportion of administrative staff to professional staff—those engaged in case work and representation in court—because we are concerned that there is an imbalance between administrative and professional staff. We are certainly promised more bureaucracy in the Court Service's consultation document which deals with a similar area and has just been published. Case management officers will be established as well as judges appointed to hand out fixed-penalty fines to lawyers who fail to cope with the protocols and so on. The bureaucracy in the area of the criminal justice system is growing all the time.
766
I regret to say that, despite all the administration, the present product of the CPS is poor. That must be faced. I say so with regret because I have many friends and colleagues who are involved with the CPS and I hope that I speak for them and not against them. It is not their fault. The CPS has been hopelessly under-funded and overloaded from the very beginning of its existence. Successive directors have not been able to win the funding which is so obviously required.
It is a fact that the most junior member of chambers is at an advantage in a magistrates' court when dealing with a CPS advocate because such is the pressure of work upon that advocate that he is ready to plea bargain cases away. Yesterday I sought the reaction of one of the foot soldiers of the CPS, in the court where I happened to be, to the institution of a statutory inspectorate. His response was to say, "Oh God, not another form to fill in." That is how it is perceived.
I recall the then Attorney-General's Written Answer on 28th June in which he announced:
"CPS Trial Units will also be established [which] will he responsible for all prosecutions in the Crown Court. They will provide a means by which CPS lawyers can focus on the most serious cases and a structural mechanism through which CPS Higher Court Advocates will be able to exercise their rights of audience to the benefit of the justice system".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/99; col. 12.]
However, the unfortunate fact is that the CPS is under pressure now. On Thursday we are to debate the proposals for more trials to take place in the magistrates' court—perhaps up to 18,000 trials. Under that sort of pressure, the present structure of the CPS will collapse. One need not take it from me. One can take it from any circuit judge or defence solicitor. Forests disappear in the correspondence that takes place trying to get information out of the CPS in serious cases in the Crown Court. That pressure on the CPS contributes largely to the Crown Court having,
"the perception of a fragmented and incoherent system, with frustration, wasted time and cancelled hearings".
That was the comment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the Court Service consultation document the other day.
It has been expressed more elegantly that the Crown Court is a system perceived to have the characteristics of "expense, incoherence and opacity." I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will recognise the author of those words. "Balance" is his favourite word. It is conveyed always with an air of mildness, modesty and sweet reasonableness which so characterises the noble and learned Lord. In that area the balance is heavily tipped against the efficiency and efficacy of the CPS as part of our criminal justice system.
I hope only that the Bill may result in the appointment of inspectors who will bring home the shortcomings and the immediate need for more funds from government to restore the equilibrium. At the end of the day it is essential that the Crown Prosecution Service be independent of government, fearless and able to exercise its own judgment.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord commented that many of the speakers in this short debate are Front Bench spokesmen. I want him to know that that is a compliment to him, because we always take him very seriously and it does not matter whether the Bill is short or long.
There is a general consensus on and a qualified welcome for the need to make provision for the inspection of the Crown Prosecution Service. We on this side of the House certainly welcome that initiative. As my noble friend has just pointed out, that will give us an opportunity to highlight some of our concerns.
This is an important initiative following the recommendations of the Glidewell Report. The Crown Prosecution Service is comparatively new and it has gone through difficult times in its short history.
When I was appointed a magistrate some years ago, the police service was responsible for prosecution in our courts. I believe that the decision of the government of that day to establish a prosecution authority independent of the police was correct. It was a difficult birth for the CPS because we knew then the police prosecutors were not too happy to give up their prosecuting role. That, however, is history.
It could not be an easy task for the service, which has to deal with more than 1.4 million cases in the magistrates' courts and around 125,000 cases in Crown Courts. That was its case load during 1998–99. Therefore, we should not underestimate the contribution of the previous directors of the service, including that of Dame Barbara Mills QC. They take much credit for steering the service through a difficult time.
Many of the Glidewell reforms have been implemented. A chief executive has been appointed and the service has now been reorganised to 42 areas in line with similar arrangements for the police and the Probation Service. Again, we should not underestimate the logistics of such an exercise. The director, David Calvert-Smith QC, and the staff should be congratulated for taking the reforms in their stride. They have ensured that confidence in the ability of the CPS to deliver has not lessened.
The reorganisation means greater autonomy for the 42 areas against much bureaucratic control which existed previously. There will now be a sharp focus on the core business of prosecuting, placing greater emphasis on the more serious cases and providing greater separation of management from legal work, greater autonomy for the areas and better prospects for the staff. We certainly should like to see those objectives met.
There are HM inspectors for the constabulary, prisons and the Probation Service. The CPS should not be an exception. There is a need for more and not less accountability. Crime and criminality are higher on the Government's agenda and public confidence is shaped by the service that the criminal justice agencies provide. Public confidence will undoubtedly increase if there is a fair and independent review of the operation
768
of the CPS. Even if that is the only reason, it is good enough to establish that accountability independent of the Government and the CPS.
The inspectorate which exists at present within the CPS published a report on 26 branches as well as two thematic reviews. The inspection programmes involved the scrutiny of over 6,500 cases. The inspections team found a consistently high standard of decision-making by branch staff. However, that does not mean that it could not do better. The team agreed with the decisions taken in over 97 per cent of the cases and with the advice given in 95 per cent of the cases submitted by the police before charge. That is a formidable record. However, those were the findings of the inspectorate. There is a difference in perception by the legal profession of the effectiveness of the CPS. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord would confirm that the present arrangement of the inspectorate will continue but that it will now be placed on a statutory basis.
It would be useful to know what staffing arrangements are envisaged for the proposed chief inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service. Provision is made in the Bill before us for the chief inspector to designate an inspector to discharge his function during any period when he is absent or unable to act. Do we take it that the chief inspector will have a number of inspectors working under him? It would be helpful to know how many inspectors the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has in mind.
I am grateful for the assurance of the noble and learned Lord that any appointment will be properly advertised. In the past that has not been the case in regard to a number of appointments. I make no criticism of the present incumbent because he joined the service at a difficult time and he has provided valuable leadership. It is for the Government to ensure that their equal opportunity policy demands that positions are open to all. I understand that currently the CPS has, in the inspectorate, one black employee in the administrative grade.
I welcome the provision whereby the Attorney-General may refer to the inspector any matter connected with the operation of the service. There is also a provision that any report prepared will be laid before Parliament by the Attorney-General. Again, we welcome that, but often in the past many inspectors' reports, for example reports on prisons, have taken months before Parliament has had sight of them. Of course, the Attorney-General, must be congratulated on the way in which he ensured that such reports were not delayed when he was the Minister responsible for prisons.
Does the noble and learned Lord consider it appropriate for there to be a time-scale by which any reports submitted to him should be published and that his own response to a report should be time limited? After all, the system is designed to build public confidence in the inspectorate. It is too easy to put uncomfortable reports at the bottom of the tray. A time limit would ensure that that will not happen.

769
The CPS has had its difficulties. At present, its equal opportunity policies are being examined by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). I understand that the CRE is minded to undertake a formal investigation into the Crown Prosecution Service.
Now that power has been devolved to 42 areas, it is important that the service of the inspector is also available to the director of the CPS. Why should he not be able to ask the inspector to investigate matters which concern him about the operation of the service? He could, for example, have asked the inspector to investigate the equal opportunity policies of the CPS. That would be helpful, as a good tool of management, and it would enable the director to improve matters, particularly now that he has responsibility for 42 divisions.
Overall, there is much good in what is proposed. However, the success of the CPS will be judged by its independence. We must always ensure that its independence in the exercise of its own legal judgment is never sacrificed. For that to happen would smack of it being a tool of control by central government and that would undermine the process of justice. I am sure that the Attorney-General will never be part of such a process, but we must be vigilant because, from time to time, power fluctuates from one government to another.
6.12 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, we have already heard two expert witnesses from the Liberal Democrat Benches as well as an informed and pertinent speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, so I shall be brief. I speak as a layman with nothing like the experience of either of my noble friends.
I welcome the report by Sir lain Glidewell. Reading it as a layman, it appeared to me to be a report of robust common sense. I also welcome the speed of the response of the Government in bringing forward the legislation so promptly.
There is no doubt that the CPS has had its image problems. Within the legal profession it is seen as a poor relation, as my noble and learned friend indicated. In the past, to the general public it has often seemed remote, accident prone, bureaucratic and inefficient.
The Bill does not follow the Glidewell proposals exactly, but it clarifies three key relationships: first, between the CPS and the local communities; secondly, between the CPS and its own inspectorate; and, finally, between the CPS, government and Parliament. All three clarifications are welcome.
I believe that the warning by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford about bureaucracy and costs is one that needs to be looked at and answered. Have we really slain the bureaucratic dragon?
In an earlier statement by the Attorney-General my eye was caught by the comment that the modernisation of the public services needs to develop a cohesive and coherent approach to policy, with agencies and departments working together for the benefit of the community as a whole. In reading those remarks, they
770
seem close to the ideals set out by the House of Lords Committee on the Public Service on which I had the pleasure of serving under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn.
In terms of good governance, I believe that the Bill points us in the right direction. As paragraph 28 of the report says:
"public confidence in any organisation is greatly enhanced if that organisation has an efficient and effective inspectorate system".
That must be especially so when dealing with the criminal justice system.
As my noble friend Lord Dholakia has indicated, this Bill puts into place another piece whereby each part of the criminal justice system has its own inspectorate. We welcome the commitment to greater openness and improved communications, particularly communications with victims of crime. My noble friend Lord Thomas referred to plea bargaining. Victims are often left in the dark about that aspect. Better communications are most welcome.
The warnings about underfunding and overloading have to be taken seriously. All in all we believe that this Bill, along with the new appointments to the CPS, give the opportunity not only for a fresh approach, but also for a fresh start. Last night in his speech, to which my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has already referred—I think with approval—the Attorney-General warned of a criminal justice system too far removed from the public. Indeed, he said that it was typified by expense, incoherence and opacity. As a layman I agree with him. I wish him well in his commitment to massive change in that system. A radical and reforming Attorney-General, as I believe he is, needs wise counsel and candid friends. We aim to provide both at the Committee stage of the Bill and in other measures that form part of his reform programme in the year ahead.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, at this stage of a Second Reading debate it is customary to admire the perspicacious contributions made by all speakers— and I do so.
I have nothing to add to the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lady Buscombe about the general reaction of the Opposition to the Bill. In winding up I want merely to raise one question with the noble and learned Lord. It relates to the words in Clause 2(1)(a) and (b) of the Bill. Clause 2(1) states:
"The Chief Inspector shall—

(a) inspect or arrange for the inspection of the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service,

(b) report to the Attorney General on any matter connected with the operation of the Service which the Attorney General refers to him".

In my submission, those words are widely cast. The word "operation" in Clause 2(1)(a) and the words "on any matter" in Clause 2(1)(b) seem to me to include both the particular and the general. In other words, they may involve a thematic matter or a particular case.

771
I wish to draw to the attention of the noble and learned Lord the latter matter. How will Clause 2(1)(a) and (b) affect the existing constitutional relationship between the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions? To remind your Lordships what that relationship is I respectfully refer your Lordships to Chapter 13 of Sir fain Glidewell's report entitled Accountability, where your Lordships will find an excellent summary of the current constitutional position which is based on the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. I shall be as brief as I can.
In Section 3(1) the Act states:
"The Director shall discharge [his] functions … under the superintendence of the Attorney General".
In 1979 the then Attorney-General, Sir Michael Havers, said in a Commons Answer,
"My responsibility for superintendence of the duties of director does not require me to exercise day-to-day control and specific approval of every decision he takes. The Director makes many decisions in the course of his duties which he does not refer to me but, nevertheless, I am still responsible for his actions in the sense that I am answerable in the House for what he does. Superintendence means that I must have regard to the overall prosecution policy which he pursues".
In 1986, after the 1985 Act came into force, Sir Michael Havers in another Commons Answer stated:
"I intend to adopt the proposals set out in the White Paper on an Independent Prosecution Service for England and Wales. I shall therefore remain answerable in Parliament for decisions or actions that I or the Director of Public Prosecutions takes on prosecution matters and for the policy that is applied by the Crown Prosecution Service in the handling of particular cases".
Then in a speech in another place in 1998 the then Attorney-General, Mr (now Sir) John Morris, said:
"I would not expect to answer to the House for the nitty-gritty of each and every one of the 1.3 million cases conducted annually by the prosecuting authorities that I superintend".
In paragraph 12 of Chapter 13, Sir lain summarises the position:
"Thus the Attorney-General's practice has not changed. This long-established limitation on the extent of his accountability to Parliament obviously limits the DPP's accountability to Parliament through him. The extent of the autonomy which we are proposing should be given to the newly appointed CCPs reinforces our view that the DPP, while continuing to have overall accountability for the operation of the Service, should not personally be held responsible for a decision made in any individual case by a CCP or a member of his staff. The CCP will report on the decision to her [at the time it was Dame Barbara Mills; now it is 'him'] and she will report to the Attorney-General, but he in turn will not 'answer in Parliament for the intrinsic merits of' the particular decision".
To return to the Bill, in Clause 2(1)(c) it says,
"The Chief Inspector shall … submit an annual report to the Attorney-General on the operation of the Service";
and Clause 2(2) states:
"The Attorney-General shall lay before Parliament a copy of any report which he receives under subsection (1)(c)".
If there is a debate on that report, the noble and learned Lord will have to reply to observations made by Members of your Lordships' House, and indeed Members of another place, about its contents. They may contain observations on a specific case or on a range of specific cases. The noble and learned Lord
772
will no doubt wish to react to the observations made by the inspector on those cases. Does he see any conflict with that obligation and the nature of his constitutional relationship to the Director of Public Prosecutions as set out by Sir Iain Glidewell?
6.23 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome given to the Bill. I repeat that it goes a good deal further than the recommendations of Sir Iain Glidewell; in other words, it is taking the debate several steps further.
Perhaps I may deal first with the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I have read Chapter 13 on many occasions. It is an admirable, up-to-date and correct summary of the constitutional relationship. I do not see any difficulty between having an expanded inspectorate reporting in the way that the Bill requires and those constitutional responsibilities. We have to bear in mind that Sir lain Glidewell was the author not only of Chapter 13, which the noble Lord correctly cited quite extensively—that was most helpful—but also the author of the proposal that there ought to be an inspectorate. In the view of recent experience and public disquiet, we have rightly gone a good deal further.
A number of questions were asked. I can perhaps say something I might usefully have said earlier. Certainly, the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord McNally and Lord Dholakia, will recognise this. I am more than happy, as I have been on previous occasions, to listen to anything by way of suggested improvement following Second Reading. Some of these intricate questions are useful in terms of having discussion recorded as opposed to interfering with a simple Bill. It is how the inspectorate develops in practice that will be critically important.
I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Alone among the speakers he has previous convictions because he remains an unreconstructed member of the Bar. The product of the CPS is not poor. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has a closer working knowledge of what it actually does and was gracious enough to say that, struggling as it has been, it is in fact now being reinvigorated and remade under the leadership of David Calvert-Smith, an excellent DPP who has been in post for a very short time.
I go around, as does the Solicitor-General, as often as I can to CPS headquarters. The staff are first rate. They are committed to public service. They are working under difficult circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is quite right on that. They have been historically under-resourced. Their budget at the moment is of the order of £300 million. That is a small segment of the criminal justice budget. But they are good people. The criticisms from the judiciary and the police are now rarely to be seen in the newspapers because it is generally recognised that the quality of delivery has significantly increased—at a time, let us bear in mind, when the service has taken on significantly increased burdens, not least the proper burden laid upon it in consequence of Sir William

773
Macpherson's report following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Those further burdens are quite willingly accepted.
Reference was made to victims. This month, six pilot schemes are being started to see how the CPS can give a much better service to victims, by which I do not simply mean complainants. Witnesses are sometimes victims, and so are relatives of those who have been wounded, injured, burgled or stolen from. That has been taken on board by the CPS willingly and vigorously. It will give reasons as to charges or reductions in charges. That is a difficult, subtle, professional job of work. One must balance all sorts of deep sensitivities and, at the same time, try to run an efficient and effective service.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that there has been inequality and disparity in some cases between prosecution fees and fees available to the defence. That is a battle—a co-operative effort—in which I am presently engaged. Should your Lordships wish to return to that in the early months of next year, I am confident bat I shall be able to say that in that co-operative discussion more resource will have been made available for prosecution fees for the CPS. No one doubts that it has been under-resourced.
A number of questions were asked which I hope to answer briefly. The DPP will remain independent subject to supervision—the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is quite right—and not direction by me. That is as it should be. We do not want the sort of centralised prosecution system that rules by executive diktat with which we are all familiar in other jurisdictions.
What is to happen about the CPS inspectorate in terms of number? The noble Baroness asked how we envisage matters developing. We look to see an advisory committee. The chief inspector will bring forward proposals to me after discussion with his advisory committee. It is not my intention to set the parameters for annual reports. I look to the model which I found worked perfectly well when I was prisons Minister working with the Chief Inspector of Prisons and his colleagues.
In response to the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, I confirm that the Bill does give me the power to direct, if necessary. It is not anticipated that should be looking at a particular miscarriage of justice and saying, "Please investigate this." That is really a matter for other existing bodies, like the Police Complaints Authority, the Court of Appeal Criminal Division or the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
However, if, for example, questions were raised suggesting that there was institutionalised racism either throughout the service or in a particular area, I hope noble Lords would think it a proper exercise of the power given to me to require, if request were not enough, the chief inspector to carry out that sub-thematic report in a particular area. That is the intention, and that is the reason for the power being given. In response to the noble Baroness, whose speech
774
was most helpful, I can say that we would look to area programmes, thematic inspections and joint work with other inspectorates, as I indicated earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the ethnic mix. I am happy to be able to tell him in particular, and your Lordships more generally, that the recent case worker inspectorate selection exercises raised the number of those from ethnic minorities from one to three. That is not perfect, but the situation is a good deal better than it was.
As regards the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I can say that, at present, there are about 6,000 staff members, 2,000 of whom are lawyers. However, that is not to say that the other 4,000 are simply clerical workers; they are not. In fact, the vast majority of the non-legal staff are working as case workers—in other words, they are paralegals doing work of enormous importance. The system could not cope without them.
A few questions were asked about the number of inspectors anticipated. We would be looking to figures of the following order: 17 mainly legal inspectors; three business management inspectors—a specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—and six case worker inspectors. So there would be nine non-legal inspectors who would, of course, need the usual administrative and clerical back-up staff.
I do not believe that it has been a bureaucratic exercise to re-shape the CPS on the 42 areas. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested that it was bureaucracy run wild. It is not; it is devolved decentralisation. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, we will shortly have co-terminus areas for the police, the CPS and, quite soon, for the Probation Service. That is only sensible management. What we are hoping to get in the CPS is something that will be recognised locally as a public service, which is both known and transparent to the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised a fair point about time limits. Certainly, when I was prisons Minister, there was no hiding of a report under the bed, or waiting for a happy opportunity, like a recess, or even, in the old days, Ascot, especially on a Thursday.
What I used to do is something I propose to continue to do. Sir David's reports were put to the Prison Service headquarters where they were checked for factual accuracy. Once that had been done, they were sent to me with an action plan relating to recommendations, whether accepted or not. Those were published. I see no difficulty in that process. That is the sort of question I would be more than happy to discuss either formally or informally, with or without officials, so that we might have views further developed.
The question was specifically put: what would the chief inspector's practice be? If he were making criticism of the director's staff, or of the Chief Crown Prosecutor, I would anticipate—although I have not discussed this with him in detail—that he would, in the

775
ordinary Salmon way, put those criticisms to see whether there was a misunderstanding and ascertain whether there was a proper response. He would give those criticised the opportunity to respond. That is the ordinary, decent way to proceed on the basis of natural justice and the Salmon procedures.
By and large, I am grateful for the welcome given to the Bill. We have gone further than Sir lain. I believe that we have discharged our duty to be as open and as thorough as possible. I think that Sir lain was absolutely right when he said—I paraphrase—that the CPS will not develop in public confidence and support unless it is an open, accountable and rigorous inspectorate. An annual series of reports published and made available for debate in Parliament is a significant advance. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill [H.L.]
6.34 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill will enable the United Kingdom to fulfil its commitment to adopt and implement a strengthened nuclear safeguards system by bringing into effect in the United Kingdom a protocol additional to our existing nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which I will call the "IAEA", and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).
It is worth looking briefly at the background to the Bill. In 1970, the United Kingdom was one of the leading signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which I shall call "NPT", mainly because I cannot say the word "proliferation" with any facility. The treaty forms the cornerstone of global efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, and it is from this treaty that the United Kingdom's obligations and commitments flow.
As one of the methods of verifying that NPT signatories fulfil their basic obligations not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, non-nuclear weapon states have to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements with the IAEA that place all their nuclear material under safeguards. In essence, this means that the state must provide information to the IAEA on all its nuclear material and facilities, and IAEA inspectors are allowed access to facilities to check that material is not being diverted to clandestine nuclear weapons programmes. While nuclear weapon states, such as the United Kingdom, are not required by the NPT to have safeguards agreements, all five—that is, the UK, the United States, France, Russia and China—have so-called "voluntary-offer safeguards agreements". In the case of the United Kingdom, our voluntary offer safeguards agreement, signed in 1976, covers all our nuclear activities for civil purposes.
776
However, the need to strengthen this international nuclear safeguards system became clear when, after the Gulf War, Iraq was found to have been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme even though it had in force a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA. The international community has agreed that the IAEA needs to have additional information and rights of access to nuclear facilities and other relevant locations to give it an increased capability to detect undeclared nuclear activities. In order to provide the IAEA with these, states across the world are now in the process of negotiating and signing legally binding protocols additional to their safeguards agreements with the IAEA. The UK Additional Protocol was signed in Vienna on 22nd September 1998.
Our Additional Protocol requires the UK to provide information to the IAEA about nuclear and nuclear-related activities carried out for or in co-operation with, or otherwise relevant to non-nuclear weapon states. The information we provide, along with that gathered from other states under their additional protocols, will enable the IAEA to draw up a comprehensive picture of nuclear activity in non-nuclear weapons states. This will act as a strong deterrent to the development of clandestine nuclear weapons programmes, and should help IAEA to detect any suspicious activity at an early stage.
As of today, 45 states around the world have signed additional protocols, though only seven of these have entered into force. Other states which have signed are understood, like the United Kingdom, to be still in the process of putting into place the national laws that they need in order to be able to fulfil their obligations under their additional protocols. However, there are some, like Monaco and the Holy See, which have been able to sign and ratify the additional protocol on the same day. That is presumably because their problems are slightly less complicated than ours.
I should perhaps emphasise that the obligations in the Additional Protocol do not extend to our defence-related activities. As is the case with our existing safeguards agreement, these will remain outside the scope of IAEA oversight. This is, of course, essential for reasons of national security.
Although the legislation would impose new obligations and requirements on civil nuclear operators and the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom, they have been widely consulted and are supportive. In view of these consultations, and in the light of our experience of the Act implementing the original safeguards agreement in 1976, we expect voluntary co-operation on the part of those affected by the new measures. Indeed we are not aware of any prosecutions under the 1978 Act; those concerned have always acted responsibly and co-operated voluntarily with the department's safeguards office. In October this year the Department of Trade and Industry completed a voluntary declaration exercise—a pilot, so to speak—gathering the information which would be required by our Additional Protocol if it were already in force, to ensure that our procedures for gathering the information will be fully operational in

777
time for providing the first proper declarations. This voluntary declaration exercise, which provided the IAEA with an indication of the situation in the UK as of 31st December 1998, was sent to the IAEA on 27th October. The Government believe that these declarations are complete and consistent with the terms of the UK Additional Protocol.
The burden on business of these measures is minimal. We have placed a regulatory impact assessment in the Libraries of both Houses. It shows that the estimated total cost for businesses likely to be affected by the new safeguards measures would be of the order of £150,000 in the first year. That is minimal compared to the cost of existing safeguards measures, which is over £10 million per year for British Nuclear Fuels alone. The cost to small businesses involved in manufacturing or consultancy work which would be caught by the proposed legislation would be of the order of a few thousand pounds per year.
The Government believe that industry will continue to support these measures and will continue to provide all relevant information voluntarily on request. However, in order to ensure that the United Kingdom can fulfil its international obligations even if someone fails or refuses to provide information voluntarily, primary legislation is required. The legal powers and duties contained in this Bill are those necessary to enable the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations under our new Additional Protocol, and thus allow its entry into force.
The heart of the Bill is in Clauses 2 and 5. Clause 2 is there because much of the information the UK is required by the Additional Protocol to pass to the IAEA will not originate with the Government. Therefore this clause enables people to give relevant information to the Secretary of State unrestricted by any obligation of confidentiality or limit on disclosure which would otherwise inhibit them from doing so. The Government believe that the great majority of the information required by the IAEA from the UK will be given to the Secretary of State voluntarily by those who have it. However, there obviously needs to be a means of compelling people to provide information which the Government need so that the UK can fulfil its obligations under the Additional Protocol, even if they are unwilling to do so. Therefore Clause 2 also enables the Secretary of State to serve a notice on someone requiring them to give him relevant information, with a criminal sanction for non-compliance.
Clause 5—the other important clause—gives inspectors designated by the IAEA a right to enter various locations in accordance with the Additional Protocol, and to carry out the activities required by the Additional Protocol to be permitted at those locations. These activities are essentially designed to check information we and other countries have provided to the IAEA. The Bill makes it a criminal offence to obstruct an inspector in carrying out these functions, or to interfere with anything placed on land by an inspector in the course of exercising them.
778
The remaining clauses of the Bill deal, for the most part, with ancillary matters arising from Clauses 2 and 5. Clause 3 is necessary to enable the Secretary of State to identify those from whom he requires information. This clause empowers him to make regulations requiring persons to inform him if they carry out certain types of activity or are in a class of persons likely to have certain information he may need. The DTI has produced draft regulations to illustrate the types of powers that would be obtained in regulations made under this clause. I have made these available in the Library of the House; copies are also available in the Printed Paper Office.
Clause 4 is also essentially supplemental to Clause 2. It enables an officer authorised by the Secretary of State to enter any premises in the UK to search for information needed so that the United Kingdom can comply with its reporting obligations. It is necessary to include such a power for two extreme cases. The first is where a person has not provided the information voluntarily, and has still not provided it even after being served with a notice under Clause 2, perhaps despite even being prosecuted. The second even more extreme case is where the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry does not have certain information in his possession which he is required to provide to the IAEA, and believes that the information is likely to be amended, destroyed or otherwise disposed of without being given to him. In those two extreme circumstances a justice of the peace may issue a warrant, if he is satisfied that the numerous applicable conditions in Clause 4 are met, to allow an authorised officer to enter premises where there are reasonable grounds to believe the information in question is to be found, to search for the information for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. By making the powers to enter property to obtain information subject to a warrant, we ensure that there is independent judicial supervision over the exercise of this power. Any warrant may require that a police constable be present when the warrant is used.
Clause 6 protects information obtained under the Bill or the Additional Protocol. It prohibits the disclosure of certain types of information except for certain purposes or in certain circumstances, and sets out penalties for disclosure in breach of those limits. The clause is aimed primarily at civil servants who deal with the information to be passed on to the IAEA, or who accompany IAEA inspectors on visits.
Clauses 7 to 12 make it an offence knowingly or recklessly to give false or misleading information under the Bill; provide persons authorised by the Secretary of State and by a warrant with the power to search premises for evidence of an offence under the Bill; and set out the penalties for breaches of the Bill and the procedure for serving notices under the Bill. Generally, under Clause 9(2) such offences are to be punishable in a magistrates' court by a fine up to the statutory maximum, which is currently £5,000, or after a jury trial by an unlimited fine. However, knowingly or recklessly giving false or misleading information under the Bill, and wrongful disclosure of information, are to be punishable in a magistrates' court by a fine

779
up to the statutory maximum, or after a jury trial by an unlimited fine or by up to two years' imprisonment (or both). Clause 9 also allows persons of authority in a corporate body, or partners in a Scottish partnership, to be charged if they are involved in commission of an offence by the body or partnership.
The remaining clauses are technical. They amend the Act implementing the original safeguards agreement of 1976, to bring it into line with this Bill and with corresponding provisions of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. They amend the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 and the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 to refer to IAEA inspectors designated under the Additional Protocol as well as those designated under the safeguards agreement; and they deal with the commencement, territorial extent and Short Title of the Bill.
We have given careful consideration in the drafting of the Bill to the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government are confident that all its provisions, including the power to require the provision of information and the rights of access to premises, are fully consistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention. However, I should be happy to give further details if noble Lords are interested.
To sum up, enacting this Bill will represent an important demonstration of the United Kingdom's strong commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. As a nuclear weapons state, it is important that the United Kingdom shows a strong lead through the early implementation of its Additional Protocol. This will offer a tangible demonstration to the rest of the international community of the strength of our commitment to nuclear non-proliferation.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
6.50 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I should start by saying "Unaccustomed as I am to dealing with non-controversial matters". We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his speedy delivery as he took us through the various items in the Bill. I shall have to read Hansard to make sure that I have grasped all of what he said.
We on this side accept that the Bill provides for necessary and correct changes to our law to enable the Government to fulfil their obligations under the new Additional Protocol to the UK safeguards agreements concerned with nuclear proliferation.
I think that I heard the Minister say that the Bill did not affect our country's military nuclear defence industry. I appreciate why that should be so. At the risk of straying into the controversial, perhaps I may say as a slight aside that we do not need a Bill nowadays. Thanks to a decision of the sheriff at Greenock, it seems that pretty well anyone can walk into a nuclear installation related to Trident and do more or less what they want. No offence has been created because Trident has been declared illegal by
780
some international body. That is certainly not a view that we take on this side of the House; I am sure that the Government do not take that view either. Hopefully they are pursuing these matters in the Scottish courts to ensure that the decision of the Greenock sheriff does not act as an incentive to people to break into the various Trident installations in Scotland and in other parts of the United Kingdom and, so to speak, get away with it.
Although they are not quite reservations, the questions we have about the Bill are perhaps more of a Committee stage nature. However, if I ask them now it might save us time at Committee stage. The Minister can answer them either directly this evening or, if he wishes, he can write to me. Some of the questions are simply to seek confirmation so that I understand correctly what is happening in the Bill.
For example, if I am reading it correctly, it seems that the information required in Clause 2(3)(b) may be retrospective. It states:
"The information required by a notice … may relate to a state of affairs subsisting before the coming into force of this Act or of the Additional Protocol".
Ministers should always try to justify a retrospective clause. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain why the Government think that they need these powers, which seem, to me at least, to be retrospective.
As regards Clause 3, I think the Minister said that the draft regulations were in the Library and the Printed Paper Office. If that is the case, I look forward to reading them. I was puzzled as to the meaning of,
"persons of any description specified in the regulations to inform him that they are of such a description".
I was going to say to the Minister that we would want to see the regulations either before we dealt with the matter in Committee in this House or certainly before my colleagues deal with it in the other place. I am puzzled as to what exactly is meant here. The Minister is now assuring me that the regulations are there. I did not realise that. I will read them with interest. I welcome the fact they have been published. They will help us greatly to understand exactly what the Government intend. I can therefore leave that matter and move on.
As regards warrants, when he discussed Clause 4 the Minister mentioned that a constable might or might not be present, depending on the warrant. I presume the distinction will be that if the officials of the department carrying out the inspection feel that they may have some difficulty they will ask for a constable to be present and in those circumstances the warrant will allow a constable to be present. I presume that that is the case.
I have a slight worry about Clauses 4 and 5. The Minister rightly pointed out that in Clause 4 there is a safeguard that someone has to satisfy a justice of the peace before he can get an order allowing him to enter premises and make searches and so on. I welcome that. However, when I read Clause 5—this may be my inability to read legislation properly—it seems that agency inspectors will not be required to have a warrant in the same way as our United Kingdom

781
people. Surely inspectors who are agents of an international body should not be given greater rights of entry than those given to agents of our Government. Should not the inspectors of the agency require a warrant from a justice of the peace as well?
When they were in Opposition, one of the fundamental points I can remember the party opposite hammering Conservative governments about was that warrants to search premises—especially to search a person's home, which I understand can be done under the Bill—should be dealt with very carefully. The warrant should be signed and agreed by a justice of the peace. I therefore wonder why there is no reference in Clause 5 to requiring a justice of the peace to give his or her permission for a warrant.
As I said, these are probably Committee points. But it will be easier if we get rid of them now because it will save me the bother of tabling an amendment that I do not really mean in order to explore them.
I read Clause 8 and then I went back to read Clause 4 because I thought I had seen those words before. Clause 8 seems to be pretty well a replica of Clause 4. I wonder why we need two clauses in the Bill which look so similar. Why cannot we have only one clause that subsumes any difference there may be? It almost defeated me to see what difference there is between the situation which would require the power to search and obtain evidence to be used under Clause 8 and the power of entry in relation to additional protocol information under Clause 4. Is this to make the Bill a bit longer so that it looks more serious? In that case, it will fall under the eye of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who considers that legislation is far too long anyway. I wonder why we need those two clauses.
I notice that the Bill applies to Scotland. I am not sure that we should not say that on the face of Bills nowadays, when so many Acts of this Parliament will not apply to Scotland.
I also wonder why we do not say in Clause 12 that the Act will come into force either immediately or within three months of Royal Assent. Why is it left rather vague—that it will come into effect only on such day as another statutory instrument? I know that this is often the way of doing this. I can remember people being quite critical of it. Is it not time to ask ourselves whether we should say "This Bill is important"—as indeed it is—"We need it"? Why do we not say that it will come into force either the day after Royal Assent or within three months of Royal Assent? Why do we keep it open-ended?
I do not know whether we will need a Committee stage. That will depend on what I find in the regulations when I read them and on the Minister's reply. In general terms, we certainly welcome anything that will help prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I agree with the Minister when he draws to our attention that Iraq, despite being a signatory, and all the other precautions that were supposedly there, was attempting build a nuclear capacity. We could mention a few other states which have secretly built a nuclear capacity over the years, but that would not add anything to the debate.
782
With those few words, I am content to agree with the principles of the Bill and I look forward to a very short Committee stage.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we also welcome the Bill. One of those whose advice I took on the Bill said:
"We are all in favour of the most draconian measures to protect the nuclear non-proliferation treaty".
I understand that it is the priority of all the members of Euratom to ratify as soon as possible. This requires all members to ensure that they have amended their domestic legislation appropriately.
As a university teacher, I am conscious that occasionally there are problems with foreign research students in British universities as well as elsewhere—particularly with research teams not understanding exactly what is going on and to what use knowledge gained in British research institutions might be put in less friendly countries. Therefore, we entirely welcome the Bill and I have only a few questions.
The powers are draconian. In Clauses 4 and 8 the powers of entry and search are accessible only with the consent of a justice of the peace. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that a justice of the peace is adequate for those sorts of powers or whether one should go to a more senior judge for such permission. I have a certain interest, as I see successive pieces of legislation and European Community regulation; I wonder when the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man come under the provisions in Clause 12 and when they do not. That is no doubt a less important point but it is one which I believe many of us wish to explore in more detail.
I wish to question the Minister on whether the Government's own defence and nuclear weapons facilities remain entirely outside the Bill. My party and others believe that in the long run, if we are to have an effective nuclear non-proliferation regime acceptable to those states which are close to becoming nuclear weapon states, that is a privilege of declared nuclear weapon states which will have to go. Not now necessarily, but it is something which the Government will need to consider.
Since this is a DTI Bill, I assume that the police referred to are regular and civil police and that the contentious issue of the role of Ministry of Defence police in a number of activities concerned with defence nuclear installations does not arise. I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure us on all those issues. With those provisos, we welcome the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, we look forward to a brief Committee stage, if one at all, and to early passage of the Bill.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to participate in the Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. Anything which increases the availability of information about any aspect of the nuclear industry is good. This is an

783
industry with a proud record of safety and achievement in this country, and nothing but good can come from openness and information about its workings.
At the outset I must declare an interest. I was an adviser to Scottish Nuclear Limited, later to become part of British Energy plc, for about three years, which included the period in the run-up to privatisation. However, my interest in the nuclear industry goes back nearly 30 years. For 13 years I was Member of Parliament for Ross and Cromarty, the adjoining constituency to Caithness and Sutherland in which the Dounreay nuclear establishment is located. I have been an ardent supporter of nuclear power for all that time and I am convinced that future generations will not forgive us if we abandon what is unquestionably the most efficient, cost-effective and pollution-free source of power generation. I shall return to this theme in a few minutes, but first to the Bill itself.
The Additional Protocol to the United Kingdom's safeguards agreement continues and extends the terms already agreed on a voluntary basis between the UK and the International Atomic Energy Agency. It seems to me highly desirable that nuclear weapons states, of which we are one, make information available to inspectors as to the whereabouts and use of nuclear materials already in civil use in order that they are not diverted to non-nuclear weapons states, where they are liable to be used for undercover development of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, it is important that the IAEA is given every support to gather information on nuclear fuel cycle related activities and, in particular, the manufacture of specialised equipment and research and development, even where nuclear materials are not directly involved.
Apart from explaining that the Additional Protocol of the UK safeguards agreement takes account of the UK status, note 9 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill also goes on to point out that that involves three parties: the UK, the European Atomic Energy Community and IAEA. My point here has already been answered to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in that I was going to point out to the Minister that presumably similar legislation to this is being enacted elsewhere.
It would be useful to know also how extensive the powers of the inspectors will be. I note that in Clause 4 a warrant is required, but does that warrant entitle the inspectors to examine contract terms and other commercially confidential documents?
Clause 3 may require some consideration in Committee, if we have a Committee stage, which now seems slightly doubtful according to my noble friend on the Front Bench. This is an area which I believe we might explore a little; for example, why is it necessary to involve individuals in such detailed examination, rather than companies? Might it not be that civil liberties are being interfered with to some extent? I admit that I am not normally particularly anxious about civil liberties because I usually associate them with Left-wing agitators. However, I do not believe that that would apply in this case. Do employees who
784
handle highly confidential or secret information not already have to comply with such regulations? For example, what about the Official Secrets Act? Is there any overlap as far as that is concerned? There may be further minor points concerning the Bill. If there are, we can deal with those in Committee.
I must reiterate my long-felt concern that it is most unfortunate that we should again find ourselves discussing the nuclear industry and its involvement in nuclear weapons and civil use in the same context. I fully support our involvement in both spheres, but it is not surprising that the general public still tend to link that very association. That is unfortunate. Nuclear power is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the century, if not of the millennium. But its full potential for peaceful purposes and, in particular, for power generation will not be fulfilled until existing prejudices are set aside. Nevertheless, the need for civil nuclear power is undeniable. Fossil fuels ultimately will be wholly depleted.
Twenty years ago I was Minister of State at the Department of Energy. At that time the estimated contribution to power generation by the year 2000 of all the alternative sources of energy added together was 8 per cent. Far from reaching that target, the figure is well short of it—5.3 per cent in the European Union and, I understand, still below 6 per cent in the United Kingdom.
Nuclear power currently provides approximately 30 per cent of our power generation. In Scotland the figure is higher—more than 40 per cent. Therefore, government should be encouraging more, not less, nuclear power as well as supporting wind, wave and solar power. The same is applicable on a world-wide basis. For example, China is about to embark on a programme of coal-fired power stations. That is a huge programme and will create pollution on a horrendous scale.
With the demise of most of our old heavy industries, the reliance on fossil fuels has declined. More than half the world-wide growth in electricity demand now comes from microprocessors. Electricity uses can no longer be substituted by fossil fuels. Therefore, electricity trends will evolve on their own in a linear relationship with GDP. Electrically-driven applications, such as technologically advanced production processes using advanced computer controls, are taking over in both commercial and domestic sectors.
Electricity generation is already the largest source of CO2 emissions in the European Union—about 30 per cent of the total. This emphasises the folly in the climate change and energy tax for the rate on electricity to be three times higher than on fossil fuels. That is likely to decrease, not increase, energy efficiency. However, I realise that separate legislation deals with that point so I shall not pursue it further. In my view, even a carbon tax would be preferable to a climate change levy, particularly one which discriminates so wickedly against the nuclear industry.
All in all, I am sympathetic to the objectives of the legislation, but as this is a Second Reading debate I see no reason why I should not use the occasion to plug in

785
favour of the nuclear industry overall. I would much prefer to see some positive signs of long-term support for the nuclear industry from the Government. I should like to see a greater realisation of the major role of nuclear power in reducing environmental pollution, and that any decline in the use of nuclear power in power generation will have very serious implications for the UK's long-term strategic energy and environmental policies.
The nuclear industry employs 30,000 highly skilled workers, with double that number indirectly participating. We have a competitive world-class nuclear industry underpinned by hundreds of non-nuclear support companies throughout the country. If we ignore those facts, we do so at our peril.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I bow to his great knowledge of the nuclear industry. However, does he agree that one of the problems of the nuclear industry is that it is difficult to draw a hard boundary line between the civil and military sides? Part of the problem which the Bill seeks to address, particularly if one is talking about exports, as the noble Lord was, is that one needs to be sure that civil plants are being used only for civil purposes, that research is carefully watched and that exported equipment is also carefully monitored in order to ensure that it is not being diverted from civil to military operations.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I wholly agree with the noble Lord. I hope that I did not in any way suggest that I was doing other than supporting the legislation. When one speaks towards the end of a debate it is not unusual to feel that all that can be said has been said. I found today that even in this short debate the three speakers who preceded me said most of the things about the Bill that could be said. That is why I used the occasion to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that they are not being positive enough in their support of nuclear power.
7.13 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is my experience in this House that even when in the course of a long debate everything that needs to be said has been said, the debate goes on because it has not been said by everyone. Until everything that needs to be said has been said by everyone, your Lordships find it difficult to draw a debate to a conclusion.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken for the support they have given to the Bill, not just in general but in a great deal of the detail, either implicitly or explicitly. I am grateful for the support they have given to the need for us to play our full part in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and for the particular measures which are necessary in order to achieve that goal and to provide the primary legislation which is necessary for that purpose. I am grateful for the suggestion, which could never have come from me in the first place, that we could curtail or even eliminate the need for a Committee stage. Perhaps I may try to answer as many of the specific questions as I can.
786
I think I can answer most of them. If I cannot, I shall write to noble Lords and then a decision can be made based both on my answers today and any letters that I send out afterwards.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, teased me about the Greenock sheriffs. My understanding is that the Greenock sheriffs were saying that no penalty should be imposed rather than that no offence had been committed. However, if I am wrong, I certainly yield to the noble Lord's closer local knowledge. In any case, I rather assume that the Government will not allow free access to Trident nuclear installations and they will see that Scots law upholds their denial of access.
The noble Lord asked me whether Clause 2(3)(b) is, in effect, retrospective legislation. Retrospectivity would mean that the Bill changed the law for the past. It does not do that. What it means is that, in future, notice served under Clause 2 can ask for information about events which occurred before the Bill came into force, which is not quite the same thing as changing the law for the past.
The noble Lord asked me about the regulations. When I showed him the copy of what is in the Printed Paper Office and in the Library, I think that he was satisfied. Perhaps I may also say that we have produced a memorandum for the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I understand that the committee will be considering the memorandum at a meeting this week. We shall, of course, pay full attention to anything the committee says. It is a rather good precedent, to which I cannot promise to adhere in the future, that we produced a draft of the regulations before Second Reading. Quite a number of complaints have been made about failure to produce regulations. But they are certainly available for inspection.
The noble Lord referred in particular to Clause 3 and asked what is meant by "persons of any description". The provision sets out the types of person who need to identify themselves as being potential informants. These are people who have carried out certain manufacturing, assembly or construction activities, certain research and development activities or exported certain goods. They are the ones we expect may be suitable informants.
The noble Lord asked whether the optional presence of a constable indicates a judgment as to whether there would be any difficulty in achieving access. The answer is that it will be the responsibility of the applicant for a warrant to decide whether the presence of a constable is necessary. Making it optional is an attempt not to be too heavy handed. I am grateful for the noble Lord's support for the judicial authorisation procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked whether this draconian process, as he described it, although it is very common, was satisfied by having a justice of the peace or whether a more senior judge should be required. We have looked at existing legislation on this point. The existing legislation—for example, the Chemical Weapons Act and the Landmines Act—

787
requires warrants to be made by justices of the peace. We are satisfied that the analogy is good enough for that purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asked about access by agency inspectors under Clause 5. Here again it is true that agency inspectors have access without a warrant, but there are other similar provisions in the Chemical Weapons Act and the Landmines Act. They do not require warrants for the exercise of entry powers which are specifically required under the underlying treaty or convention or protocol, which are very limited and subject to conditions clearly set out, as in this case, in the additional protocol.
The noble Lord asked whether Clause 8 was repeating Clause 4. I do not think it is, but it probably requires a more complicated answer than I am able to give him from the Dispatch Box. If I may, I will write to him about it. He asked whether it should not be a convention that when an Act applied to Scotland it should say so. It is not the convention. The Bill says that the Act applies to Northern Ireland, although that may change, of course, after devolution later this week.
The noble Lord asked about the commencement provisions. These do indeed require another statutory instrument, but we will be able to bring the powers and duties under the Bill into force only when the additional protocol itself is ready to come into force. This will be when all members of the European Union are ready for that. We do not know when that will be and therefore we have to seek an order rather than fixing a date now for that purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on a similar point, agreed with the need for early ratification. I think we are ahead of the game, if I may put it like that, particularly if the Bill passes speedily through Parliament. We are ahead of most of our European colleagues. Some very small countries, as I mentioned—the Holy See, Monaco and some others such as New Zealand—have already ratified. Although 45 have signed only seven have ratified, and if we can pass this quickly I think we shall be gaining for ourselves some credit among the international community.
I hope I have answered the noble Lord's question about the justice of the peace and draconian powers. He asked me about the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the colonies. We have to make this provision, although we do not suspect that there is much in the way of nuclear activity in the Channel Islands. As he raised the point, I was interested to see that the word "colonies" appears in the Bill. I thought that we talked about "overseas territories" these days, but perhaps that is an intention rather than something which has got into legislation.
On a much more serious point, the noble Lord asked whether defence and nuclear weapons are entirely outside the scope of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we, as a nuclear weapon power, do not do anything inadvertently which increases the possibility of non-nuclear weapon
788
powers developing nuclear weapons. Therefore, the coverage of the Bill is for nuclear and nuclear-related activity carried out for or in co-operation with, or otherwise relevant to non-nuclear weapon states.
Normally that will be in civilian establishments, but if defence establishments were to be carrying out such work in such a way for or in co-operation with other relevant non-nuclear states they would not be excluded from the Bill. The overriding provision of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty arrangement is that the five nuclear weapon states are recognised as having nuclear weapon capability and therefore they do not have to declare it. However, they have to co-operate as far as they can in ensuring that it does not spread. That is the reason for the definitions that we use in the Bill.
I think I can now answer more fully the question of potential overlap between Clauses 4 and 8. This may save us time in the future even if it takes a minute or two now. Clause 4 relates to the powers of entry to premises in order to obtain the information that the United Kingdom is required to provide to the IAEA under the additional protocol; for example, information on all research and development on nuclear-related activities. Clause 8 relates to the powers of entry to premises in order to obtain evidence that an offence under the Act has been committed: for example, evidence that the Secretary of State is required to provide to the IAEA has been destroyed or tampered with. That is the difference between the two.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, asked about the inspector's powers under Clause 5. I think I can reassure him that, first of all, this is similar to legislation elsewhere. Secondly, the information which the IAEA inspectors or the Euratom inspectors are looking for is closely defined. He also asked about contract terms in commercially confidential documents. Yes indeed, documents are an essential part of what may be necessary, as evidence, to see that no breach of the Act is in course.
I have here the words "correction to previous answer" and so I will now give it. The presence of a constable may be requested by an applicant for a warrant, or the JP may consider that there ought to be a constable there to ensure order. I do not think that is much of a correction. It is very similar to the answer that I have just given.
The rest of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, was a perfectly legitimate defence of nuclear energy. I do not want to enter into a subject which is not fundamentally the subject matter of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is quite right: it is not that we are anti nuclear energy, and certainly not that this Bill contains any supposition against nuclear energy, but it is that the technology may to a significant extent overlap with that necessary for the development of nuclear weapons, and to that extent we have to cover civil nuclear energy establishments in the provisions of this Bill.

789
Again, I am grateful to your Lordships for the attention that you have paid to the wording of the Bill. I hope that I have given the answers which are necessary to enable us to proceed without a Committee stage, and I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Eritrea and Ethiopia
7.27 p.m.
Lord Aveburyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take to help solve the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the House and to your Lordships who are to take part in this debate for the opportunity to raise a conflict which has claimed more lives than any other in the world. Some 15,000 people have been killed so far in the Eritrea/Ethiopia war; that is, up to 1st August of this year. Some authorities put the numbers much higher. A journalist says that each side is mobilising an army of a quarter of a million men and that tens of thousands of people have been killed in fighting that has used First World War tactics. He is probably not exaggerating the capacity of Ethiopia to put men into the field but Eritrea, with a twentieth of the population of its neighbour, probably could not raise an army of that size.
Amnesty International says that up to the end of January this year 53,000 Eritreans had been expelled from Ethiopia since the fighting began. Further deportations, including 635 only last month, have brought the total up to 65,000. As an added twist, the Ethiopians charged the deportees in the latest batch between six and 18 dollars for "transportation and baggage handling". However, the expulsions do not seem to have been organised in the deliberately cruel manner of earlier ones when families were deliberately split up, with children being kicked out of Ethiopia at different times, sometimes months apart, from their parents.
On the other side, the ICRC says that it helped 22,000 Ethiopians who were living in Eritrea to return home and that many others went back under their own steam. There was no systematic policy of ill-treatment of Ethiopians by the Eritrean Government or their security forces. The UNHCR says that 300,000 people have been internally displaced by the conflict in Eritrea and 272,000 in Ethiopia.
What are these colossal upheavals and losses of life all about? When Eritrea gained independence in 1991, the borders between Eritrea and Ethiopia were not clearly defined, although the two states had agreed that the colonial boundaries between the Italian colony and Ethiopia should be retained in accordance with Organisation for African Unity principles. However, each side encroached on the other and the problem continued to smoulder until 1997 when a border commission was established following the alleged occupation of an Eritrean town by Ethiopian
790
forces. The border commission met several times but reached no conclusions. Then on 6th May 1998 fighting broke out after the Eritreans occupied the thinly inhabited area known as the Badme triangle, which they claimed, even though it had been administered by Ethiopia.
Such local border disputes cannot be the whole reason for the war, any more than the Archduke Ferdinand's assassination caused the First World War. Many Ethiopians still resent Eritrea's independence, its military superiority in the war of liberation and its desire to have its own currency. As a landlocked country, the Ethiopians disliked their dependence on the Eritrean port of Assab. Indeed, Ethiopia's real agenda may have been revealed when last week its Minister of Defence said that Ethiopia had the capacity to,
"break the backbone of the invading army and restore its territorial integrity".
If the Ethiopians had been concerned only to restore their correct borders with Eritrea, by now they would have accepted the proposals made by the OAU which I know that Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have done their best to support.
In summary, the OAU framework agreement of June 1998 recommended that there should be an immediate cessation of hostilities; redeployment of armed forces to the positions they held before the fighting started, supervised by OAU military observers in all contested areas of the border; demilitarisation of the border; delineation of the border by UN cartographic experts; investigation of the circumstances which led to the hostilities; and the cessation of action by either party against each other's nationals.
The Eritreans, who have been put at a disadvantage by the expulsion of their ambassador to the OAU from Addis Ababa, at first quibbled a little about the framework agreement by submitting a number of questions for clarification. However, they accepted the replies and signed up to the agreement after both parties were urged to do so by the UN Security Council in February 1999.
At the Algiers summit of the OAU, the parties signed up to the modalities for the implementation of that agreement, agreeing to put an end not only to all military activities, but also to,
"all forms of expression likely to sustain and exacerbate the climate of hostility".
That has not been honoured. Both sides have continued to hurl insults at each other. Furthermore, the formal cessation of hostilities, which was to be the first step in the sequence of implementation, has not yet occurred. Notwithstanding the firm statement issued on 11th August by the chairman and secretary-general of the OAU that interpretation of the framework agreement—the modalities and the technical arrangements—fell within the exclusive competence of the OAU, the Ethiopians submitted a long list of questions about the technical arrangements. To take just one example, they asked

791
why the modalities called for the immediate redeployment of troops to the positions they held before 6th May 1998 while the arrangements said that this would occur 50 days after D-Day. They received a response saying that the experts had advised that it would take that long to deploy OAU military observers. However, the Ethiopians have continued to quibble and prevaricate ever since they received a very detailed explanation from the OAU in mid-August. They have argued that further dialogue is necessary to,
"close the loopholes and eliminate the inconsistencies between the Technical Arrangements and the Framework Agreement".
Thus they have challenged the OAU's sole right of interpretation and, in effect, have threatened to start the whole process of conflict resolution, laboriously undertaken by the OAU, again from square one.
A note of the current position of the Ethiopians sent to me by their ambassador states why they are dissatisfied with the explanations given by the OAU. They want the TA document to repeat words already included in the framework agreement which they interpret as being critical of Eritrea but which have nothing to do with the solution. They want Eritrea to withdraw from all occupied areas before the cessation of hostilities, even though paragraph 4 of the modalities, which they themselves signed on 14th July, states plainly:
"The redeployment of troops shall commence immediately after the cessation of hostilities".
In practice, that means as soon as the OAU observers can get there. The Ethiopians say that the TA document has to specify the areas from which Eritrea must withdraw, again ignoring the modalities' requirement that OAU military observers should supervise the redeployment of both Eritrean and Ethiopian forces. The TA document provides for a neutral commission to decide as a matter of fact what were the positions occupied by the respective forces prior to 6th May 1998. That is fair, considering that in any case the resumption of those positions is without prejudice to the ultimate determination of the boundary by the UN cartographers.
Mr Ahmed Ouyahia, the OAU special envoy on the Horn of Africa, has worked hard to bring Ethiopia into conformity with formulas so carefully and systematically developed. But when his last round of shuttling between the capitals of Asmara and Addis Ababa was completed at the end of last month, there was no announcement. Again, at about that time the rainy season was coming to an end and the de facto ceasefire which had operated since the Algiers summit began to look increasingly fragile. Tension is rising and there is even a danger that Djibouti would be drawn in if fighting started again. On 11th November the president of the UN Security Council urged Ethiopia and Eritrea to exercise maximum restraint. However, there are reports that Ethiopia is getting ready to launch a new offensive. As someone I was
792
talking to this morning who has just returned from Addis put it,
"They want to destroy Eritrea. The media is completely dominated by warmongering and reconciliation is not discussed at any level. Isaias is compared to Hitler. It is common knowledge that troops and heavy armaments are being moved up to the front line".
Can the Minister tell the House whether the UN Security Council has access to satellite intelligence of troop movements on either side and, if so, would it consider asking for that intelligence to be published so that the world can judge who is the aggressor and who will start the fighting again? If the Security Council does not have access to that data, would Britain suggest to the other member states of the council that an approach be made to satellite-owning member states to see if they would be prepared to make available the images and analyses both in this case and in any others where large military operations may be apprehended?
As I see it, the problem has been that up to now the Security Council has treated the two parties as being equally responsible for the failure to resolve this conflict. If an even greater catastrophe is to be prevented in the Horn of Africa than has already occurred, it needs to identify Addis Ababa as the one responsible. The Eritreans have no motive for prolonging a war they cannot win. They have signed up to the spirit and letter of all three OAU documents. On the other hand, Ethiopia wants to defeat Eritrea on the battlefield and has turned a deaf ear to pleas from the OAU.
No doubt it was considered that Ethiopia was more likely to be persuaded into compliance if it was not blamed for the failure to implement the agreements that it had signed. However, surely there must come a point where the aggressor is identified and measures taken against it. The Security Council determined in its resolution of 10th February that the situation constitutes a threat to peace and security, but it has not taken the further step of deciding, in the words of Chapter 7,
"what measures shall be taken … to maintain or restore international peace and security".
Before deciding what measures should be taken, I propose that the Security Council should ask President Bouteflika whether it may see copies of the special envoy's reports on his efforts to persuade the two parties to agree to the OAU package. If he says that Eritrea did agree to the OAU proposals but that Ethiopia is backtracking not only on the technical arrangements but also on the modalities, then the Security Council should not express its next resolution in terms of an equal demand on both states but should welcome Eritrea's co-operation and require Ethiopia to accept the OAU package as well. Have the Government seen Mr Ouyahia's reports, and will they try to get them into the public domain? Will the Government ensure that the obstacles to peace are clearly identified in a Security Council resolution and, if one party turns out to be mainly responsible, that that party is identified?

793
It is a pity that the Security Council did not act immediately in May 1998 to prevent fresh arms supplies pouring into the region. The EU decided on an arms embargo last year, but western Europe was never the main supplier to the region. At the end of last year Eritrea acquired six MiG 29s and Ethiopia eight Sukhoi 27s. In each case there was reported to be a package of support in terms of training for pilots and technicians. Since the de facto cease-fire in June, both sides have been re-arming. One authority on the region says that, between them, the two countries are spending an estimated 600 million dollars a year on foreign weapons, a shocking diversion of resources from the development needs of a desperately poor region. In Ethiopia, humanitarian agencies are asking for extra money to help the internally displaced and those affected by the severe drought. The number of people in need of food aid in Ethiopia has been revised from the previous estimate of 5.6 million to 6.8 million for November and 4.6 million for December, according to USA ID's famine early warning system.
The United Nations ought to be more joined up and say that countries which cannot afford to feed their people should not be spending billions of dollars on weapons. Will the Government propose a mandatory UN arms embargo on the Horn of Africa as a whole, plus Yemen, which has broken the existing embargo on Sudan and could well be dealing with other countries in the region?
After Mengistu was overthrown and Eritrea gained its independence by force of arms, it looked as though a new era of peace and co-operation between previous enemies was beginning. The UK and the EU were ready to help with development aid and technical help in promoting good governance, democracy and human rights, and Ethiopia was receiving steadily increasing amounts of development assistance. Now all that is being jeopardised by the conflict and the refusal of Addis Ababa to listen to the advice being offered by the OAU and the UN with the support of the whole world. The loss of life, the immense suffering of the wounded and the displaced, the sacrifice of economic potential and the criminal waste of resources on military hardware have already threatened the future of the people of both countries. If the fighting is resumed, the catastrophe will have repercussions far beyond the region. Britain, as a friend and ally of both states concerned, must do everything to prevent this tragedy.
7.42 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I listened with particular interest to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, having studied with an Eritrean who kindly invited me to his country's festival of independence. I am not surprised that the war is so atrocious. The Eritreans are a united people, dedicated to their nation; it is very much a team co-operative society. I am sure that they will put a great deal of effort into the war and there will be great difficulties there. Eritrea has also inherited factories for making weapons from previous colonists, and that may have consequences for the current conflict.
794
Perhaps noble Lords will permit me to say a few words on those who are homeless and have sought asylum in this country from the conflicts in Eritrea, Ethiopia and similar areas. There is a chronic shortage of beds for the homeless, a problem which has been worsening for some time. Asylum seekers are not seen as the intended client group of the homelessness agencies. Consequently, it is far harder for asylum seekers to find accommodation.
As a result, vulnerable young people, who often speak little or no English and who may well be recovering from the effect of family members being murdered, or of family members being lost and of not knowing whether they are alive or dead, or having the home in which they grew up razed, stay in direct access emergency accommodation for months on end.
Such accommodation is designed to be a clearing-house, a place to stay for a maximum of three weeks while suitable, more permanent accommodation is sought. It is cramped; there is a curfew; residents are asked to leave during the day and are not allowed to spend more than 30 minutes alone in their room before lights out. Some of the other residents may have emotional problems which make them difficult to live with. However, those who have escaped are grateful for any help and do not complain. I am sure that your Lordships are most concerned that young people who have suffered appallingly in their own countries continue to suffer in this country when we could be of help.
I have just one question for the Minister. Would it be possible for the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to work together to discover which asylum seekers are the most vulnerable and target them for increased support? The voluntary agencies exist which could provide accommodation and the language and counselling support that are required. However, they lack the resources to deliver such support. The trauma of those escaping Kosovo was recognised by the Government and appropriate help was provided for them. Why should not those who are equally traumatised, especially those who are young and non-English speaking, who escape from other conflicts also receive appropriate help?
7.46 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for asking this Unstarred Question, because it allows me to make the speech which I tried to compress into a supplementary question on the previous occasion when the noble Lord raised this subject during a Starred Question on 28th October. As I mentioned then, I was privileged to be part of a parliamentary delegation to Ethiopia in July this year which took place at the invitation of the Ethiopian Government and was led by John Austin, MP. We were taken to see some of the most attractive and impressive geographical and cultural centres in the country, in the process passing through highland areas where we witnessed the industrious nature of the people in basic agricultural activities, as well as their extreme poverty. The Ethiopian Government realise

795
that the population in the highland areas is too high in relation to their current productive possibilities and the uncertain climate, and are encouraging resettlement; and they are not using the coercive methods of the previous regime. We observed grain distribution points in two places, organised through the World Food Programme, necessary because of the inadequate rainfall last year. That should avert a recurrence of the famine conditions of 1985.
Ethiopia is a very beautiful country with a long and important history. But it is in need of massive development assistance. What is encouraging is the recognition of that need by the present government and their willingness to co-operate with the numerous agencies, both private and public, which are involved. The tragedy of the current conflict is that that urgent development is being delayed by the diversion of resources to military expenditure and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people in or near the border with Eritrea, as was described graphically by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
The same is obviously the case in Eritrea. It is a pity that our delegation was not taken anywhere near the war zone. Ostensibly, that was out of consideration for-our safety, but as there were no hostilities at the time we were rather surprised, since we had come to Ethiopia, in part, to learn about the effects of the conflict. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, there is remarkably little information available to us in any part of the world through the media. It would be extremely interesting to know about the satellite surveillance which the noble Lord suggested is going on. We understood that the casualties in the battle to retake the land around the town of Badme had been very heavy indeed, a figure of 15,000 to 20,000 dead was thought probable. That agrees with the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. If indeed that was the case, there must be many families in Ethiopia who are bereaved. There will be political pressure on the government to justify those losses and possibly to seek revenge for them.
In our discussions with government ministers and representatives, including a short meeting with the Prime Minister, Mr Meles Zenawi, the conflict with Eritrea was, of course, at the top of the agenda. The Algerian summit meeting of the OAU had just taken place and both sides had accepted the framework agreement described by the noble Lord. At that point, Eritrea was seeking clarification on the modalities of the agreement. It was suggested to us that this was because the Eritreans did not really accept the agreement, that as an aggressor state it was not really interested in peace.
However, the Eritreans shortly afterwards did agree unconditionally to those modalities, despite their initial reservations. From then onwards, it has been the Ethiopians who have found reasons to delay their acceptance, this time because of the technical arrangements for bringing the modalities into force. That was described in more detail by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. In particular, they object to the mention of an interim "peacekeeping force" and have
796
a new requirement for a detailed description of the territory that will be vacated by each side, before agreeing to a cease-fire. In the meantime, both sides appear to be mobilising their military strength, although details are unknown to us. It would be interesting to know what information Her Majesty's Government have on that. However, skirmishes continue along the frontier, although there have apparently been no major confrontations since February.
At the time of our visit there appeared to be an officially sanctioned campaign to brand Eritrea as "an aggressor state", with the implication that it was therefore not to be trusted. There was an atmosphere of what I can only describe as "belligerent indignation". I have a newspaper quotation from the Ethiopian Herald, a government newspaper, of 21st July. It states:
"The Eritrean leaders are not concerned by what tomorrow might bring. They behave and continue to behave like a group of hoodlums who do not care about consequences that their actions might bring about but instead chose to be blinded by their tremendous ego that is costing the lives of a whole generation of Eritreans. This is the trademark of fascist leaders that will go on performing in their evil ways until judgement day and until total darkness takes over".
I do not believe that that attitude is likely to engender the even-handed approach needed in peace negotiations. It must be said—and I heard these opinions being expressed, as the noble Lord mentioned—that many people in Ethiopia are still unhappy that Eritrea was granted its independence in 1991. They may be putting pressure on the government to take a hard line and risk escalating the conflict.
In a publication that we were given as background reading material, entitled Peace under Assault (a report of a meeting in Addis Ababa in December 1998) Sarah Vaughan of the Centre of African Studies, University of Edinburgh, who is also attached to the University of Addis Ababa, said:
"When EPRDF assumed responsibility for the establishment of a Transitional Government in 1991. it also acquired responsibility for dealing with negative Ethiopian public reaction to the 'loss' of Eritrea, which after decades of highly effective Ethiopian government calls for 'unity above all', ranged from extremes of well articulated rage, to quiet despondency in many quarters".
Eritrea is being accused by Ethiopia of arming Somalian warlords such as General Aideed and supporting the OLF, the Oromo Liberation Front, thus justifying Ethiopian incursions deep into Somalia. This, of course, is denied by Eritrea. I would be very interested to know whether Her Majesty's Government have any confirmation of those activities.
The OAU agreement is ready on the table to be enacted. Ethiopia has a few difficulties with the technical arrangements. On the face of it, there should be no insuperable obstacles in the way of declaring a cease-fire. Ethiopia would gain far more by agreeing to the technical arrangements on the table and achieving a cease-fire than it is likely to gain by insisting on the removal of the features to which it objects.
On the other hand, the same applies to Eritrea. If a genuine cease-fire could be achieved, the Eritreans might forgo a peacekeeping force as such, if the

797
international military observers to which they have agreed and who are part of the framework agreement, are given sufficient powers.
There is still a window of opportunity, but there are forces building—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury on this—which do not want a cease-fire. They are playing with fire, of course, by not having a cease-fire. If the war enters a new destructive phase, the development of both countries will be put back for decades, quite apart from the human suffering which will ensue. The only winners will be the arms manufacturers who are already making a tidy profit from the existing state of tension.
The British Government can still play a major role alone, or through the EU or in the Security Council in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, by putting pressure on both parties to come to an agreement. I suggest that perhaps more pressure now needs to be put on Ethiopia than has been the case in the past.
7.56 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, should be thanked for raising this matter. This war has gone on long enough and, as so often with vehemently held points of principle, participants believe that solutions lie on the battlefield. However, equitable peace, through negotiation, is the only practical remedy.
The situation is nevertheless grave, with its territorial origins exacerbated by the expulsion of nationals and virulent propaganda campaigns. Please allow me briefly to review subsequent key events, as they have a bearing on my thesis.
A number of mediation attempts have been made, with Secretary-General Annan initiating direct contacts with the leadership of both sides and offering good offices. The joint facilitation efforts by the United States and Rwanda initially appeared promising, but it soon became clear that their recommendations requiring Eritrea to withdraw to the position held prior to May 1998 in Badme and its environs were acceptable to Ethiopia but not to Eritrea. Following the OAU's summit on 10th June which called on the parties to accept and implement the US/Rwandan recommendations, the OAU took the lead on mediation efforts.
The Security Council adopted a resolution in which it expressed its strong support for the OAU effort and called on the parties to co-operate. The council asked the Secretary-General to make available his good offices in support of a peaceful resolution, requesting him to provide technical support in the eventual delimitation and demarcation of the common border. A trust fund was established for that purpose.
The OAU high level delegation then presented its framework agreement, again essentially based on the US/Rwandan recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has outlined the detail adequately, so there is no need to elaborate.
798
It is worthy of reiteration, however, that a further Security Council resolution strongly supported the OAU framework agreement and called for Eritrea's acceptance of it. Following US Envoy Anthony Lake's recommendation, Ambassador Mohamed Sahnoun was charged as the Secretary-General's special envoy and made his first trip to the two capitals. His mission was complicated by the eruption of major fighting on the Badme front, increasing to a second front around Tsorona. Forty thousand casualties were reported on the Badme front alone.
Ambassador Sahnoun made a second mission to the region in April and May, during which time the gap between the two sides blocking the implementation of the OAU framework agreement narrowed. UN departments stepped up contingency planning in anticipation of the implementation of the framework agreement to ensure a rapid response to assist the OAU, together with a document of technical arrangements calling for the establishment of a neutral commission.
While on the one hand I believe that we are well on the way to a settlement, the other continues to send conflicting messages. What can the UK Government do at this time? Beyond supporting the process, poor donor response to the UN Country Team Appeals to meet emergency requirements, especially non-food items, is worrying and should be addressed. Shelter, blankets and medical support, especially for the displaced who live in camps, are needed. Over 500,000 Eritreans and 400,000 Ethiopians who are either internally displaced or deportees have been affected. The commission's responsibility would be the determination of the precise areas from which the two sides are to redeploy. It should be noted that Norway contributed some 500,000 US dollars to the trust fund in support of the delimitation and demarcation of the Ethiopian/Eritrean border.
This brings me full circle to current events. With regret, in recent weeks the two sides have resumed hostile propaganda. In his meetings with the Foreign Ministers during the recent General Assembly, Secretary-General Annan appealed for maximum restraint on the military front as well as in public posturing.
The World Food Programme already has emergency food aid programmes in both countries, with the European Union also offering additional food aid support. While donors have responded positively to the programmes, the response to emergency appeals for drought-affected populations and support for war-affected populations has been poor, especially in Eritrea. The humanitarian situation in parts of Ethiopia has been exacerbated by severe drought which has led to the emergence of a major food crisis, with almost 5 million people affected. UNDP reports that levels of malnutrition are high. Livestock prices have fallen and families have been forced to move from their homes in search of food.
The humanitarian community is also concerned about reports of new landmines laid in disputed areas along the border which will prevent the early return of

799
displaced people to their places of origin. According to government figures, there are over 150,000 new landmines in the Badme region and other areas will be equally affected. This will be detrimental to the rehabilitation of these areas, especially agricultural activities.
The United Nations has supported the OAU mediation efforts, and rightly so. I do not believe that at this stage the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the UN should consider taking the lead from OAU has merit, believing that any out-manoeuvring would have a detrimental effect. I am satisfied that Ambassador Sahnoun is aware of and reacting to any issues that require personal intervention, and recent trips point to that.
I agree with the noble Lord, however, that the Algerian presidency of the OAU should consider a new shuttling round between capitals to clarify points of detail or iron out any procedural bottlenecks. The OAU is in any event in the process of clarifying some remaining points in the technical arrangements to secure Ethiopia's acceptance. I sense peace. I ask the Minister, who is within the sphere of influence, to encourage the participants to patch up remaining differences and enter an era of regional stability and prosperity.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has been a dedicated supporter of the need to achieve peace in the Horn of Africa. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, it is only a month ago almost to the day that he last asked a Question in your Lordships' House about the situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea and what HMG would do about it. To paraphrase it, the answer then was, very little. I fear that this evening the Minister will be forced to give the same answer. This is not a criticism of Her Majesty's Government, for unless we are prepared to recommend that the UN unleash its full power—obviously, we shall not act unilaterally—it is difficult to see what else can be done.
The Government are aware of the situation, which is that two countries, newly separated, are competing for the ownership of a piece of land that is really of no use to either of them; at least that is the ostensible reason. Until the contestants can be convinced that it is of no use it is difficult to see how the problem can be resolved.
In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, appeared to be marginally in favour of the position held by Eritrea. No doubt in common with all noble Lords who speak in the debate this evening, I have received a letter from the Ethiopian Ambassador in London, who puts the matter a little differently. Therefore, it may be wise for me to refrain from referring to the causes and conduct of the conflict.
Last week your Lordships debated, once formally in a Question which I asked and once in a debate over Chechnya, the Government's ethical foreign policy. Ethically, the Government must disapprove of what is
800
going on and work to resolve it. But the question then and now is how far they are prepared to go and to what extent they are prepared to commit the country. "Overstretch" is a word that we apply not only to the country's defence policies; it is most relevant to the whole economic and political situation.
The precise wording of the noble Lord's Question is to ask what steps Her Majesty's Government will take to help solve the conflict. In the circumstances I cannot see how the Minister can give any answer other than the one that she has given; namely, that the Government continue to urge both sides to refrain from a return to military action and to accept the OAU peace proposals. That is exactly the same answer as her noble friend Lady Symons gave the noble Lord when he asked an almost identical Question in February.
But there are specific things that can be done to underwrite that answer. One step that the Government can take—to be fair, I am sure that they are taking it, for the Minister in another place said so at the time—is to implement most rigorously United Nations Security Council Resolution 1227 of February of this year which discouraged sales of arms to both sides. The Government can encourage the United Nations to go further and ban all arms sales, for the February resolution was not mandatory. The world being as it is and Russia being what it is, even a mandatory resolution will not stop Ethiopia and Eritrea from getting arms but it will go some way to help. In this context I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness can inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government know of any occasion when licences have been granted to British companies to export arms to either country. As I have said, the UNSCR is not mandatory.
The coup in Sierra Leone, the bloodshed in the Republic of Congo and the former Zaire and the continuing border conflict in the Horn of Africa between the two former allies, Ethiopia and Eritrea, have delivered a blow to the much-trumpeted vision of Africa's fin de siècle renaissance of democracies and free market economies. This conflict is a particular blow since both Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea and Melas Zenawi have been widely hailed as Africa's new men who would guide the continent out of its cycle of corruption and poverty.
In pursuit of their declared policy the Government can encourage the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity to establish an African-based and African-controlled peacekeeping force which could be deployed in any area of tension, and the Ethiopian-Eritrean border is not the only one, while political solutions are being sought.
If the United Nations cannot solve this problem, do the Government agree with our ambassador at the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, that conflicts in Africa could emerge as real threats to world peace which the United Nations will be powerless to prevent as it is not equipped to tackle the real problems in Africa?
The United Nations and the OAU are the only bodies which can do it. The phrase "white man's burden" is many decades out of date and this country

801
cannot be expected to punch more than its weight in the world, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, on defence. Britain and France already appear to be playing a large part. The countries have agreed, to quote the Foreign Secretary and M Vedrine,
"to strengthen their co-operation in Africa … based on a common vision of promoting positive change and respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Africa".
Her Majesty's Government could ensure that the Government are represented in Eritrea. At present our ambassador is in Addis Ababa. When the two countries are in conflict it must be a little difficult for the diplomat to adhere strictly to Her Majesty's Government's policy in both countries.
Britain has a special relationship with Eritrea, for Her Majesty's Government administered it for more than a decade following the liberation of the country from the Italians in 1941. That being the case, why is the planned expenditure aid to Ethiopia set to increase three times from 1998 to 2002 while that to Eritrea falls to a quarter over the same period? It would be unwise to take sides in this conflict but this seems a perverse judgment on the needs of the two states, both of which have least-developed status. Perhaps I have that wrong. I hope that the noble Baroness may be able to help.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is so persistent in asking this Question because no one else is doing so. Certainly it is a conflict that has had little oxygen of publicity of late. Could the reality therefore be that compared with Kosovo or East Timor, and perhaps Chechnya, this is a war that has become unfashionable to the sensibilities of the international community?
I can assure the Minister of our support from these Benches of the broad trend of the Government's policy. I hope and pray that the Government's efforts will bring peace, and even more importantly prosperity, indivisible from peace, to this sad region.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join those who congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on asking this Question. It is obvious to all who participated that it is timely.
The difficulties which face both Ethiopia and Eritrea are well known to all in this House. The Government are deeply saddened that the governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea, who for 17 years fought together against the terrible tyranny of the Derg regime, continue to find themselves in a state of war.
As noble Lords are aware, this dispute arose when Ethiopian and Eritrean forces clashed near the Ethiopian border town of Badume between 6th and 12th May 1998. Ethiopia accused Eritrea of invading its territory; Eritrea defended its actions by claiming that it was responding to earlier Ethiopian incursions into Eritrea. It is a common story in terms of how things are seen.
802
A mediation team led by Susan Rice, the United States Assistant Secretary of State, and including Vice-President Kagame of Rwanda engaged in an initial round of shuttle diplomacy in an effort to find a peaceful solution to the dispute. Many noble Lords mentioned this. They presented peace proposals to both sides on 31st May 1998. Those called for the withdrawal of Eritrean forces from Badume, restoration of the status quo ante, demilitarisation and demarcation of the border according to colonial boundaries. Ethiopia accepted these proposals, while Eritrea made it clear that she would not consider withdrawing from Badume. We deeply regret that Eritrea did not take that opportunity swiftly to end the conflict. It was an opportunity missed.
Sadly, the level of military engagement escalated on 5th June 1998. The Ethiopians launched air attacks on the airport in Asmara and the Eritreans retaliated by attacking the Ethiopian town of Mekele. These raids caused civilian casualties and deaths on both sides of the border.
At its summit on 8th to 10th June 1998, the Organisation of African Unity endorsed the US/Rwandan proposals as the basis for a peaceful resolution of the dispute. I welcome the support by all speakers tonight of those efforts. The heads of state of Burkina Faso, Djibouti and Zimbabwe were asked to mediate. They visited the region from 17th to 19th June. I think that there is general agreement that they were the most effective interlocutors at that stage.
After several rounds of discussion in Ouagadougou on 7th and 8th November 1998, the mediators presented a Framework Peace Agreement to the Prime Minister of Ethiopia and the President of Eritrea. This was based largely on the original US/Rwandan proposals. Ethiopia issued a statement on 9th November accepting the framework agreement. Eritrea did not accept it and sought clarification on a number of points. That history—it has been highlighted by a number of noble Lords—is important when one tries to understand what has happened in the region.
On 5th February of this year, an Ethiopian government press statement announced that the Eritrean air force had bombed the northern Ethiopian town of Adigrat. Ethiopia launched a full offensive at Badume on 6th February. The United Nations responded to the resumption of fighting with Security Council Resolution 1227 of 10th February. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, mentioned it. It condemned the use of force by both sides, demanded an immediate cease-fire and urged member states to end the sale of arms to both countries. This in effect called for a voluntary arms embargo. We had pushed for a full and binding UN arms embargo, but there was little international support. As your Lordships know, it is a matter which caused anxiety. Consequently we decided to implement a full bilateral arms embargo against both countries and informed Parliament of this on 15th February. We also pushed for a mandatory European Union-wide arms embargo against both countries, which came into effect on 15th March. We remain concerned at the continuing flow of

803
sophisticated weaponry to both sides. That is particularly regrettable as these are two of the world's poorest countries.
I turn to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. What do we know about Eritrea supporting Ethiopian opposition groups in Somalia? Ethiopia and a number of Somali faction leaders have accused Eritrea of supplying weapons and financial support to the Oromo Liberation Front, an armed group opposed to the Ethiopian government. Ethiopia has responded by sending forces into Somalia to attack Oromo bases. We deplore any and all breaches of the UN arms embargo against Somalia and we have told both governments that deliberate use of Somalia to further their military aims is not acceptable and must cease.
Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, who asked about the UN arms embargo. It is regrettable that the bilateral arms embargo currently in place is not a binding UN arms embargo. Many countries have not followed the example set by the UK and the EU in implementing their own binding embargo. There are persistent rumours of arms shipments to both sides. That remains a matter of concern to us all.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. As regards allegations about the supply of weapons to the OLF and the aid alleged to have been given by the Eritreans to General Aideed in Somalia, does she really believe that it is plausible that Eritrea, with its back to the wall and facing the possibility of another enormous offensive, would divert sadly needed weapons from the front at home to adventures in a foreign land thousands of miles away?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is not really what we believe; it simply emphasises the propaganda battle—although one does not want to say that—in the region. There are allegations and counter allegations from both sides. That is why we have said that the need for balance, care and judicious management of this delicate situation is of prime importance.
Your Lordships will know that prior to the conflict we judged all defence export licence applications for both countries against the criteria announced by the Foreign Secretary on 28th July 1997. Following the outbreak of fighting on 6th May 1998, we considered all applications for both countries against our commitment not to issue a licence if there were a clearly identifiable risk that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively against another country. We also reviewed all extant export licences for both countries. We revoked four licences for Eritrea. There were no similar extant licences for Ethiopia. Therefore, throughout, our approach to both countries has been balanced.
Ethiopian forces retook Badume on 27th February. This was followed by Eritrean acceptance of the framework agreement. But fighting continued until the start of the rainy season in late June. We are most conscious that the rainy season is now over and that is
804
why we highlight the need for caution and delicacy at this stage if the situation is not to degenerate into something more acute. However, I am happy to assure the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that we will do all we can to encourage both sides to engage in the peace process.
At the Organisation of African Unity summit in Algiers on 14th July this year, both heads of state accepted the modalities for the implementation of the framework agreement. The incoming chairman of the organisation, President Bouteflika of Algeria, was tasked with continuing the mediation effort. He appointed Ahmed Ouyahiya, a former Prime Minister of Algeria, as his special envoy.
As your Lordships know, Mr Ouyahiya visited the region from 4th to 9th August and presented both sides with technical arrangements for implementing the framework agreement. This document added flesh to the bones of the framework and modalities agreements. The technical arrangements include an implementation timetable. They recommended a formal cessation of hostilities followed by the establishment of a neutral commission to determine the position of each side prior to the start of the conflict on 6th May 1998 and therefore where each side must withdraw to. A United Nations peacekeeping mission would then be established to oversee the redeployment of the forces from both sides, starting with Eritrea. Civil administrations that were in place prior to the start of the conflict would be restored, followed by demarcation and delimitation.
This time, it was Eritrea which accepted the proposals in full and Ethiopia which sought clarification. The Ethiopians assert that certain elements of the technical arrangements are inconsistent with the earlier agreed documents. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made mention of some of those. In particular, it insists that it cannot accept a cessation of hostilities without assurances that Eritrea will withdraw from all areas taken by force. It claims that the absence of such an assurance would amount to rewarding an act of international aggression.
The technical arrangements are non-negotiable. But Mr Ouyahiya is currently working to find a formula that is acceptable to both sides. He has the trust and co-operation of both sides and we believe that this process offers the best chance for peace.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether we would publish details about the movement of peace troops. We are aware of the movement of troops and weapons on both sides of the border. It is true that the rainy season has stopped, but that is why it is even more important to tread carefully now. Negotiations are delicate and it would only damage the chances of peace to publish the negotiations, as the noble Lord suggests. We have not seen Mr Ouyahiya's report, which is for the use of the mediators and the parties engaged in the process. Her Majesty's Government want to do nothing which will undermine the good work that is currently being done with the parties.
In recent weeks, we have made very clear to both sides the consequences of a return to fighting. The Secretary of State for International Development

805
spoke to Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia on 13th October and to President Isaias of Eritrea on 19th October. She urged both leaders to seek a peaceful solution and stressed the negative impact that the dispute was having on development efforts.
The Secretary of State for International Development also held a meeting with the Algerian Ambassador to London to convey the UK Government's full support for Algerian mediation efforts. The World Bank and the European Union have advised both governments that there will be no funds for new projects and programmes until the border dispute has been settled peacefully.
The United Kingdom and other bilateral donors support this line and have applied the same principles to their own development programmes. Most bilateral donors, including the United Kingdom, are completing current commitments and continuing to provide humanitarian assistance. But we will not agree any new funding proposals for either Ethiopia or Eritrea until peace has been secured.
I can give a few details on the current assistance to Ethiopia and Eritrea, but I shall do so briefly. The United Kingdom assistance to Ethiopia in 1999–2000 is expected to be £7.5 million. The main sectors we are working on are agriculture/food security, rural roads and support for the police training college which has an emphasis on human rights. In addition, we are supporting rehabilitation projects through international non-governmental organisations. That touches on the issues raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley.
Like most other donors, the Department for International Development is completing current commitments, but not embarking on new ones. In addition, in 1999 we have given £2 million to provide food for people affected by drought. All that is emergency assistance provided by agencies such as The Save the Children Fund.
The Eritreans take a robust view of aid conditionality arid accordingly our aid programme to Eritrea is relatively small. It consists at present of a small grant scheme of £250,000 supporting projects in education, health and other sectors which help poor people. We have also been giving emergency support. We provided £150,000 in response to the 1998 United Nations consolidated flash appeal for Eritrea for the World Health Organisation's emergency health assistance to those displaced by the fighting. I am pleased to say that as recently as last night—to respond to questions in relation to intent—at a meeting with our ambassador, Mr Meles reassured us that Ethiopia is continuing to work with the Algerian mediators to secure peaceful resolution of the conflict. Those are hopeful signs.
806
I turn to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. He raised the plight of asylum seekers who have suffered a great deal as a result of the dispute. The noble Earl made a good point in relation to the working together of departments. Your Lordships will know that the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office work closely together. That is an issue for the Home Office, but I am sure that it will look carefully at the noble Earl's suggestion.
The Government's policy towards the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict has been entirely consistent with our commitment to human rights. We have pursued a balanced policy which offers the best chance of peace. Peace, stability and respect for human rights in the Horn of Africa are our goals. I make that point in particular in response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and indeed, the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Our efforts to secure a full and binding UN arms embargo, our swift implementation of the bilateral arms embargo and our criticisms of both governments over their treatment of civilian populations and prisoners of war demonstrate our commitment to achieving those goals.
We are extremely concerned at the humanitarian impact of the conflict. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, more than 38,000 ethnic Eritreans have been expelled from Ethiopia since July 1998. We have made clear to the Ethiopian authorities that we deplore that policy. Unlike Ethiopia, Eritrea has still not allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross access to its prisoners of war. We have raised the issue with the Eritrean Government and have urged them to grant access to all prisoners. Although Eritrea has not signed the Geneva Convention, we expect it to respect it. We welcome the fact that the OAU proposals specifically deal with deportees and other groups affected by the conflict.
We, along with the rest of the international community, have consistently supported the Organisation of African Unity process since the start of the conflict. We remain convinced that that is the correct policy. It is vital, in our respectful view, that both sides understand that the international community is united in support for the Organisation of African Unity process. The slightest doubt will weaken the chances of peace. We have heard calls for condemnatory statements and for punitive action against Ethiopia. However, such statements would achieve nothing and would almost certainly be counter-productive. We are convinced that punitive action against either side now would trigger a return to brutal warfare which would be disastrous for the people of both Ethiopia and Eritrea. I commend the support that all noble Lords have given to our efforts in this regard and I express our gratitude for it.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before nine o'clock.