Lords Sitting of 27 March 2001

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

Guardians ad Litem
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the current service by guardians ad litem to children in public law will be maintained if each case is fee-capped from 1st April 2001.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, your Lordships should know that the new Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) will come into being on 1st April. It will combine in a single service the family court welfare functions currently provided by the Probation Service, the children's branch of the Official Solicitor's Department and the local authority guardian ad litem services. Guardians ad litem are experienced childcare experts appointed in public law cases to give an assessment of a child's best interests. Traditionally they were engaged by local authorities through 57 local panels: about 737 were treated as self-employed, and 113 employed. Eleven of the 737 raised the question of their status with the Inland Revenue, whose opinion was that all were employees. The project team for the new CAFCASS, which recognises that probably a majority of guardians want to retain self-employed status, has been negotiating with the Inland Revenue new terms of engagement by CAFCAS S which the Revenue would accept qualify as self-employment. They would move from an hourly rate to a graduated fee for each different service provided. Graduated fees apply widely in the law and what is essentially going on is an old-fashioned negotiation about the adequacy of the graduated fee levels plus some uncertainty among the guardians about whether they want to become employees or retain self-employed status.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his very full Answer. Is he aware that guardians have been hopping mad over what they have perceived as delay in reply, evasiveness and lack of consultation on the part of the new Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be a tragedy if children at risk of harm from their families lose those experienced guardians who might choose to walk away from the profession?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perception quite often departs from reality. The approach to the Revenue by the 11 guardians had the effect of imposing a more urgent timetable. The self-employed guardians' representative body, NAGALRO, had a
92
first draft of the proposed new contract just before Christmas. There have been regular monthly meetings since 1st June between them and the project team. A further meeting will take place this afternoon. The formal proposed contracts were not issued until 27th February; and a six-week honeymoon period from 1st April has now been proposed, during which the guardians could continue on their old terms or opt for the new system.
I hope that peace will break out and that these experienced professionals, whom we value highly, will come over to CAFCASS on terms that they can accept as fair.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirm that the answers he has just given will mean that lack of funds will not prevent justice from being done by the appointment of a guardian ad litem when necessary?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no lack of funds. CAFCASS proposes that under a graduated fee system the guardians will be paid 3.8 per cent more than the total paid out to them by local authorities this year. The global sum will increase from £20.77 million to £21.55 million. So want of resources does not come into the issue.
I favour graduated fees in principle provided that they are set at a fair level. A system of hourly payment without limit and irrespective of the difficulty of the individual tasks undertaken can be an incentive to inefficiency and fail to deliver value for money.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, would it not be a gross mistake to attribute any degree of culpability to CAFCASS? It appears to be caught in a cleft stick between guardians, who want to retain their self-employed status, and the requirements of the Revenue.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a very fair comment. CAFCASS is trying to secure self-employed status for those guardians who want it—it is by no means clear that they all want it—on terms that the Revenue will accept. Simply to have continued their previous terms when the Revenue's clear position was that they would not pass an audit for Schedule D purposes when they joined CAFCASS would have been irresponsible. CAFCASS would have failed the Revenue audit planned for itself and would rightly have been criticised by its auditors. So the description of a cleft stick is a fair one.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I have to declare an interest. My wife is a self-employed guardian. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be aware that well over 90 per cent of guardians have not yet agreed to sign the new contracts. Many feel that under the terms of the contract they are unable to fulfil their professional duties under the Children Act court rules, Section 11, paragraph 9. Will the noble and learned Lord endeavour to use his offices to draw their

93
representatives directly into dialogue with himself in order that an honourable settlement can be found to their satisfaction and that of the Government?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is curious in a parliamentary Question and Answer session to appear to be participating in old-fashioned employment relations negotiations. I repeat my answer to the previous question. It was the wish of the 11 to change their status that put the cat among the pigeons, if I may describe guardians and the Inland Revenue in that way. The project team has offered enhanced graduated fees in the most difficult cases, as well as an independent review of the banding criteria and of the quality of service delivered to children after six and 12 months under the new system. The right course is to wish all the negotiators well.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I declare an interest as a magistrate in the family proceedings court. I do not want to continue the employment negotiations analogy, but, in view of the importance that the Government have attached to the creation of CAFCASS, and perhaps most importantly the necessity to vulnerable children of its smooth operation, if the negotiations do not come to an amicable solution very quickly, will the Government delay any further action on the fixed fees scheme until a pilot scheme has been implemented and evaluated to ascertain its impact?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that that is the way forward. The tax status of self-employed guardians continues to be a problem for both the Revenue and the guardians, regardless of whether they remain for a temporary period with the local authorities. The way to deal with a problem is to address it directly. That is what the current negotiations are doing.

Manufacturing Industry
2.45 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to stimulate manufacturing industry.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are helping manufacturing industry by creating a stable macro-economic climate and by pursuing policies that help firms to innovate, to develop the skills of their workforce and to grow.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, has the steel-maker Corus turned down the imaginative plan drawn up by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation to save 6,000 jobs in the steel industry? The plan calls for part-time shifts, with the rest of employees' time being spent on training. It would be funded by the Government and by Corus. Does the Minister appreciate that according to an eminent QC—namely, Cherie Booth—the plan
94
would pass European state aid rules? Finally, does he agree that no stone should be left unturned to save those jobs, which are in areas that can ill afford to lose them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that the loss of jobs from the steel industry in South Wales—and on Teesside—would be tragic and that everything possible should be done to preserve them. I understand that Corus and the steel trade union had a meeting this morning. We have not heard the outcome of that meeting. Among other things, they were due to consider the proposal for an application under Article 95 of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty for an aid programme containing a significant training aid component. The Government would be willing to support such an application, but I should not disguise the fact that it would be very difficult and would need the active collaboration of Corus and the trade unions.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, might not one helpful measure be to make further adjustments to the climate change levy for energy-saving industries? Incidentally, that would also help agriculture, which needs all the help that it can get now.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the climate change levy is revenue-neutral as a whole, but it is bound to affect high energy-use industries. There are derogations from it for parts of the steel industry, as the noble Lord knows. Our view is that we have struck a proper balance between our Kyoto obligations and our obligations to our manufacturing industry.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the Minister aware that our deficit in traded goods last year, excluding oil, exceeded £34 billion? That is the highest figure on record, and the trend is still rising. Is not that a serious situation? Do the Government have a strategy to deal with it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this country's balance of trade in manufactured goods—if that is what the noble Lord is referring to—has been adverse for nearly every year since about 1862. I would rather look at the growth in manufacturing industry and in our manufacturing exports. In the fourth quarter of last year our manufacturing exports increased by 10 per cent over the comparable period the previous year. Even exports to the European Union, with which we acknowledge that we have an exchange rate problem, grew by 5 per cent.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the future of the Cammell Laird shipyard could have been made much safer with the new luxury cruisers that were to be built there. The American firm Luxus was willing to do that if the Government were prepared to underwrite the project. Why have the Government refused to underwrite more than 50 per cent? The cruise liner business is expanding fast. We are not experts at it and

95
the proposal would have been an opportunity for our manufacturing industry in a part of the country with high unemployment that needs such opportunities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am unable to give an answer to the precise question about Cammell Laird put by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. Of course, she will be aware that, in turn, the Government must be conscious of the state aid restrictions of the European Union, which very largely are to our advantage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that manufacturing industry as a percentage of GDP has fallen since 1973 from 32 to 19 per cent? In addition, does he agree that there is a point beyond which one cannot go if one wants to sustain a reasonably balanced economy in which manufacturing industry can perform? Therefore, will he consider an idea which has been put forward previously by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and, indeed, by myself that a Select Committee, similar to that set up in 1985, should be formed to consider the position of manufacturing industry and overseas trade?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I acknowledge that in recent years the manufacturing share of GDP has gone down in this country, as it has in all developed countries. However, I can give some hope to my noble friend. We forecast that manufacturing industry will grow by 1.75 to 2 per cent this year and by 1.5 to 2 per cent in each of the two following years. Those forecasts have been in place for some time and have recently been confirmed.
As to the issue of a Select Committee of this House, that is, of course, a matter for the House authorities and the usual channels.

Identity Cards
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider introducing a national identity card.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, we are not persuaded of the case for introducing a national identity card. We have looked seriously at the arguments but, for the moment, have concluded that the potential drawbacks outweigh the anticipated benefits.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Last year he said that the matter was under review, but it sounds as though the review was rather inactive. Eleven other countries in Europe all have a form of identity card. Why cannot we follow
96
suit? Surely a smart card would help to combat fraud, which is absolutely prevalent in this country. That is one area in which a card would be most helpful.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. We gave the matter active consideration last year but concluded that, all things considered, it is not the route that we wish to take. The noble Baroness draws attention to other European countries, but they do not all have national identity cards. I believe that Denmark, Eire, Sweden and Finland do not have such cards.
As to the noble Baroness's point in relation to smart cards, that issue is being given active consideration. I believe that a number of schemes are being undertaken or considered by government in connection with local government. However, many of those cards can themselves be used and abused for fraudulent means and that can lead to further fraud. Therefore, perhaps the matter is not so simple and straightforward as the noble Baroness likes to suggest.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Lord enlarge upon the drawbacks to which he referred? Can he also tell me what difference there is now compared with the last war, when everyone had a national identity card? So far as I know, the use of cards during that period did not cause trouble to anyone.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the last war was rather before my time. As I recall, the noble Baroness made that point last year when the same question was put. I congratulate her on reminding us about it.
I readily acknowledge that benefits are to be gained from the introduction of national identity cards. However, many concerns also arise in relation to civil liberties, costs and security. In addition, it would be a major undertaking to establish a system for issuing cards promptly and with high security. All those points apply. I believe that when the noble Baroness's government were in power, they decided that the cost of such a scheme would be too great. They wanted a voluntary system. I believe that they costed a national identity card scheme at some £600 million at the point of introduction. For all those reasons, at present we are not convinced that such cards would be of great benefit to us.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I speak as someone who can remember carrying an identity card in the late 1940s. Does the Minister agree that one of the benefits of living in this country nowadays is that we do not have to carry identity cards with us?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is the case. I am sure that in some states it is obligatory to carry a national identity card, and one may become criminalised as a result of not doing so. Without any

97
doubt, that is something to be taken into consideration. I am sure that it is a matter that would trouble the police service.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are still planning to introduce a form of identity card for 16 to 18 year-old students? If so, when will it be introduced?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are giving active consideration to that matter. I believe that my noble friend refers to connection cards, which we consider to have benefits. As I understand it, potentially that scheme would cover as much as 75 per cent of the age group in question. We are also considering whether such a card should include a date of birth so that it could be used for establishing proof of age. I know that many other benefits arise in terms of passporting, education courses and so on. Therefore, I consider it to be a very useful development.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, does the Minister consider that the introduction of a national identity card would, among many other benefits, help to eliminate electoral fraud in the same manner as the introduction of the voter ID card in Northern Ireland is currently planned to do?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not an expert on elections in Northern Ireland. From time to time, I hear stories about elections there and, thus, I can well understand the noble Lord's point.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the Minister agree that nowadays everyone knows everything about everyone else because of the existence of a variety of different cards? As the Government are so concerned, quite rightly, about illegal immigrants, what is their objection to having identity cards? The only people who would fear them would be illegal immigrants. What is wrong with that?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not believe that the introduction of national identity cards would necessarily benefit our enforcement of immigration controls. However, I have heard that argument made. It is certainly not part of the arrangements and agreements that have come into play as a result of Schengen. Of course, these matters must be considered in the round. We have taken the view that a national identity card would produce some benefits but that those are greatly outweighed by the disbenefits.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the police would be perfectly happy with a system of voluntary identity cards? I was not talking about a compulsory system.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware that that was an option which the previous government considered. However, in the end it did not
98
come to pass. We are happy with the current arrangements. For all the reasons that I outlined at the outset of this Question, we believe that the benefits of a national identity card are not so great that such a scheme is worthy of further consideration at this stage.

Hospitals: Quality of Patient Services
2.58 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will appoint an independent inspector general of hospitals who would report to the Secretary of State for Health on cleanliness, patient handling, food standards and other non-medical and non-clinical matters relating to the administration of hospitals, such reports to be published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we see no need for such an appointment. National standards will be set and performance managed by the Department of Health. The proposed patients' forums will also inspect premises and report on the quality of patient services in every trust.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he recognises that what I propose is a good deal sharper and more focused than what he has described. I am aware of the body which has been set up. Indeed, I read the article by his right honourable friend in the Sunday Mirror of 4th February. However, is he not deeply concerned that a large number of our hospitals have overflowing lavatories and soiled tissues around the wards, and that one-third of them fail the basic hygiene checks? Does he agree that such problems are primarily a matter not of resources but of management, discipline and pride? We need a proper inspection process that will name and shame. It might use as a model the excellent performance of Sir David Ramsbotham in relation to the inspection of prisons.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is no doubt that over the years the standards of some NHS trusts in relation to cleanliness and food have declined. That is why, in the NHS Plan, which was published last summer, we drew particular attention to those problems and instituted a set of procedures to put them right. One mechanism, as the noble Lord suggested, is the establishment of patient environment action teams. They are made up of people from the NHS and the private sector and of patients' representatives and they have visited every trust in the country. They have drawn attention to problems in the cleanliness area. It is absolutely clear that that has had a dramatic effect on the quality of cleanliness. I know that during the past few weeks patients have seen distinct improvements. That effort goes alongside the additional resources that we have given trusts for that purpose.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of these problems are best tackled not

99
by the appointment of higher-up administrators who operate on a large scale, but by the simple reintroduction of matrons in hospitals?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend. That is why, in the very same NHS Plan, we advanced the proposal that modern matron figures should be appointed. It is abundantly clear that under the stewardship of the party opposite, ward sisters lost authority—they lost control over cleaning and catering and the results were clear for all to see. Our proposals and changes will reassert the authority of the sister or modern matron. I am convinced that that is the way in which to get standards back to where we all want them to be.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have listened to my noble friend's remarks, but I do not know whether we need an inspector. What progress is being made towards the elimination of mixed-sex wards? I am sure that they have been inspected. How is his department monitoring that and the health service generally?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend knows that I share his views on these issues. We conduct regular progress monitoring. In the latest returns, 93 per cent of trusts report that they will comply with our objective to eliminate mixed-sex accommodation by 2002. There are 25 that have not done so, but seven have now devised specific action plans that will be implemented by the end of 2002. That leaves 18 trusts, of which 16 will meet the target through major capital schemes which have already been approved. The remaining two are in discussion with the department about what can be done to bring forward compliance.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, what is the difference between a modern matron figure and an old matron figure?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I discovered when I took up office in the Department of Health, many nurses—certainly those in the hierarchy—resisted the term, "matron", because they saw it as returning to what they may regard as the bad old days. I do not share that view. That is why we used the word. However, it does not do any harm to call them modern matrons; that enables the nursing profession to give support and ownership to what we are trying to do.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, will the changes that, the Minister explained to us today ensure that people in hospital, particularly the elderly, are properly fed? There are alarming stories about people—particularly older people—being less well fed during their time in hospital. While I am on my feet, will he also ensure that such patients are addressed by their names, not by a series of nicknames?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes, those who address patients in hospital should do so using the
100
names that the patients wish to be addressed by. On the question of feeding, that is a matter that the visiting teams study. They watch patients being fed and ensure that if patients are unable to feed themselves they are not left alone. I make it clear that it is the responsibility of nurses to ensure that patients' individual nutritional needs are met. The chief nursing officer wrote to all nurses a few months ago to make that abundantly clear. So far as concerns the treatment of older people generally, the national service framework, which is being published today, gives clear direction to the NHS about treating older people with respect and dignity.

Macedonia
3.6 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice. namely:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the current situation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we and our partners in the international community are extremely concerned about the ongoing conflict in Macedonia and condemn the violence perpetrated by armed ethnic Albanian extremists. We recognise the right of the Macedonian Government to use force, but it is important that that is proportionate to the threat and is focused on the armed extremists. However, there is no military solution to the crisis. We urge the Macedonian Government to take steps to address the legitimate political aspirations of the Albanian minority working with the ethnic Albanian parties in the government. KFOR is already taking Finn action on the border and the MoD is urgently considering what further support we can offer to the Macedonian Government bilaterally or with our allies through KFOR.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full reply. Is not Macedonia the most dangerous tinderbox of all of the tinderboxes in the former Republic of Yugoslavia because of the Albanian minorities in so many neighbouring countries? Are we not in debt to Macedonia because of the help that it gave us during the Kosovo campaign and because it is now virtually the sole avenue of supply to KFOR in Kosovo?
I believe that most noble Lords would agree with the Minister in condemning the violence of the Albanian guerrilla fighters. I also believe that we are right to encourage the Macedonian Government—I believe that this is what the Minister said—to take political steps to meet the aspirations of the Albanians, who constitute one third of the population. Is there not a danger that the moderate Albanian leaders who exist will have suffered in influence as a result of the recent

101
fighting? Is that not a very good reason for doing everything that can be done to prevent further fighting?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that it is of the utmost importance to do all that we can to prevent further fighting. I also agree that the Albanian situation is very difficult—the noble Lord described it as a tinderbox. As such, we have to deal with it very judiciously.
Although there have been real difficulties in Macedonia, I hope that I can reassure noble Lords. On Sunday, the Macedonian army launched an operation to retake the hills above Tetovo. That appears to have been a success and there does not appear to have been any civilian deaths as a result of that enterprise. The steps taken by the Macedonian Government have been given wholehearted support by Albanian minority members, who are part of that government. That must be a positive indicator for the future.
We are doing everything that we can, together with our international partners, to support the Macedonian Government in their proportionate and proper response. At the same time, it is right for us to recognise that the Albanian minority have some legitimate concerns, which it is incumbent on the Macedonian Government to address.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I understand that our troops could be involved in armed conflict. Under whose command do they serve?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that our forces in Kosovo are part of the KFOR effort. Their ability to respond will be under the same command as it is at the moment. There will be no change.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Does my noble friend agree that the Albanians in Kosovo have been encouraged, and perhaps are still being encouraged, to believe that if they keep up their terrorist activity they will eventually gain an independent Kosovo and a greater Albania? Can my noble friend say whether the British Government and NATO are making it absolutely plain to the Albanians that there is no prospect of either an independent Kosovo or a greater Albania independent of Serbia?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, although I hear what my noble friend says in relation to people encouraging a change, I can assure him that there will be no change. Macedonia and Yugoslavia have been clearly told that their integrity will be preserved. Anyone who believes that a greater Albania can be created by starting a bloody war is quite wrong.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, further to the questions of both my noble friends, will the Minister accept that the Government of Macedonia must be supported in defending the integrity of its frontiers? Once frontiers in the Balkans start being disputed, we
102
go straight back to the blood baths of the past. Will she also accept that the movement of British troops up into the frontier areas to do the policing indicates a new phase in Britain's as well as NATO's involvement in what is an increasingly dangerous situation? Can the Minister give us some idea of the longer-term plan? Is there not a need for a more robust NATO strategy as to what is to be achieved in the future? If it is not to be an independent Kosovo, what kind of Kosovo is it to be? How long will our troops be left defending those frontiers? These disputes have been going on since Roman times. Are we doomed to stay there for ever or is there a plan for a more stable future?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that this is not a "new" phase. Of course it is right that we should do our best to assist those who wish to stabilise the Balkans and bring back a degree of normality. That was and remains our purpose. The longer-term plan involves the building of capacity. We have to support civil society. We have to make sure that the institutions are working appropriately so that the people of the Balkans can take their future into their own hands in a way that is proportionate and proper but which also allows all ethnic minorities to find their proper place.
As the noble Lord is aware, one of the difficulties is the struggle that the Albanian minority have faced in having their proper place recognised. We understand that the Macedonian Government accept that there is a need for change. They are looking creatively to bring about that change and, in relation to long-term strategy, our support for those efforts is the quickest way of ensuring that these troubles finally come to an end.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are some more hopeful signs in this disturbing situation? Is it not correct that the leaders not only of the Albanian minority in the Macedonian Government, but also the leaders within Kosovo of the Albanian majority—Ibrahim Rugova and others—indicated that they do not wish in any way to be involved in terrorist or guerrilla activities? Is it also the case that the Macedonian president, in the recent past, advanced proposals for providing greater guarantees of human rights for the Albanian minority? Finally, is it correct that Macedonia looks to the possibility of membership of the European Union as its major ambition and goal and in that respect therefore is anxious to uphold human rights in a way that would make it an acceptable candidate at some date in the future?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am glad to agree with all that the noble Baroness says. It is a hopeful sign that it is not just the Albanians in Macedonia who support this, it is also the Kosovo Albanians. We hear a united voice of reason from the people against the terrorists. That must give us great courage and hope for the future.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the root cause of this problem was the

103
wretched Albanians siding with the Ottoman Turks in the first and second Balkan wars? The Slays carved them up, leaving them in difficulties and so their territorial and nationalist ambitions were deeply restrained.
That is the historical background. Can the Minister explain how, when NATO has as many troops in Kosovo as Great Britain had in India in 1938, a number of men were allowed to cross the border while being watched by NATO troops? If it is necessary to have troops there, we should ensure that they are used properly and that they do not allow people to cross the border, even though the whole border is a muddle in that part of the world.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, again I hear what the noble Earl says and thank him for the history lesson. But the truth is that our forces are employed in many tricky activities on that side of the border. This issue is being addressed and addressed properly. In fact, I should like to take this opportunity to wholeheartedly congratulate our forces on the work that they are undertaking with great courage and fortitude.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that some of us find it very strange that Macedonia, Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina were allowed to break away from Yugoslavia, but that Kosovo alone is told that it may not break away, particularly in light of its experience at the hands of the Serbs?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's question, but this is an area which has perennially caused difficulties, as he knows well from when he was in another position on this Front Bench. There has been an improvement in the situation. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia indicated that it is open to negotiations with other minorities to try to obtain a political solution to what has been an impasse for a long time. My noble friend will know that it is a political solution which will finally bring peace to this region and not a military solution.

Business
3.16 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the Business of the House Motion, my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the latest developments in the foot and mouth outbreak.

Elections Publications Bill [H.L.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for postponing the operation of certain enactments relating to election publications and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
104
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 69, Mr F.A. Cranmer be appointed an Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills in place of Ms H.E. Irwin with effect from 6th April.—(The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Standing Order 40
3.18 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House. I should perhaps explain that my noble friend is unable to be here early today as she is celebrating the 89th birthday lunch of her father, my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff.
It may be helpful if I explain the reason for this Motion being tabled. Your Lordships will be aware that it is the usual practice of this House to divide up all the Wednesdays in the first portion of the Session among the various parties and the Cross-Bench Peers. At the start of this Session it was agreed that Wednesday 28th March should be allocated to Labour Peers. It is therefore a matter for Labour Peers, and only Labour Peers, to decide what they wish to debate on that day.
At their weekly party meeting on 15th March, Labour Peers unanimously endorsed the recommendation of their own co-ordinating committee that Wednesday 28th March should be used to debate the important issues raised in the Homes Bill and the tobacco Bill. Given all the speculation in the press about an early election, Labour Peers felt it appropriate to ensure that this House should be assured of the opportunity to put on record its views on those two important Bills, each of which fulfils manifesto commitments.
As your Lordships know, the last Labour debate of every Session of this Parliament has been handed back to the Government by Labour Peers to deal with legislation, without complaint and to the benefit of the whole House. Indeed, it has long been the practice to ensure that the last Wednesday debate of each Session is allocated to the party of government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is well known for his courtesy and commitment to the traditions of the House. He well knows that it is his right, as it is the right of any Peer, to table a Motion at any time he pleases. However, he also knows that this House works only by a system of self-regulation and self-restraint. Clearly, if even a small number of Peers table

105
Motions for debate without consultation or regard for other business, this House would quickly grind to a halt.
I was therefore amazed to discover that the noble Viscount had tabled this Motion without any consultation whatsoever. In the first place he made no effort to consult the Labour Peers group to discover if it wished to use its debate day to discuss the countryside and foot and mouth disease before homes and tobacco.
I shudder to think what would be the reaction from the Benches opposite if a Labour Back-Bencher were to table a Motion on a topic of his or her choosing for Wednesday 4th April, which is the next Conservative debate day. Noble Lords opposite would rightly be outraged. Wednesday 4th April belongs to Conservative Peers, and it would be monstrous for another party to try to hijack it. By the same argument, Wednesday 28th March belongs to the Labour Peers, who are indeed outraged that a Conservative Peer has unilaterally decided that Labour Peers would rather debate his Motion before the topics that they have chosen. As Chairman of the Labour Peers group, my noble friend Lord Dubs has written to the noble Viscount asking him to withdraw his Motion for debate.
The noble Viscount made no attempt to consult my noble friend Lady Hayman before tabling his Motion. I am sure that the House would agree that my noble friend has been most diligent in reporting to the House and answering Questions and debates since the foot and mouth outbreak began. Indeed, she will repeat another Statement on the subject immediately after this Motion. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that the current outbreak means that my noble friend is exceptionally busy outside the House. I must choose my words with care. I understand that it is particularly inconvenient to my noble friend to have to leave that important task to be here tomorrow afternoon.
I am astonished that the noble Viscount did not have the courtesy to discuss his Motion with my noble friend before he tabled it. I hope that the noble Viscount will agree to withdraw his Motion for debate. If he does not do so, even under the terms of the business Motion, my noble friend Lady Hayman will still have to be here until late tomorrow evening to reply to the debate.
The noble Viscount made no attempt to discuss his Motion with the usual channels. To this moment he has not spoken to me about it, despite the fact that he and I had at least two conversations on other matters last Thursday evening after he had tabled his Motion. Noble Lords will know that for this House to function, business must be agreed through the usual channels. If your Lordships decide that it is in order for Peers to table Motions without consultation or consideration for other business, we would swiftly find ourselves having to tighten our rules and having to spell out more clearly what Members can and cannot do. Such a process would only result in an erosion of the rights of Back-Bench Peers, and is not one which I should like to see commence.
106
To table business without consultation through the usual channels is impractical, discourteous and short-sighted. I am extremely surprised that the noble Viscount, with his long experience in the House, has done so. Also, I understand that if Labour Peers had tabled a Motion or Motions for debate on any subject tomorrow afternoon, the noble Viscount would not have tabled his Motion on foot and mouth for debate. That has the clear implication to me that the Motion tabled by the noble Viscount is more a matter of parliamentary tactics than an overriding desire to debate the countryside and foot and mouth.
Finally, I draw attention to the subject matter of the debate tabled by the noble Viscount. The current outbreak of foot and mouth is extremely serious. It is appropriate that parliamentary time should be made available to discuss it. Over the past three weeks we have discussed the issue on six occasions. The noble Viscount took the opportunity to participate on only one such occasion. In addition, we shall discuss foot and mouth in the Statement which will be taken after this Motion.
I do not underestimate the importance or the gravity of the subject. However, I do not believe that the way in which the noble Viscount has tried to ensure a debate is the right way to proceed. He has made his point, although not in the most appropriate way. I hope that he will now agree to the request from my noble friend Lord Dubs, Chairman of the Labour Peers group, to withdraw his Motion for debate tomorrow. I hope that he will accept my noble friend's request so that the House will not have to decide the matter on a vote. Whatever the outcome of such a vote, that would not be a seemly way for this House to conduct its business.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with tomorrow to allow the public Bills to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Viscount Cranborne.—(Lord Carter.)
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for the restrained way in which he administered his rebuke. The last thing in the world I want to do is to offend the noble Lord, for whom, as he knows, I have the greatest possible respect. However, I notice that it has become a habit for the Labour Party to do something which our party did not do when it was in Government; that is, to indulge in a private deal with their own Front Bench to try to get government business done, at least in part, on Wednesdays.
Despite the appeal of the noble Lord, I oppose the Motion. Perhaps I may briefly explain why to the House. My reason, which the House may find difficult to believe, is not just that I do not fancy a late night tomorrow, but may be found in the reason why I tabled the Motion in the first place. To that extent the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip is right. As he pointed out, for some time priority has been given on Wednesdays to Back-Bench business. I think that the whole House would recognise that our Wednesday debates are not only much appreciated within this

107
House but have given a lead, particularly on long-term issues, to another place and to the nation at large. I do not think that I need to expand on that observation. It seems to me to be common ground between all Members of this place.
Equally, the House has always recognised that towards the end of the parliamentary Session, if the Government are to get their business through, as I think the noble Lord acknowledged, the Back-Benchers should gracefully surrender their Wednesday rights. That has been common practice under both Conservative and Labour Governments. I do not believe that anybody in this House would object to the principle of the Government getting their business through being maintained.
I also believe that, until recent Labour Party practice, that decision has always been arrived at in the same way. As the noble Lord said, the matter has been agreed through the usual channels and then by the whole House as a result of a Motion. Up until now, that procedure has been universally observed. As far as I am aware, on this occasion, as on previous occasions, in conjunction with their own Back Benches, the Government have formed a habit which, in view of the importance of Wednesdays, I feel is disrespectful to the House. I understand from my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench that on this occasion as on others the Government never approached either the Opposition through the usual channels or consulted the whole House, to which Wednesdays belong whichever Back Benches' turn it is. As the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms pointed out, they merely did a private deal with their own Back Benches to take over Back-Bench time.
There is a genuine difference of opinion between the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms and myself. It is right and proper that our practice should continue and that Back Benches in all parts of the House should take their turn. However, I find it difficult to accept that Wednesdays should, by implication, be wholly at the disposal of, in this instance, the Labour Party to negotiate away Back-Bench rights for the convenience of the Government. That is the burden of the difference between the noble Lord and myself.
I wholly recognise that there could be good business management reasons for the Government to want to take government business on Wednesday this week. However, as a matter of principle, it is for the Government to negotiate with the usual channels rather than to fix the business of the House by private agreement with their own party caucus. Of course, if I have been discourteous to the noble Lord in particular, I unreservedly apologise. However, perhaps he ought to think of pots and kettles because, according to my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench, the usual channels were not consulted before the deal was done.
If this House is not to become completely the plaything of the Government, it is important that the House should not increasingly adopt a practice which makes such a mockery of its procedures and habits. For that reason, if Labour Back-Benchers want to use
108
Back-Bench time for a Motion of their own, I should be only too happy to withdraw my Motion for tomorrow. I wholly accept that the noble Baroness the Minister who answers for agricultural matters in this House has been extremely busy and am aware that she has been working flat out during this period of crisis. I am equally aware that in order for consent for the Government's actions not to be withheld, it is important for Ministers in both Houses to give high priority to parliamentary examination of what they are doing. I understand that during the last war—as was said in response to my noble friend Lady Trumpington, it was before my time—the government of the day gave priority to debates in the House of Commons, even though there were other calls on their time.
I believe that an important matter of principle is involved. If there has been discourtesy on my part, I unreservedly apologise. However, I do not apologise for the principle at stake because it is important. I refer to the standing of Back-Benchers in this House. It. is an important principle of this place that the Back Benches are equal to the Front Benches; and our Wednesday debates are an important outward and visible sign of that.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, as a very old Member of this House in every sense, I was surprised and shocked when I saw the noble Viscount's Motion for debate on the Order Paper for tomorrow. It seemed to me extremely discourteous as no one had been consulted and the Labour Peers had agreed to give up tomorrow to other business. He has used what seems to me a specious argument and I strongly object. I hope that the Motion moved by my noble friend the Chief Whip will be agreed to.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate and the history alarms me. The interests of Back-Benchers on both sides of the House are at risk if we ever see a repeat of these events.
It is disingenuous to pretend that the Bills tabled for tomorrow appear as the choice of Labour Back-Benchers for their Back-Bench day. The day is being taken over not for Back-Bench business but for government business. It is by definition no longer a Back-Bench day. A Back-Bench day has been taken away from the House as a whole without consultation with the Opposition. That is the essence of the whole matter.
We must be clear that, by custom, throughout a considerable part of the year Wednesdays are used for Back-Bench Motions. Although there are times when the Government must come to the House to ask that government business should be taken on a particular Wednesday, when they do so negotiations take place through the usual channels in order to reach agreement on all sides of the House.

109
Whichever way one looks at the issue, it is a straightforward case of the Government using a Back-Bench day for their own business without having any consultations through the usual channels. That will not do.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, speaking with experience, having sat on both Government and Opposition Front Benches for some 30 years, I must say to the noble Viscount that we do not need his defence and protection to ensure that the Labour Peers exercise their full and democratic rights within the Parliamentary Labour Party.
If we have made a gesture to the Chief Whip in regard to tomorrow's debates, it is because we have decided to do so. We were not forced to do so; we decided to do so. To say that Wednesdays are solely Back-Bench days is frankly a load of twaddle. They are often used particularly by Opposition Front Benches, Labour or Conservative, to promote their own party lines. We have done so without any criticism at any quarter.
The real danger faced by the House today is that we are beginning to lose the sense of respect towards each other upon which the House has always depended. The noble Viscount, if he believed that the issue he had put to the House today was so important that he should put the whole question of Wednesday debates at a degree of risk, could at least have gone to the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip to explain his anxieties. However, he decided not to do so. He decided to be a maverick—why, I do not know, but there must be a reason.
I do not believe that it is in the interests of the House that our business should be done in such a underhand way. It should be done through consultation and knowledge and the noble Viscount declined to do that. I am sorry to say that because I had great respect for him when he was Leader of the House. He knows as well as I that we depend on trust and confidence in each other. I hope that the noble Viscount will not force the House to divide on this issue.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, are we not making heavy weather of all this? I can understand the noble Viscount wanting to draw attention to a practice which, if it became common, would undermine the authority of Back-Benchers. He has registered a point which all of us have noted. But in recent times this is the only occasion on which the Labour Back Benches have chosen to give up their time for legislation, and I do not believe that we should be too fussed about it.
It is true that in another place the Labour Back Benches are tame. I find no tame Back Benches on any side of your Lordships' House. I believe that were it to become the habit of the government of the day to seek to filch from Back-Benchers time that is properly theirs they would revolt and say "no". They have not done so. This matter has been accepted by the Labour
110
Back-Benchers, and I hope that that is sufficient. Why cannot we get on with the really important business on the Order Paper?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I do not pretend to have been in the high ranks of this House for as long as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but I have been here for a considerable time. What worries me about this matter is that this is not just one occasion but another example of Her Majesty's Government in this and another place doing away unilaterally with age-old traditions of both Houses. I believe that if the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, for whom I have as much respect as anybody in this House, had asked through the usual channels whether on this one occasion this could be done by agreement between him and his Back-Benchers, I cannot imagine that anybody would have said "no" particularly. But I think that this should have been consulted on. I really do hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his opposition to my noble friend on this occasion.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I was struck by one of the remarks of the noble Viscount who said that Labour Back-Benchers were in danger of becoming the plaything of the Government. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know that my noble friend Lord Dubs would have vigorously defended the recommendations of his committee to Labour Back Benchers on 15th March. My noble friend is in Prague today on family business. As a former chairman I attend all of those meetings. We saw nothing exceptional in the circumstances, which included the fact that these two topics were manifesto commitments and we on this side of the House support them and the Government.
The difficulties sometimes experienced in finding the right topic to debate were put to us in a reasonable, straightforward way. Shortly after the Government came to office I remember conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in which he reminded me of the difficulties that he and his colleagues sometimes experienced in deciding on the right topics for Conservative Back-Bench debates. It is all very well to refer to the myth that on Wednesdays we are on the ball in debating a suitable topic that is relevant to the nation. Sometimes that is so; sometimes it is not. The charge that is made is that somehow or other the Government Chief Whip has marched in and said either this is what he would like to do or this is what we should do. Noble Lords do not know Labour Back-Benchers as well as I do. I can assure the House that Labour Back-Benchers take their rights seriously.
It is not right to say that the Government are not entitled to use their goodwill with their own Back-Benchers in progressing business. If on this occasion this matter meets with the approval of Labour Back-Benchers, as it does, I see nothing wrong with it. Frankly, I am surprised that the noble Viscount acted

111
in the way that he did. It is discourteous and unusual. I hope that, having heard the debate, the noble Viscount will withdraw his Motion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, there are two matters before the House which are being joined together as if they are one: one is the use of Wednesdays; the other is how that issue was brought before the House. It appears that there may have been discourtesy on both sides. I do not stand to judge between them, but certainly my noble friend has apologised in handsome terms for discourtesy on his part. Therefore, let us leave that matter and perhaps consider it privately. However, publicly we should debate the question of how Wednesdays should be used.
I accept everything that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said in his capacity both as a former Chief Whip and leader of his party's Back-Bench group. However, nobody seems to have recognised in the debate so far that the Wednesday afternoon debate is not the sole property of the party which initiates it. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, appears to be amazed. I draw to his attention that if he tables a Motion for his party to debate on a Wednesday I can join in. It is a Back-Bench, not a legislative, issue. There is a distinction between legislation and matters of general interest. It appears that we are being carted off to spend more and more time on legislation, which is tactical, and less and less on matters of general interest, which is strategic. In this nation there is no forum other than here where that can be done, and it should be sacrificed most unwillingly.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord C'ranborne, knows very well that I have the highest respect for him. We have often agreed on a variety of House matters. But on this occasion we are elevating the question of Wednesday's business to a great issue of principle when, in my brief experience, towards the end of a Session on some Wednesdays there is government business on the Order Paper, as the noble Viscount acknowledges.
I give the noble Viscount one good reason why I hope that he will, with the greatest possible respect, withdraw his Motion. He will agree that my noble friend Lady Hayman is widely respected for the amount of work that she carries out. My noble friend is here again today to make a Statement. I hope the noble Viscount agrees that to make my noble friend return again tomorrow in the middle of all that work to reply to yet another debate is not only unreasonable but wholly unfair. I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his Motion.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, this is a re-run of the issue of the arrangement of business on Wednesdays and Thursdays which noble Lords debated recently. It is no good the Captain shaking his head in that way—he can shake it in a different way—because that is how it appears to some noble Lords. The noble Lord will remember that on that occasion the Back Benches voted against a Motion tabled by the Government Front Bench and supported by the Opposition Front
112
Bench. The noble Lord should realise that there is unease on the Back Benches about the way in which business is being conducted. The rules appear to be being changed gently.
My noble friend Lord Elton is absolutely right. One Wednesday does not belong to the Conservative Back Benches, the next to the Cross Benches and the next to the Labour Back Benches; it is collectively Back-Bench time. Therefore, if legislation is put on the Order Paper instead of Back-Bench Motions, all Back-Benchers, not just some, lose out.
As for the urgency of these Bills, which we are told are manifesto commitments, what is the rush? We are not yet in the fifth year of this five-year Parliament, so there is plenty of time to come. It appears that among Ministers—of course not in this House but in the other place—recently there has been a most unfortunate outbreak of what might be called "headless chicken" disease. There is some suspicion that it comes from Brazil and has been smuggled in illicitly by someone formerly very close to government circles.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may begin on a lighter note. On behalf of the Opposition I should like to wish the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, a very happy birthday. I wholly understand why the Leader of the House cannot be in her place this afternoon, but the Government Chief Whip has done very well in her absence.
Perhaps I may take a few moments to clarify the position of the Official Opposition. As is widely known, the division of the Wednesday debates between the parties and the Cross-Benchers is agreed at the start of each Session. That was done last year at the end of November and the beginning of December. Wednesday 28th March was given to the Labour Party Back-Benchers to choose their debate for the day. Incidentally, "choose" is a very important word. They have the ability to initiate a debate; it does not mean that the Labour Party owns that day to do with it whatever it wants.
At one of our regular discussion meetings, on Wednesday 14th March, we were told that Labour Party debates would go ahead on 28th March. But on Thursday 15th March we were told that the Labour Party had changed its mind and that the day had been given up unilaterally to the Government. We objected on the basis that it was Back-Bench time. At no time did we agree with the Government's actions.
Last week there was no further change and the Government put down two Bills for debate at Second Reading. So, after the party meetings last Thursday, my noble friend Lord Cranborne, who has always been a defender of Back-Bench time even when he was Leader of this House, seeing that the Labour Back-Benchers had failed to take up the opportunity to have their debate, presumably on the instructions of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—I am sorry, but I understand why he cannot be with us today—put down a Motion on foot and mouth.

113
As my noble friend Lord Cranborne has emphasised today, he will withdraw his Motion if Labour Back-Benchers want the time for debate. Sadly, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, says, Labour Back-Benchers have taken the Prime Minister's instructions too seriously and, like 19th-century children, would rather be seen and not heard.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does not the noble Lord agree that as the day was allocated to the Labour Back Benches it is up to them to decide how to dispose of it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am so grateful to the noble Lord for making that point. That is the point: I disagree entirely with that. It is up to Labour Party Back-Benchers to initiate the debate, not to own the day.
Of course we agree that Wednesday Back-Bench debates are suspended in July to deal with the bottleneck at the end of the Session. Of course we shall suspend such Wednesday debates when a general election is announced. Next week, for example, is a Conservative Wednesday. If next week Parliament is to be dissolved, we will unreservedly give up that day.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Am I misreading the Motion on the Order Paper? The Motion on the Order Paper simply says that the noble Viscount's Motion may go ahead but after the Government's Bills. He is not being deprived of his Motion. He just has to sit a little longer in his place than he would otherwise like.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am coming to that matter. Not only have I read the Motion that the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip is dealing with today, but I have read the original Motion in the Standing Order. I shall come to that point in a moment if the noble Lord can be patient. What the Government and what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, have failed to answer is: first, if next week Parliament is dissolved for a 3rd May general election, the Bills that are discussed tomorrow cannot be passed without agreement: and, secondly, if there is no election, which seems increasingly possible, the point made by my noble friend Lord Tebbit stands: what on earth is the fuss all about, because, in the normal course of events, we have all the time in the world to continue with Wednesday debates?
Therefore, the issues before us are very simple: first, Standing Order No. 40 goes hack to 1852 and was reaffirmed a few weeks ago in a debate in this House. If we ride roughshod over the rights of Back-Benchers for no obvious reason, other than executive convenience, what will the Government do next? Will there be more procedural Motions against other
114
parties—the Liberal Democrats, the Cross-Benchers or even the Conservatives—for government convenience? The Motion is quite explicit. It states:
"On Wednesdays, notices of Motions shall have precedence over notices and orders relating to public Bills, measures and delegated legislation".
The reason for that is quite clear; it is to maintain the right of this House on Back-Bench Motions to debate important matters on Wednesdays in prime time.
Secondly, the debate is on foot and mouth. There is no more important matter facing the country today. Yet, the Motion of the Government Chief Whip will mean that foot and mouth is debated in the middle of the night while the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill is discussed in prime time. Remember, if next week Parliament is dissolved, that Bill cannot be passed without agreement. Yesterday hunting, tomorrow tobacco—how out of touch with the worries of the people of this country does one have to be to believe that tobacco advertising and promotion is a more urgent issue than foot and mouth?
In a few moments we shall vote, unless the noble Lord, Lord Carter, withdraws his Motion or my noble friend feels so moved to do the same. However. if the Chief Whip does not withdraw the Motion, when the votes are counted I know on whose side I want to be. I want to be loudly and clearly in favour of Back-Bench time and against executive action. Above all other things, I want to put the interests of Parliament and the people of this country before what we are witnessing from the Government Benches and, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Democrat Benches, who want to put narrow party advantage before the rights of Parliament.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said that if there is an election on 3rd May, the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill and the Homes Bill could not go through without the agreement of the House. Has he given any indication of such agreement?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords, we have not. We have not been asked to give that agreement because, as the noble Lord and the House knows, no general election has been announced.
Lord Carter: My Lords, until I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I never thought that we were looking at parliamentary Armageddon. For a long period it has been the practice, both under the previous and this Government, for the last Wednesday debate in each Session to be given to the government party. I am told that some years ago—we do not have the exact year and are relying on the memory of a member of the Clerks' Office—when, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, was Chief Whip, the Labour Opposition gave up their Wednesday to the Conservative Government to enable them to do their business.

115
We have used the last Wednesday of the Session—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The noble Lord keeps referring to the "last Wednesday". Why is this the "last Wednesday"?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I shall come to that matter. I am just explaining the important point that in 1998, 1999 and in 2000 my Labour colleagues agreed to give up their last Wednesday debate to the Government for legislation. There were no complaints from the Official Opposition and certainly no complaints from the Liberal Democrats. I believe that there were no complaints because noble Lords were concerned about the starting date of the Summer Recess; and if the Government were able to use a day for legislation, the Session might end at a reasonable time.
The reason that the House was not consulted was that there was no need for a Business Motion until the noble Viscount tabled his Motion for debate. The two Second Readings have been in "Future Business" for about a Fortnight. The only reason for the need to consult the House with a Business Motion is the use of parliamentary tactics. That is what this matter is all about. The noble Viscount knows the Standing Order. Under Standing Order No. 40, if he puts the debate down first, it must be taken first. It is a deliberate parliamentary tactic. to which I shall return.
There was no need for me to bring a Motion to the House because all that was on the Order Paper until the noble Viscount's debate was put down were the Motions for the two Second Readings. As soon as I knew—either the Tuesday or the Wednesday—that the co-ordinating committee had that in mind to recommend to our Thursday meeting, I immediately walked down the corridor to the Opposition Chief Whip. I said that I did not think that it was a matter for agreement because it was a Labour debate day, but I told him what the intention was. He made what I regard as a perfectly good and professional Chief Whip's point: "When we come to negotiate the number of Wednesdays next Session, we shall have to think about this". I also informed the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. His comment was, "I do not think that my Back-Benchers would do this". But, again, there was no official complaint, and the Motions for the Second Readings have been down on "Future Business" for some two weeks.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, referred to the high priority of foot and mouth. We have discussed foot and mouth six times in the past three weeks. The noble Viscount was able to be present on only one of those occasions. He has already said that if the Labour Peers care now to put down a Motion for debate on any topic, he will withdraw his Motion on foot and mouth. So is concern about foot and mouth the overriding reason? The noble Viscount is concerned about the way in which Wednesdays are being used, but this is an exceptional situation. Let us not pretend. It arises because my Labour colleagues knew—they can read the newspapers like everyone else—there was
116
a good chance that there could be an election on 3rd May. If so, Wednesday's debate would he the last Labour debate of the Session.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not hiding that.
A noble Lord: Will the noble Lord confirm it?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not confirming anything. My Labour colleagues can read the newspapers. I shall be the last to know. They felt that in the circumstances, with this perhaps being the last Labour debate—it was their decision—the House should have a chance—
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I understood him to say earlier that this Wednesday was the last day for a Wednesday debate this Session and that that is why it had been given up. He has now said that it is the last day for a Labour debate. I am raising the matter because I have a Question down for next Wednesday—a week tomorrow—and I want to know whether I shall be able to ask it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as I understand the position, if an election is called next week, Starred Questions remain on the Order Paper for the days on which the House is sitting. Therefore, the noble Countess has no need to worry.
If the noble Viscount had a real concern—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. In the event that my noble friend's Motion were to be debated tomorrow in the way that he would wish, is there anything to stop the two Bills being taken after that debate? If they could be taken, are not the Government Benches making a lot of fuss? They could have their day a little later; the Government could get their business a little later; and we could all be ecstatically happy.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it has just been pointed out to me by my noble friend Lady Hayman that the previous debate on the subject took nine hours.
If the noble Viscount was concerned, why did he not bring the matter to the notice of the Procedure Committee? That is what we have a Procedure Committee for.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I had wondered whether I might raise the same point with him. As there is clearly some disagreement on all sides of the House about the procedure governing Wednesday debates and how government business takes priority on certain days, will the noble Lord consider referring the matter to the Procedure

117
Committee for examination so what we can clarify what is desirable in time for either the next Session or the next Parliament?
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the noble Viscount is prepared to withdraw his Motion, of course I shall. I shall be delighted to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee.
We heard a good deal from the party opposite about debates on Back-Bench days being initiated by Back-Benchers. Two weeks ago we had a Conservative Back-Bench day. Who opened the debate? It was the Leader of the Opposition. So much for concern about the rights of Back-Benchers! If one listens to the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Tebbit, and others, one gets the impression that if we debate homes and tobacco tomorrow, they cannot take part. I have looked at the speakers' list. Conservative Peers have put down their names to speak on homes and tobacco. I really do not understand what this is about. It is a quite simple operation. I have already made the point—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does the noble Lord not understand that a general piece of niggling is going on? I do not excuse my noble friend Lord Cranborne for this either, but there is a general air of niggling between the Front Benches and between the parties which I have not seen since I took my seat in this House in 1971. People are trying the whole time to pull flankers. That is something which we must as a House not do. The Liberal Democrats think it funny that the procedure should be mucked about with. It is quintessentially important that we keep the traditions and manners of the House. To a certain extent, a plague on both houses. We are all playing it too rough. For heaven's sake, let us get back to the proper procedure, the proper manners and the proper traditions of this House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the noble Earl think that it adds to this "niggling", as he described it, that a former Leader of the House, a former business manager, now a Back-Bencher, put down a debate last Thursday without having the courtesy even to tell me? Why did he not consult? When he saw me twice on Thursday evening, why did he not tell me?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have resisted joining in the debate, but this is about the third time that the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms has had a go at my noble friend Lord Cranborne for discourtesy. Has the noble Lord forgotten that two weeks ago he put down an amendment on the Hunting Bill without the courtesy of consultation with the Opposition and through the usual channels? The noble Lord was castigated for that and he apologised.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is not strictly correct. I did in fact write to the Opposition Chief Whip with my intentions. There was no agreement between us, and the House decided by a substantial majority that I was right.
118
I do not think that there is much point in continuing this debate. But perhaps I may repeat the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. If the debate on foot and mouth is as important as the noble Viscount says, why is he willing to withdraw it if we put down a Motion on any other topic? It is clearly a piece of parliamentary tactics. I am afraid that the party opposite has not entirely become used to the new House. It no longer has a veto. Things have to be done by agreement, and I do my utmost to achieve that. In this particular case, it was a Labour debate. Before it appeared on the Order Paper, I took the trouble to inform the Opposition Chief Whip and the Leader of the Opposition.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms is quite right that what concerns me is the rights of Back-Benchers. But given that, rightly or wrongly, I wanted to make the point by putting down a Motion, it seemed perfectly reasonable that the Motion I should choose should be one that concerns me greatly as well as other Members of the House. The noble Lord is right to separate the two points.
During the course of my earlier remarks I did not for a moment discuss the merits or otherwise of foot and mouth except to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. What concerns me is that there is genuine worry about the rights of Back-Benchers in this House, as has become evident during the course of the past 50 minutes.
I notice that, with his usual courtesy, the noble Lord agreed that the matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee, which is the proper way of proceeding. I accept that undertaking with gratitude. I do not in any way regret the fact that I raised the matter because my doing so has given it the high profile that it richly deserves.
I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, whether to be disobliging about me, or to support me. Perhaps I may say that, if this matter is referred to the Procedure Committee for consideration, a relatively minor issue which could become a rather important one will be addressed. For that reason, I am happy not to press the Motion to a vote on the clear understanding of the undertaking given by the noble Lord—who, so far as I know, has never reneged on any undertaking—that he will ensure that this is referred to the Procedure Committee, discussed and then reported to this House. In the light of that undertaking, I am equally happy to withdraw my Motion for tomorrow.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, the Question is that this Motion be agreed to. Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the Motion?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion, on the clear understanding that we have just received from the noble Viscount.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Foot and Mouth Disease
4.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place on foot and mouth disease. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to update the House both on the latest position on the disease outbreak and on the range of actions the Government have been taking since I last informed the House on Wednesday, 21st March. I then want to outline what we know so far about the causes and spread of the outbreak, and to announce the measures we propose to take as a result.
"As at 1 p.m. today, there had been 668 confirmed cases in Great Britain and one in Northern Ireland. Forty-two cases were confirmed yesterday. Out of a total UK livestock population of more than 55 million., 697,500 have now been authorised for slaughter and 423,000 have already been slaughtered. Outside the United Kingdom, there is one case in the Republic of Ireland, two cases in France and five cases in Holland.
"I made public last week the epidemiological studies I have received on the likely course of the disease. They differed in their detail, but they were all clear that this is an unprecedented outbreak which has not yet reached its peak. Our strategy remains focused on three key priorities: all animals—cattle, sheep and pigs—on infected farms are to be culled within 24 hours of the infection report; all animals—cattle, sheep and pigs—on contiguous farms are then to be culled within 48 hours; and we are concentrating our efforts in northern Cumbria on clearing all animals identified for slaughter in Solway, and on creating a 'firebreak' south of the worst affected area.
"Last Wednesday, I explained to the House what actions the Government were taking to speed up our response to the disease. I believe that we have taken the right actions and I shall spell out what effect they are already having.
"We have made full use of the resources of the Army. Some 780 soldiers are now deployed, at MAFF's request, helping with the logistic operations. These include 115 in Scotland and 50 in Wales, in addition to over 600 in England, of which 118 are in Cumbria and a further 72 in Devon. As well as the Army unit in our headquarters in London, there are Army HQs in Exeter, Worcester, Carlisle and Dumfries. Military liaison officers will he joining all major disease control centres. The Army's role is to enhance command and control, and to assist in the disposal process. Their presence allows us to free vets to concentrate on solely veterinary matters.
"Last week, I informed the House that we had put in place senior officials as directors of operations in Cumbria and Devon and were about to do so in Worcester. In addition to those three, we have since
120
put in place further directors of operations in Stafford, Chelmsford, Gloucester, Leicester and Newcastle. These senior administrators have also taken over operational tasks from senior vets and allowed them to get on with their veterinary work.
"We are also bringing more and more vets into the front line. The total number of vets in the State Veterinary Service tackling the disease is now 1,235 and we are looking to increase this number still further. We are following up offers of assistance from the French and Spanish Governments. An appeal to its members by the British Veterinary Association has generated a large number of inquiries which are being pursued. Enhanced rates of pay for temporary vets were announced last week.
"Wherever possible, we have reduced the time between when a vet makes one inspection and when he or she can make the next one; where the disease risk is minimal, this turn-round time has been reduced to 24 hours. We have simplified the valuation arrangements—while at the same time safeguarding farmers' interests—by introducing a generous standard tariff. More than 95 per cent of confirmations now take place on clinical grounds; that is, without the need for laboratory tests. We have also revised protocols to allow vets in the field to make on-site judgments and to initiate slaughter.
"The key task is to reduce the time between the first report of the disease and the slaughter of the herd or flock. Our target remains that this should not exceed 24 hours. The epidemiological studies published last week confirmed that this is the single most important intervention in controlling the disease. We are achieving this in large parts of the country, including Devon in recent days. In Cumbria, the high density of infection and sheer number of cases, have meant that we are not yet achieving that target. Work is in hand to address this. Yesterday, I visited the two most affected areas of the country, Cumbria and Devon. I saw for myself the hard work being carried out by the State Veterinary Service, the Army and all the other parties involved. I also met with farmers and their leaders.
"There has been a good deal of speculation recently about the possible use of vaccination as an ingredient in our FMD control strategy. Vaccination can be used in two quite different ways. One approach is to use a national policy of vaccination as a protection mechanism against foot and mouth disease. That is not a policy adopted or favoured by any member state or by the European Commission. It is, however, accepted that emergency vaccination can play a role in controlling an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, either to establish zones of protection between infected areas and the rest of the country, or to reduce the number of cases in disease hot spots. The Commission has already agreed to the possible temporary use of vaccination in such circumstances by the Dutch authorities.

121
"Vaccination is no easy option. It would be expected to delay full return to international trade, at least for the region affected, and would be likely to require tight additional controls, at least in the area concerned. We would need to consider, with the Commission, whether it was necessary in due course to slaughter vaccinated animals, with compensation, as part of a return to normal trading. The Government are considering whether to use vaccination. I have therefore authorised my representative in the EU Standing Veterinary Committee to seek a contingent decision permitting the use of vaccination during the present outbreak, so that it can be deployed immediately if we conclude that it is the right approach.
"We have done a great deal to help farmers financially. That includes full compensation for animals slaughtered on disease grounds, the provision of agrimonetary compensation and the preservation of CAP subsidy entitlements under EU rules on force majeure. In addition, last week I opened the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme as an outlet of last resort for livestock farmers whose animals face welfare difficulties as a result of FMD-related movement restrictions. The scheme provides for the removal and disposal of animals, for which the Government will bear the costs. At 90 per cent of pre-outbreak market value, the tariffs for the animals slaughtered under the scheme are generous. The detailed payment rates are being placed today in the Libraries of both Houses. The estimated value to farmers of this optional scheme obviously depends on take-up, but is now likely to be in excess of £200 million.
"I shall turn now to what we know about the possible causes of the current outbreak, the spread of infection and the differences between this outbreak and the 1967 outbreak. It is likely that the source farm from which the outbreak subsequently spread was the fourth infected premises to be discovered at Heddon-on-the-Wall.
"Honourable Members will be aware of speculation that the practice of feeding swill to pigs was a cause or the cause of the outbreak. The farm in question at Heddon was licensed to feed swill to pigs. Epidemiological and other investigations continue. The House will understand if I do not comment on the specifics of the case.
"The subsequent spread of infection is traceable to some extent. Virus from the source farm spread to seven other farms in Tyne and Wear. Sheep from one of these farms were sent to Hexham market on 13th February. Sheep from the 13th February market at Hexham were sent to markets at Longtown and further dispersed from there over the period 14th–24th February. So within days, at a time when we were still unaware of the disease, infected sheep were criss-crossing the country in hundreds of separate movements, putting them into contact with other livestock.
122
"From Longtown market, sheep were sent to markets at Carlisle on 16th February; Welshpool on 19th February; to dealers at Highampton in Devon, Lockerbie in Dumfries and Galloway, Dearham in Cumbria and Nantwich in Cheshire; and indirectly to markets at Hatherleigh on 20th February, Hereford on 21st February, Northampton on 22nd February and Ross-on-Wye on 23rd February.
"While tracing movements of pigs from the index farm has proved relatively straightforward, tracking movements of sheep has proved more difficult and in some cases impossible. This is partly due to unrecorded sales of sheep, which it seems took place around the edges of the various livestock markets without passing through the markets' books.
"Over the past four weeks many comparisons have been drawn with the 1967 outbreak. The truth is that the two outbreaks are very different. The key differences between this outbreak and 1967 are the speed and geographical scale of the spread of infection, which result from a number of factors, and the species involved. Experts agree that the current outbreak is unprecedented internationally.
"First, time had elapsed before the infection at the probable source farm was disclosed. The suspicious lesions found on pigs at Heddon-on-the-Wall on 22nd February suggest that they had been incubating the disease for at least two and possibly up to three weeks. By 23rd February, when infection was confirmed at Heddon-on-the-Wall, infected animals had already spread through markets and dealers to Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway, Devon, Cheshire, Herefordshire and Northamptonshire.
"Linked to this, the second factor in the speed and scale of spread was the larger scale of animal movements nowadays compared to 1967, aided by a much improved network of roads and motorways.
"A third factor was the fact that the infection spread quickly to sheep, and then among sheep, which, because of the nature of sheep flocks and the way they are traded, made the course of the infection more difficult to trace. The 1967 outbreak was mainly in pigs and cattle. The strain of the virus we are currently dealing with does not manifest itself clearly in sheep, which makes detection difficult. Apparently healthy animals may be disease carriers.
"I am announcing four actions in response to this assessment of the origins and spread of the disease. The first measure relates to pigswill. I am today proposing a ban on the use of swill feeding in this country.
"I accept that the arguments in favour and against allowing the practice are quite finely balanced. If the statutory conditions for feeding swill are complied with—heating at 100 degrees Centigrade for one hour—it does not present a risk of transmitting foot and mouth disease and other similar pathogens. Nor will banning swill feeding necessarily prevent the risk of illegal feeding of swill and catering waste to pigs, for example, possibly by owners of small numbers of pigs.

123
"However, I have concluded that the potential risk of swill feeding introducing disease to livestock farms where swill is not used—and to the wider community—is now greater than the benefits to the relatively small number of premises which continue to adopt this practice. That is why I am proposing an early ban. My department is today issuing a public consultation document seeking the views of all interested parties on the principle and detailed application of such a ban.
"Meanwhile, let me remind the owners of all pigs in the country, including pet pigs, to comply with the current law. It is illegal to feed untreated household waste or any other materials that may contain meat products.
"I am also issuing a second consultation document today containing a proposal to introduce a 20-day standstill period, after movement, for sheep, goats and cattle.
"There are rules on the identification and movement of pigs, including a general requirement that no pigs should be moved off premises within 20 days of any pigs moving on to those premises. If a similar requirement had been in place, and observed, in relation to sheep in particular, it is likely that the spread of the foot and mouth virus would have been significantly slowed down, making tracing and control of the infection easier.
"I am minded therefore to introduce legislation to require a 20-day standstill period for sheep, goats and cattle, subject to the views of interested parties. That is why I am launching a full consultation exercise today.
"Thirdly, we know that somehow infection has entered this country. One possible way is through illegal commercial imports of meat where contents have not been declared. There is clearly an issue here about carrier liability to which the Government will be giving careful thought. Another possibility is that infected produce may have come in as a personal import. Rules already exist to control such imports. The rules must be enforced effectively. I am coordinating action across government to ensure this happens. I will also be writing to Commissioner Byrne to stress that a consistent and tough approach needs to be taken across the EU.
"Lastly, once we are beyond the current difficulties, my department will be looking at a range of other issues surrounding the operation of the livestock sector to see if more may be done to minimise disease risks still further. This work will include the operation of markets—and in particular out-of-ring sales—and on the identification and tracing of pigs, sheep and goats.
"In all these matters I will be acting in close consultation with the devolved administrations.
"This has been a dreadful time for farmers and others directly affected by FMD. I believe that our policy of containment of the disease is the right one and that the massive logistical exercise required to implement it is being reinforced. We will succeed in eradicating this disease. In addition, I believe the
124
measures that I have announced today will ensure we learn the lessons and minimise the risks of such a tragedy in the future".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is a very long Statement—it took the Minister some 16 minutes to read—and it would have been helpful if I had received a copy a little earlier. That is why—I hope that the House will forgive me—I was not in my place when the Minister started reading the Statement. It has come to us quite late on this occasion.
I again pay credit and give thanks to all those who are working to control and eradicate this dreadful disease. The number of cases has now risen to 668 and continues to rise. I suspect and hope that the Government will acknowledge that at the moment the disease is totally out of control, something that they have not admitted so far.
The new measures mentioned in the Statement—particularly as regards pigswill and the suggested 20-day standstill—are supported by the Opposition. However, as I understand the Statement, those steps will not be introduced straightaway but will follow a consultation period. Can the Minister say how long the consultation will take and how quickly the Government will act upon the findings?
As outlined in the Statement, the original outbreak is likely to have been caused by the illegal import of meat, either commercially or as a personal import. The Minister said that the Government are to tighten up on the procedures. What restrictions does the Minister envisage the Government imposing, presumably in conjunction with their overseas colleagues? It is not something which can be done by this country alone.
I turn to the question of vaccination. Although the Statement says clearly that vaccination is not a. policy adopted or favoured by any member state or by the European Commission, it recognises that zonal management may be agreed if necessary but that that will be in an emergency. Do I take it, therefore, that if there is a move to vaccination the Government are admitting that the disease has got out of control and beyond control?
Fourthly, the Minister mentioned the welfare disposal scheme, which we support. Ninety per cent of the pre-outbreak market value is acceptable.
The Minister referred to the quick spread of the disease compared with the outbreak in 1967. While I accept that there is much more movement of animals than there was in those days, the Government's response was too slow initially and the disease spread too quickly. The Minister said that there was no blueprint. But after the episode in 1967 there was indeed a blueprint which suggested that two points were crucial: one was immediate slaughter; the other was burial. It is only in recent weeks that burial has become part of the Government's armoury. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. The ministry's scientific adviser said on the radio only last week that

125
it would make a huge difference in bringing the disease under control if slaughter took place within 24 hours and disposal within the next 24 hours. But, according to government figures, 640,000 animals are waiting to be slaughtered, and in the past 24 hours only some 31,000 animals have been slaughtered. My maths is not enormously good, but at that rate it would take eight days to clear the backlog, let alone deal with any new cases. The Minister mentioned extra measures. What measures are the Government bringing in, first, to get rid of the backlog and, secondly, to anticipate future cases?
At the moment, I feel that we are "treading water backwards"—an expression that I have used to colleagues in Cumbria. This simply cannot go on. What extra resources are being provided? The Minister will remember that during the debate on the Statement on 11th March I raised the question of the extra vets that were needed and the extra use of hunt servants. I also referred to bringing in the Army. I was told at that stage that it was quite all right and that we had all the support that was necessary. Since then it has become clear that that was not true.
A target of 24 hours is important. But at present there is precious little progress in some areas. I was speaking only this morning to a farmer in Cumbria who said that a neighbouring farmer was suspicious on Sunday that his animals might have the disease but it took until Wednesday for the vet to confirm its presence. This simply cannot go on.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a number of other questions. Does the figure of 264,000 animals awaiting slaughter also include suspect cases, or is it the total figure for animals confirmed to be at risk of the disease?
There is a great deal of pressure from all quarters to consider vaccination. If the EU accepts that we can use vaccination, will that affect our chances of exporting animals in the future? Obviously, there has been a big export market, particularly for sheep, and this is hugely important to people who may be affected by such a move.
Finally, there is the question of people who are offering help. I heard of a vet who had offered help and whose offer was turned down. Who is deciding which people should be accepted and under what circumstances, be it vets or hunt servants? That is an important consideration.
We have been going through some very difficult times. We pay credit to those who are tackling these matters. Our sympathies go out to the many thousands of families who have been directly affected. It is bad enough seeing your livestock and your life's work destroyed before you. But the prospect is one of months and months before a return to normality. I am sure that the whole House shares my feeling. We look forward to the Minister's response.
4.35 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, from these Benches we thank the Minister for
126
repeating the Statement. We welcome the four measures mentioned. The public, I believe, will particularly welcome the ban on pigswill. It has been a long time coming. People felt repugnance as they began to realise the extent to which cannibalism has been forced upon farm animals. In this country we are finally taking responsibility for the fact that animals should be fed on more suitable food.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on the fourth measure. Although the Government say that they will examine a whole range of issues surrounding the operation of the livestock sector, that seems slightly negative in tone. I hope that in view of the fact that, in one way or another, exports will be more difficult, particularly if vaccination is introduced, the positive side of the fourth measure will be much more heavily emphasised. I mention, for example—as we always do—the number of small abattoirs. I gather that a number of those who are presently trying to keep open such businesses may see them closed. We may have fewer than 350 by next year. If the Government accept that the small infrastructure that is left to the livestock industry should to be strengthened and supported so that we can have a local home market that works, the fourth measure is crucial and its tone needs to be positive.
I should like to ask the Minister a couple of specific questions. She mentioned that we are making full use of the resources of the Army. However, I assume that there are further resources that could be drawn on should that be deemed necessary. I shall return to that point at the end of my remarks and the Minister will understand why.
The Minister mentioned a target of 24 hours between identifying the infection and the culling of affected animals. I repeat the question posed, although not so specifically, by the Conservative Front Bench: what is the target time between culling and disposal, and does it vary by region?
I return to an issue I raised last Tuesday during the debate on the Statement on foot and mouth and the rural economy. I asked the Minister about road closures, particularly in vulnerable areas. It seems that local authorities do not have the power to close minor roads; this is causing particular concern. Many national parks and AONBs are very vulnerable given that livestock strays on to minor roads because the roads are unfenced. Indeed, sheep are known to lie down on the tarmac because it is warm and dry. It may be that the Ministry of Agriculture did not feel that it was necessary to give local authorities the power to close minor roads, although the power was given to close footpaths and bridleways. I must draw the Minister's attention to a comment made by a MAFF vet, quoted today in the Independent:
"This is a popular tourist area and we get a lot of vehicle traffic through here. There's [also] farm traffic [which could have brought] foot-and-mouth in from other parts of Cumbria. If we can establish this was vehicle-related and there are no other adjacent cases, it would be the best possible result"
I understand what he means by "the best possible result", but the fact that MAFF is now considering more definitely the idea that the infection can be vehicle-borne means that the ability to close minor

127
roads is critical. People in Nidderdale told me this morning that lorries from Cumbria are taking a short cut through the valley to reach Yorkshire; those in other places are equally concerned. I must mention Exmoor because of the red deer herd. If the disease gets into that herd, it will be impossible to eradicate. Similarly, people in the Quantocks are very worried; there are roads that are simply used as a short cut and other routes are available.
People involved in areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks rely on stock widely grazing for reasons of character and biodiversity; and, indeed, for the few jobs that are left to them. I cannot emphasise enough that those concerned feel strongly that they need to have reasonable powers to enable them to close roads, where it seems necessary. No one wants to see blanket road closures because, obviously, the tourism industry would then be hard hit. Therefore, will the Minister urgently reconsider extending the MAFF order to this effect, which I gather would take only a matter of days? Otherwise, we may believe that we are safe because we have closed footpaths and bridleways, but that may be pointless if we have left open those routes that bring the biggest volume of movement through such areas.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses from the Front Benches opposite for their general support for the measures that I have announced this afternoon. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the timetable involved. I cannot give her a definitive answer on the timetable for the standstill for 20 days of movement of sheep and cattle. However. the noble Baroness will understand that the period of that consultation is, in some sense, academic because we have national controls on movements at present. No movements, other than those under licence, are permitted. I shall certainly seek to find that information for the noble Baroness. The time-scale will obviously form part of the consultation document. I apologise to the noble Baroness for not getting a copy of the Statement to her earlier. Perhaps I may tell her that I did not have it for a great deal of time myself, so I am sure she will understand what I mean as regards keeping it back.
As for the consultation on pigswill, I can tell the House that the period is, I believe, two weeks. Some animal welfare issues must be considered relating to the withdrawal of a method of feeding to which animals are accustomed; for example, over-night changes have to be factored into the process. I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured to know that, at the beginning of the episode, we reinforced the inspection of the licensing of licensed pigswill premises to ensure that they were carrying on their operations in a way that would provide protection against the virus.
As I explained when repeating the Statement, we now feel able, the balance of risk having moved, to recommend an overall ban in line with two other European countries—namely, Luxembourg and Portugal. However, this is not territory that has not previously been considered. Similarly, it is not that we
128
suddenly found that, as regulated, the practice is dangerous. The danger is rather analogous to the BSE danger about cross-contamination. policing, enforcement, and other such issues.
I understand the concern that we should put every necessary effort into this operation. Perhaps I may assure the House that, across government, that work is being mobilised. The noble Baroness asked me whether the figures as regards animals authorised for slaughter represented only confirmed cases. I can tell her that it is not only confirmed cases; it is also dangerous contact. We are certainly acting to a 24-hour timetable in that respect. The noble Baroness was right to work out an arithmetical calculation on getting rid of the backlog, but I have to point out to her that that assumes no ramping up of facilities. There has been an enormous ramping up of facilities, especially in Cumbria and in terms of landfill sites, which it is to be hoped will allow us to tackle the backlog in a much speedier time frame than the one suggested by the noble Baroness.
Perhaps I may make the position absolutely clear to the noble Baroness. If she looks back to previous Statements, she will see that it has never been a question of burial being ruled out in the past, and suddenly becoming available. It was always an option. However, as I have told the House previously, because of the potential contamination of water courses and the water table at present, as well as the large size of the herds and flocks with which we are dealing, it is a much more difficult option now than was the case in 1967. Moreover, in a post-BSE world, which was not the case in 1967, we also have to take into account the added issue about cattle—that is, cattle that may be over 30 months old.
The noble Baroness said that there was no blueprint. I have never suggested that there was no blueprint in this respect. Indeed, I am very aware of the Northumberland report, and its recommendations, that came about as a result of the 1967 outbreak. I believe I said that there was no blueprint for assessing what the pattern of that outbreak and epidemic would be when you have found one case of foot and mouth disease in the country. When repeating the Statement, I tried to spell out very clearly the reasons why this outbreak looks very different from that of 1967. That outbreak involved pigs and cattle and was identified much more quickly, but it did not involve the need to consider sheep—those "invisible carriers of disease", if I may put it that way—and their movements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked me about vaccination. Yes, we are considering this option; and, of course, it would have an effect on exports in the future. That is why these decisions, the comparative effects of different policies as regards getting back to disease-free status and, therefore, the ability to export products, are all part of a finely-balanced process. The role of vaccination is one that must be carefully assessed.
I am sorry, but I cannot tell the noble Baroness who turned down the application of an individual vet, or why. The last time that I checked the position we had

129
1,200 vets, as opposed to 220 in the State Veterinary Service when we started. We are accepting help, whenever necessary. I should be most upset if there were improper grounds for turning down applications from people who wish to assist. If the noble Baroness has any evidence in that respect, I undertake to carry it forward and look into the matter. Does the noble Baroness wish to intervene?
Baroness Byford: Yes, my Lords. I wanted to know who makes the decision in these cases. It is not a matter of how many. Can the Minister say who makes the decision and at what level; for example, is it made at regional, local or national level? Indeed, what about the hunt servants? Someone must be making those decisions somewhere along the line.
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords; someone is making those decisions. They are being made at a variety of levels, especially locally. However, I should like to hit on the head the idea that hunt servants are being turned down on ideological grounds. I checked this out earlier. We have been extremely grateful for the support from hunt servants in a variety of areas. I believe that a contingent of either 10 or 20—I am sorry, I cannot recall which—offered through the Countryside Alliance has moved into Carlisle to help with the cull in the area. Those offers of help are much appreciated and, indeed, are being accepted. There is the route through the British Veterinary Association, which opened up lines, and individual animal health offices are getting local offers from vets. However, when it is a case of private sector vets coming in, the noble Baroness will understand that they are able only to give a limited proportion of their time in the area. They are not as moveable a commodity as an American or an Australian vet who comes to this country for the duration of the operation and can, therefore, offer more help.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made some important points. She pointed out particularly that, in the midst of all this, we must also consider the long-term effects and the structure of the industry in the aftermath. As for roads, I can assure the noble Baroness that I recognise the worries that currently exist. As regards the legal position, I believe that the Minister has powers under the animal health Act to close roads for disease-control purposes, and that local authorities now have those powers under the amended foot and mouth disease order of 1983. However, there has not been veterinary advice that the risk is sufficient to justify invoking them. I believe that those concerned in areas like the Dartmoor National Park have issued guidance, rather than trying to invoke road closures. I shall be very happy to write to the noble Baroness on that point.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I have two questions. First, the disease was announced on a Monday. It was not until late on the Friday that the
130
movement restrictions were introduced. In the interim many sheep were moved, for example from Devon to Northampton market. With hindsight is not that something that we regret very much? Secondly, if the disease arises from bonemeal or infected swill, to what extent are the carcasses of the sheep that have been killed liable to spread the infection when fed on by birds and other wildlife?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord asked about the time frame for the movement restrictions. The disease was not announced on a Monday. On the Monday afternoon a suspect case was reported and restrictions were placed on the abattoir where it was reported. Noble Lords will be aware that every year a number of suspect cases are reported. The procedure I have mentioned is standard. It was confirmed the next day. We then issued a press release. I came to your Lordships' House on the Wednesday and announced that we had a case and the measures that had been taken.
At that time we still believed that we had a localised case in Essex with no further cases. As soon as the Heddon-on-the-Wall case was discovered, with the discovery of lesions that were more than 24 to 48 hours old—in practice they were three weeks old—internal movement restrictions were imposed. I must make clear that export licences were withdrawn administratively on the Tuesday and, legally, on the Wednesday. Action was taken. I am sure that the noble Lord has 20:20 hindsight. One can always make improvements. However, I believe that proportionate measures were taken. At that time some people claimed that there had been over-reaction.
As regards the sheep carcasses spreading infection, I repeat the veterinary advice that has been given all along; namely, that when animals are dead they stop exhaling the virus. The carcasses are treated with disinfectant. Rigor mortis sets in; pH levels are lowered. The infection could reside only in bone and bone marrow rather than in meat. Therefore, there is not a major risk of spread of disease from carcasses.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest in that we have a farm with cattle, sheep and goats in an infected area. The Statement referred to cattle, sheep and pigs in terms of the pre-emptive cull. However, goats were not mentioned. I am receiving many telephone calls from people who keep goats who want to know what the position is. Will the noble Baroness please tell us what it is? I understand that goats are not being slaughtered as they are kept indoors and are carefully watched.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned veterinary and slaughtermen volunteers. It may he that they are not being turned down by MAFF but the message is not getting through to MAFF. I have received a number of letters on that subject after my comments last week. I hope that the Minister will consider establishing a central telephone number for volunteers to ring. I have heard of volunteers who are willing to go from Devon to anywhere and to work all the hours that God sends, and to work at the old rate, the Minister will be pleased to hear.

131
I understand that one of the objections to foot and mouth vaccine is that one cannot tell whether an animal has been vaccinated or has had the infection. I understand that there is a good American test which tests serum and will differentiate between the two cases. In view of the fact that our export industry will be totally decimated before the disease is finished, will the Minister please consider that test? If she wants information, I shall provide it.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. I shall certainly pursue the idea of a central telephone number. There is, of course, a central helpline but I suspect that people may be encountering difficulties in being forwarded to relevant areas. I shall take the relevant details from the noble Countess.
She is absolutely right to say that one of the downsides of vaccination that has always been asserted is the difficulty of differentiating between antibodies that are present due to disease and those that are present due to vaccination. I understand that markers may be used to allow one to differentiate between the two cases. The Chief Scientific Adviser is taking that work forward.
As regards goats, I understand why some people are confused as the advice is not always as clear as I would wish. Before the end of the Session I may get the chance to clarify the position. As I understand the position, when infected premises are being "slaughtered out", goats are slaughtered. Dangerous contacts that are "slaughtered out" could include susceptible species such as goats, llama or alpaca. The three-kilometre cull in Cumbria concerned only sheep and pigs. The only ambiguity arises as regards contiguous premises where I understand that all susceptible livestock are subject to the measure. However, I hope that I shall be able to clarify that point quickly.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, although we welcome the level of compensation, will the value of an animal be based on its age before the outbreak or on its present age? I declare an interest as I have tenant farmers who have animals which they have not been able to move and whose value has fallen dramatically.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, value is assessed at pre-foot and mouth disease levels. That is obviously the most important factor for most people. There is a specific issue with regard to cattle over 30 months as, due to restrictions, some animals attain an age of over 30 months before they can be slaughtered. Therefore, they have a lesser value than they would have had at 29 months if they had entered the food chain at that point. The NFU has raised that issue with us and it is under consideration. However, I cannot give a policy answer on that today.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I suspect that the Minister is aware that there are real difficulties as regards welfare movement licence applications, particularly in the South West. Some animals are calving and lambing in wholly unsuitable places. Some
132
sheep have run out of food and food cannot be taken to them. The applications are taking over a week to process. I understand that that is not through lack of effort on the part of those in the relevant departments but they are overwhelmed by the number of applications. There is considerable concern that applications under the welfare disposal scheme will take a similar length of time to process. Does the Minister accept that farmers are under pressure when they see their animals deteriorate? At the same time constant attempts to speed things up are not, apparently, meeting with a response. Is there some hope that those officials that are under pressure can be given extra help to cut process times?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I recognise the problem to which my noble friend alludes. We are trying hard to draw separate streams of people to operate the different schemes that are being set in motion. In the past five weeks we have reorganised the whole of the livestock industry in this country. We have introduced completely new schemes in terms of licensing livestock to enter the food chain. That requires a whole stream of people to implement.
The short distance welfare movement scheme, the longer distance welfare movement scheme and the welfare disposal scheme comprise an enormous administrative task. It has not been possible to deal with them instantaneously because sometimes the same people are dealing with them. I understand that people have experienced frustrations in trying to access those schemes. We are trying to allocate extra resources to the schemes. Sometimes it is just a case of providing 20 new fax machines, as occurred in the Cambridge regional office at one point.
The welfare disposal scheme will be run through the intervention board. It is to be hoped, therefore, that it will not draw on the same resources and overburden the same people as the welfare licensing scheme. I recognise what the noble Baroness says and I shall look at the specific problems in the South West.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I come from a List D firebreak farm. I am so glad that the Army is now in place. I wish that it had been there two weeks ago.
Will the Minister accept that the greatest worry of farmers is fear of the unknown? Can the Government speak with one voice on their slaughter policy? Will it be cattle or sheep? What is the disposal policy? When will it happen? Farmers do not know and cannot find out what their future, even a week ahead, holds.
Finally, the automatic valuation of a ewe with lamb is £90. It is not stated whether that includes one, two or three lambs. The valuation includes £40 for a lamb. Any lamb born this year is a lamb, so will we receive £40, plus £90 for the ewe? What is the new valuation? These matters are of crucial importance to farmers who are at present in a desperate situation.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I hope that the schedule which has been published may answer some of the noble Lord's questions. When I spoke to

133
farmers' leaders in Exeter, they were comfortable with the rates being offered under the scheme. If there is a problem on the issues the noble Lord raises, I shall examine it.
I understand that farmers want certainty. However, we have to consider regionally sensitive policies which are appropriate to the area. Therefore in some areas one may be talking about a contiguous farm policy that deals with all animals. In other areas, there may be a three-kilometre policy which deals with sheep and pigs because the area is assessed on a veterinary basis as a source of infection.
Disposal will be whatever logistical advice—it is often Army advice—is the most appropriate in that area. It may be landfill, if that is possible, or movement to a large fire if that will be most effective.
We must ensure that individual farmers have individual certainty by giving them contact which is reliable and goes through the process with them. When two people were allocated to infected premises in Exeter, one of the roles of the Army was to stay with the farmer as his point of contact throughout the process from contact to eventual disposal.
Since we are talking of disposal, I can clarify for the noble Countess the situation concerning goats. I am not sure that it will be welcome clarity. The three-kilometre culls include sheep, pig and goats; infected premises and dangerous contacts include contiguous premises. Goats are treated in the same way as sheep.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the Forest of Dean, which is an infected area, sheep have traditionally wandered loose, not only in the forest but on adjacent land? I must confess that that includes land which we farm. Is the noble Baroness aware that to our amazement those sheep remain at large and continue to invade adjacent land. They have not been culled or rounded up. Do not these free-ranging sheep constitute an obvious major risk of spreading infection and are they not a cause of frustration and despair to local farmers seeking to protect their animals? Why has not the situation been dealt with? It is a localised state of affairs, but I suspect that it could be replicated all over the country. How can farmers be expected to believe in the efficacy of government measures when this patent risk remains?
On another topic, as the noble Lord the Chief Whip said earlier, we have already had six Statements or debates on this crisis. What is to replace the scrutiny of the ongoing situation if Parliament is dissolved in the near future?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can come to the House of Lords if the noble Lord would like to come! I cannot answer that question. If Parliament is not sitting, I cannot report to it. While it is sitting, I shall continue to report to it whenever I can.
As regards the Forest of Dean, I do not know the veterinary assessment on the free-ranging sheep. I shall find out. Whether something is a patent risk has to be assessed locally on veterinary opinion and the risk
134
either managed or dealt with. That is the approach we are taking. The noble Lord is concerned about this particular area. I shall follow up what he says and write to him.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Vinson: My Lords—
Lord Carter: My Lords, there is plenty of time available. I suggest that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and then the noble Lord, Lord Vinson.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the whole House and indeed the country will be grateful to hear that the process is being speeded up. The Minister must be aware of the severe criticism by the farming community over the handling of this matter. However, I know that my contacts in Cumbria will be grateful.
Will the noble Baroness agree that vaccination is not the immediate way forward? As soon as infection is diagnosed in a flock or herd, it is important that the animals are killed within a very short time. The vaccine is a more long-term protection—if one goes in that direction. It takes several days before protection is effective. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will look closely at vaccination with all its implications.
It is now clear that a limited number of sheep dealers in the north of England have been responsible in many ways for this explosive outbreak through the not necessarily illicit but unauthorised movement of sheep bought and sold when official markets have closed. Will action be taken against those people who have caused so many problems, so much hardship and so much fear among livestock owners?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point, perhaps I may repeat what I said in the Statement. We shall look at the operation of markets, and particularly out-of-ring sales, identification and tracing as a longer-term follow-up.
The noble Lord is right about the downside of vaccination: it is not an alternative to speedy slaughter of diagnosed animals. From the beginning the chief vet set 24 hours as the target. That has been reinforced as the single most effective measure. However, these are not either/or issues. In some cases, in particular when one has cattle which are at present housed inside and will in time come outside to pasture land which may be infected, there may be a role for vaccination and time for vaccination to become effective to safeguard those cattle.
The general view is that vaccination of sheep is a difficult and not particularly effective measure. But a limited vaccination of cattle in some circumstances, in particular where animals have been housed for the winter, may be effective.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer and previously as chairman of the Rural

135
Development Commission. Perhaps I may put forward one suggestion to the Minister. If this plague gets out of hand, the national milk supply could become endangered. It may be sensible to consider vaccinating milk cows, mostly Friesians, and not subsequently cull them. They are all fully registered. There are now wonderful records of all of them. None needs to go into the export chain. It is pretty poor quality meat which is seldom exported anyway. Perhaps that concept can be considered; it may save the national milk supply.
Secondly, many small farmers are not entitled to unemployment benefit. Using their compensation for laying off long-serving staff will nibble away at their capital. I have two suggestions. First, the Government should consider reintroducing the redundancy rebate system to help with redundancy costs. Secondly, we should approach our European lords and masters to sec if an early retirement package can be introduced to compensate those people in the same way as early retirement packages for those in industries such as steel and coal.
I do not suppose that there is time for an answer, but I should be grateful if the Minister can take note of those points.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, our EC partners have been very helpful in providing support on issues such as force majeure, grazing on set-aside land, schemes that need state aid clearance and the possibility of an early retirement scheme, which the noble Lord rightly mentioned. That is being considered. I shall certainly consider the redundancy rebate argument, which has been mentioned before in your Lordships' House. We are working with the Department of Social Security on making jobseeker's allowance and the working families' tax credit more flexible. The noble Lord's point about the milk supply follows on from my response to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. Vaccination may be an option in some areas, possibly even without slaughter, although that has further consequences. It is one of the limited applications of vaccination at which we are looking.

Vehicles (Crime) Bill
5.12 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Requirement of registration for motor salvage operators]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 3, leave out "cognate" and insert "related"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5. It is important that legislation is intelligible to a reasonably educated person. I am a humble hereditary Peer—sadly not a graduate. Outside the House, I am a logistician and/or an automotive engineer. In my short time in your Lordships' House, I have become familiar with primary legislation, but I have never before seen the word "cognate". I raised the issue in Committee when
136
the Minister had an ingenious explanation. He claimed "cognate" was more precise and that substituting the word "related" would not improve clarity. How can "cognate" be clearer if no one understands what it means? I wonder how many of your Lordships could define the word even in this context, let alone out of context, before we considered the Bill.
Noble Lords may be tempted to think that there is no need for a layman to be able to understand our laws. Before I came to this House, I found myself studying primary legislation, particularly the Road Traffic Act 1988. This is a simple Bill. I believe that it is slightly flawed—we shall come to that later—but I accept that it is desirable. If one understands the meaning of the term "Secretary of State" and the fact that a person can be a body corporate, there is no difficulty in understanding the Bill—with the exception of the word "cognate". I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, on these Benches, we have some general sympathy with the view that language should be kept as straightforward as possible to facilitate understanding. However, in this case we had a fairly good thrash round the word "cognate" and related expressions in Committee. So we hope that the noble Earl will not press his amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we have already had a substantial discussion on this rather limited topic. I have been asked to reply to the amendment not because of any qualifications in Latin. I know that my noble friends are equally well qualified.
Different draftsmen prefer different terms to express the same or similar things. In this case we have used "cognate", which can be defined as, "representing the same original word" or, "coming from the same root". I recognise that we are discussing marginal issues, but it is more precise than "related", which is defined as "associated or connected with". It is a slightly stronger association.
A number of recent Acts have used the word "cognate", including the Postal Services Act 2000, the Local Government Act 2000, the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and the Finance Act 2000. Members of the public seeking to understand our legislation will become familiar with the word.
We recognise that the noble Earl prefers "related", but we do not believe that it would improve the clarity of the drafting. Like the noble Baroness, I hope that the noble Earl will recognise that, although he has a point, no great issue is at stake and it is not worth delaying the passage of the Bill for the sake of a change that would not enhance it. Indeed, if anything, we believe that it would make the drafting marginally less clear. As this is the second time that we have been through the issue, I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I believe that legislation should be as intelligible as possible. I did not realise

137
that the Government had been inserting unintelligible words into other legislation. The Minister should be aware that I shall raise the issue every time that I see "cognate" in legislation. Perhaps he can select a draftsman who does not use the word in future.
Today's press release from the Plain English Campaign says it all:
"And most of all, it will irritate those people who think only the legal elite should be able to understand our laws".
I was strongly tempted to test the opinion of the House on the issue, but the Minister has been terribly persuasive and I have reluctantly decided not to do so. However, I sincerely hope that Ministers will in future select draftsmen who do not use "cognate". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
"OFFENCES RELATING TO SALE OF REGISTRATION PLATES

(1) A registered supplier who supplies a registration plate to another person when he knows or reasonably suspects that it will be used for an unlawful purpose shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 of the standard scale."

The noble Lord said: This is another point that we have discussed at earlier stages of the Bill. We have gradually focused more on our precise concerns so that the point has got smaller and smaller.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was kind enough to write to my noble friend Lord Astor yesterday expanding on the point. He said that the regulations to be made under Clause 25 would prescribe documents that would be acceptable as proof of identity and entitlement to a number plate. The Government's initial view, he said, was that a driving licence or passport might provide proof of identity and that a vehicle registration document might provide proof of entitlement to the registration mark being issued. Without wishing to pre-empt the consultation period into which the Government will enter, that appears to me to involve quite enough bureaucracy.
The amendment also raises the question of what will happen in the case of collusion. As I read the Bill, if a supplier knowingly supplies a number plate which will be used falsely by an associate and the case subsequently comes to court, only the associate who uses the number plate wrongly will be deemed guilty of an offence and not the person who supplied it. I wish to press the Minister only on that small point.
In relation to the general point, we are introducing a whole new element of bureaucracy mainly for small businesses. I am always most cautious about doing that; certainly I do not want to make life more difficult
138
for them. However, where there is crime and collusion in crime, it is important that we ensure that offences are listed properly in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although I have not been deeply involved in the Bill, I strongly support this amendment and, indeed, Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. It appears that Britain has proportionately the highest rate of car theft in the civilised world. It seems that acceptance of these amendments would go some way towards remedying that shameful state of affairs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for recognising that the combination of what I said in our previous debate and the letter sent to his noble friend Lord Astor have at least narrowed the area of problem in relation to this matter.
Our difficulty lies not with the objectives of the noble Lord but with the fact that we believe that we are fully covered in this respect. There is already provision in the Bill to prevent suppliers selling plates that could be used for disguising the identity of vehicles. As the noble Lord said, under Clause 25 registered number plate suppliers would be required to obtain proof. The regulations to which he referred and which are provided for under Clause 25(1) will define the documents that will be regarded as proof. On our initial thinking, and, again, as the noble Lord said, such proof would be a vehicle registration document and a registration mark. We shall consult on the detail.
The noble Lord also needs to consider that if a person contravened the provision under Clause 25(3)—in other words, if he failed to check the information—he would be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine. If collusion took place, that would mean that the supplier had not discharged the duty under the clause and, therefore, would be susceptible to action under Clause 25(3). It is possible that he would also be susceptible to common law action for conspiracy. However, certainly Clause 25(3) already catches someone who has failed either by design or by negligence to check the documentation that is required by regulations under Clause 25(1).
The amendment also adds a subjective element. It indicates that the supplier should pass a subjective judgment on the legality of the future intentions of a purchaser and of any subsequent owner. That is a step too far. It is not reasonable to require a supplier to guess the intentions or divine the criminal intent of a potential purchaser. That would be regarded as an unreasonable burden on suppliers, particularly as the regulations made under the Bill and the guidelines to be issued before its implementation should provide a clear and unambiguous procedure for suppliers in checking the specified documents when selling registration plates. To go further and require a subjective judgment from the supplier would be regarded by most of the small firms which operate such a business as a step too far. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the matter.

139
As I explained during our earlier debates on the Bill, a purchaser would also commit a serious offence if he provided false documentation and attempted to deceive. Therefore, I believe that we have dealt with the matter from all angles without the need for this slightly unclear amendment, which requires subjective judgment on the part of the supplier.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I do not consider that the amendment would force honest suppliers to make a judgment in a normal case. The only intention of the amendment is to help to catch people in cases of collusion. However, the Minister has explained how the Government hope to pursue anyone who indulges in that type of activity. If the Bill is incomplete in that respect, no doubt we shall be able to return to the point when some other Bill is introduced. In any event, I am allergic to the idea that we may be putting too great a burden on honest suppliers and, in particular, small businesses. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Issue of new registration documents: vehicle identity checks etc.]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 18, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) After section 22(1)(h) of that Act there shall be inserted ", and
(i) require a person who is a motor salvage operator to whom a vehicle is sold. transferred or received in the course of his business to furnish the particulars prescribed by the regulations in the manner so prescribed.""
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. We return to the issue of the need to destroy the identity of a vehicle or, at least, to make it unusable to criminals. Some of my previous amendments were slightly off target. I was grateful for the Minister's understanding. I believe that my new amendment is much more precise and on target. It may even score a bull's-eye. Therefore, the Minister will have to show that my amendment is unnecessary. He may even succeed.
Noble Lords are well aware of my concerns regarding gaps and loopholes in this legislation. I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating them this evening. Since Report stage, I, too, have received correspondence from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. I understand that the gap may be rather smaller than at first we thought. It is possible that the Minister will easily be able to meet my concerns. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl's amendments may be more precise but I regret to say that I do not consider them to be on target. I understand what he is trying to achieve. The amendments require motor salvage operators, as defined under Clauses 1 and 2, to furnish particulars. But it is not clear from the wording what particulars
140
are referred to. It is most likely that the amendments would be used to try to ensure that all written-off vehicles were notified to the DVLA when they were received by a motor salvage operator. That is the objective.
I understand the concern expressed previously that seriously damaged vehicles which are not comprehensively insured may not be notified to the DVLA and thus may escape the requirements of the VIC scheme. However, that is not absolutely correct. First, since 1971 regulations have required people to notify the DVLA if they intend to destroy a vehicle. That would cover the situation where a person sold or gave the vehicle to a motor salvage operator for scrapping. It would apply as much to vehicles which are not comprehensively insured as it would to those which have comprehensive insurance.
Secondly, there is a code of practice in the industry that requires members to notify MIAFTR—the motor insurance anti-theft and fraud register—which in turn notifies DVLA when it writes off vehicles. It also provides for alternative notifications to the DVLA by paper using form V23.
The code of practice will be incorporated into the BVRLA code of conduct when it is revised later this year. There is also an expectation that over time the V23 system will be replaced through modifications to the codes. The BVRLA continues to encourage its members to fulfil their obligations.
Written-off vehicles with third-party insurance will be covered by the Bill. Under Clause 1(2)(b), a business engaged,
"wholly or mainly in the purchase of written-off vehicles and their subsequent repair and re-sale".
will in effect fall within the definition of "motor salvage". It is immaterial whether the vehicles in question have been comprehensively insured; the vehicle simply needs to have been "written off" in effect by its owner, not necessarily by an insurance company.
Under Clause 7, a business will be subject to regulations and will be required to keep records of any written-off vehicles that it repairs and sells. The police will be able to enter the premises of a business without a warrant and to inspect its records. That is to a large extent a matter for the police.
In addition, we plan to introduce extra measures further to ensure that both categories are subject to a VIC. We will do so either by introducing requirements for the registration document, form V5, to be returned to the DVLA in any case in which a vehicle is sold to a motor salvage operator; or we will require "self-insured" operators to return form V5 to the DVLA. Those provisions will be the subject of secondary legislation and we will consult on that in due course.
Provisions therefore already exist or are in the pipeline to ensure that vehicles are reported to the DVLA as having been written off by insurance companies or owners who intend their vehicle to be destroyed. I have spelt out in detail that point and our

141
future intentions because the noble Earl needs the full picture. I hope that I have covered most of the concerns that lie behind his amendment.
Additionally—this is why I say that the noble Earl's amendment is not entirely on target—the amendment is linked to Clause 33, which applies to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, whereas the salvage provisions cover only England and Wales. Agreeing to the amendments would mean that all the requirements relating to motor salvage operators would apply to England and Wales, except for those that would be introduced by the amendment, which would also extend to Northern Ireland and Scotland. The amendment is therefore in the wrong place and would have a slightly strange effect on the devolved administrations.
We are covering by various means the ending of the identity of a vehicle, which is what the noble Earl seeks. In any case, the amendment is in the wrong place and would have unfortunate consequences on the administration of motor salvage. I recognise that the noble Earl is expressing concerns that are felt within the industry but I hope that he will accept that we are well on the way to resolving all of those problems and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, is he convinced that he has all the necessary primary legislative powers? It would be embarrassing to have to come back to the House at a later stage to ask for more powers. Additionally, what is the penalty for failing to comply with the V5 procedure that he described, and how many prosecutions have there been for failing to make the notifications?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I fear that I would have required notice to have answered the second part of the noble Earl's question. On the first part of his question, it would be jolly embarrassing for the Government to have to return to the House to secure primary legislation. That is not unknown but it would be embarrassing. I am reasonably confident that the necessary primary legislative powers will be in place. As I said, we will introduce some additional secondary legislation in relation to the requirements for the registration document to be returned to the DVLA. I accept that the total system is not yet in place, but it could be put in place through secondary legislation. The necessary primary legislation is already in hand.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I know what "shortly" means in parliamentary speak, and the phrase "reasonably confident" fills me with alarm.
The Minister's initial observations suggest that I did not intend to catch just written-off vehicles. I intended to catch all vehicles that a salvage contractor receives, apart from his own domestic vehicles. I am quite a bit happier, although we are still left with a small loophole. Let us suppose that a self-insured operator damages his car and sells it to his so-called friend, who finds that he cannot repair it and, to make some sort
142
of financial gain, rings it with another vehicle; I am not convinced that my amendment would cover that loophole. There are many potential loopholes in this context and I expect that the Minister will continue to discover more as time goes on. I hope that the necessary primary legislation will be in place to deal with them through regulations. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
5.36 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Whitty.)
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, as a relative newcomer to your Lordships' House, I have learnt much during the passage of the Bill, and I am therefore very grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House who contributed to our debates. We all support the Bill's aim of reducing vehicle crime. Noble Lords on all sides have been unusually co-operative during the Bill's passage. However, we should not imagine that the Bill is not without its weaknesses. We have identified and debated some of them. In the interests of the Bill's smooth passage at this interesting time in our legislative programme, we have not tested the opinion of the House. I therefore conclude by seeking assurances about the processes of regulation and guidance. I ask for the fullest possible consultation. In this case, it will be more than usually important to ensure that some of the loopholes will be dealt with in that way.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are at one, as the noble Baroness said, in wanting to fight vehicle crime. For that reason, we support the Bill. However, it will set up two new sets of regulations: new licensing schemes for motor salvage operators and for registration plate suppliers. It is not alone in setting up new licensing systems. Such quangos multiply all the time, and a whole forest—or a small wood, at any rate—of regulations will flow from the Bill. Such regulations are also being made all the time. The cumulative effect of all of those new individual licensing systems, with all of their detail, is damaging to small businesses in particular. Firms in some trades have to comply with literally dozens of sets of regulations and get themselves licensed with different bodies for different parts of their activities. Each of those systems is desirable in itself, but it is the cumulative effect that makes it so difficult to run a business these days. Having got that off my chest, we are against vehicle crime and we want to fight it. That is why we support the Bill.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my colleagues and I are deeply grateful for the co-operation from both Opposition Front Benches and from noble Lords

143
generally in the passage of the Bill. We believe that it is an important part of the fight against vehicle crime. I agree with the noble Lord about trying to minimise the burdens on small business, but we are clearly dealing with an industry in which a number of scams are running. We hope that we have blocked off the vast majority of them through our proposals and the regulations that will flow from them. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that there will be full consultation.
We hope that we have dealt with all of the major problems in the industry and that we are setting up a regime in which one can get a reputation for being a decent trader—the best in the industry already deserve that—and a regime which will help consumers; that is, the car owners and motorists of this country. We will be making a major contribution towards that. The fact that we have got the provisions through this House, despite the reservations expressed by your Lordships, means that although we may not have gone as far as some noble Lords would wish, we have done a good deal. This is a good Bill and one which will make the life of motorists and honest people throughout the land that much better. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill passed.

Business
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in view of the plethora of amendments on the Order Paper, it may be for the convenience of the House if I quickly explain the procedure we will follow this afternoon when we come to debate the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001.
My noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton will shortly move his Motion to approve the order. At that point he will make his speech. The next speaker will be my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. The whole debate will then take place on my noble and learned friend's amendment. Any noble Lord who has any point to make in relation to the original Motion, or in relation to any of the amendments, should speak at that point. I assume that the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Mancroft and Lord Glentoran, will all speak during the course of that debate.
At the end of that debate the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer will be disposed of. The other three amendments and the original Motion will be taken formally and disposed of in turn without further debate. I hope that clarifies matters.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, for clarification can I take it that we can debate the generality of the proscribing order?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, yes. Any general point should be subsumed in the debate following the contribution of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001
5.42 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brightonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February he approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved.
With the Terrorism Act 2000, which came into force on 19th February, this Government signalled their determination to defeat terrorism in all its forms. As well as bringing our provisions into line with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Terrorism Act ensures that we are in a better position to deal with the serious threat which terrorism poses abroad as well as in this country.
The Act makes available the power to proscribe for the first time terrorist organisations concerned in international or domestic terrorism and not just those concerned only in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland which, as noble Lords will be aware, remain proscribed under Schedule 2 of the Act.
Parliament gave its support to this extension of the proscription regime by approving the passage of the Terrorism Bill. It is clearly of the utmost importance that the United Kingdom does not become a base for international terrorists and their supporters. The proscription and other provisions in the Act demonstrate this Government's commitment to change the climate in which supporters of terrorism might seek to operate in this country.
The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001, which is the subject of today's debate, was laid before Parliament in draft on 28th February. It lists 21 international terrorist organisations which, in the carefully considered judgment of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, should now be subject to proscription in the United Kingdom. The draft order was debated in the other place on 13th March and approved the following day under the deferred voting procedure.
Under Section 3 of the Act, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary (or, in the case of organisations concerned only in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland) has the power to proscribe any organisation which he believes "is concerned in terrorism". An organisation is "concerned in terrorism" if it,
"commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism".
"Organisation" is defined in Section 121 of the Act as including,
"any association or combination of persons".
Having satisfied the statutory criteria in any particular case, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary then has discretion as to which organisations should be recommended to Parliament for

145
proscription. In considering which international terrorist organisations should be proscribed, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary took into account a number of factors, including those indicated to Parliament by Ministers during proceedings on the Terrorism Bill. Those factors were: the nature and scale of the organisation's activities; the specific threat that it poses to the UK; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK; and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. Depending on the organisation concerned and its sphere of operation, certain factors will have carried more weight than others.
To assist consideration of the draft order by both Houses, all noble Lords and honourable Members were sent a brief summary of information on each of the organisations named in the draft order. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made clear in the debate on the order in the other place, in reaching his decisions he had access to related intelligence-based material on the various organisations in addition to information which is in the public domain and took into account police, security and legal advice. He is entirely satisfied that the organisations which are being recommended to Parliament for proscription are "concerned in terrorism" and thus fully meet the criteria laid down in the Act.
I know that a number of noble Lords expressed concerns that certain domestic extremist groups have not been included in the draft order. As noble Lords will no doubt recall, during proceedings on the Terrorism Bill we indicated that we did not intend to proscribe any of the domestic groups known to us at that time. When considering the organisations to be included in this draft order, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary looked at this matter again very carefully, taking account of police advice. His judgment was that it would not be right to proscribe any domestic groups at present. If circumstances change, however, we could return to the question of proscription.
Ministers acknowledged during proceedings on the Terrorism Bill that proscription is a heavy power. It should be used only where the circumstances warrant it. The draft order includes international terrorist organisations of particular concern to the United Kingdom. It would be unrealistic and excessive to proscribe every international organisation in the world that might be "concerned in terrorism". No other country does that.
As noble Lords will understand, however, the powers and offences in the Act more generally will apply to anyone planning or supporting here terrorist acts anywhere in the world, whether or not the group has been proscribed. The proscription regime provides an additional measure with specific, linked offences, including in relation to fundraising for use against those involved with or supporting the organisations which have been proscribed. The investigation and
146
prosecution of any alleged offence under the Act is, of course, a matter for the police and prosecuting authorities.
The proscription regime is aimed at organisations and individuals concerned in terrorism, as defined in Section 1 of the Act. The definition of terrorism was, of course, considered in great detail during parliamentary proceedings on the Bill and it would be inappropriate to go over that ground again in the debate tonight.
I must emphasise that the provisions in the Act are not aimed at any specific community or at those protesting in a peaceful and non-violent way against alleged injustices or for political change. Nor are they aimed at those raising funds for legitimate social or humanitarian purposes. As long as people do not break our laws, they are free to express views with which the Government may profoundly disagree, including criticism of friendly governments. That is part of our cherished tradition of free speech. That freedom is unaffected by the coming into force of the new Terrorism Act.
Following debate in and approval by both Houses, the proscriptions will come into effect on the day after my right honourable friend the Home Secretary makes the order. It will then be open to any of the organisations so proscribed, or any person affected by their proscription, at any time to make application to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for deproscription. Under the Proscribed Organisations (Applications for Deproscription) Regulations 2001, which came into force on 19th February, that application should, among other things, state the grounds on which it is being made. That provides an opportunity for an organisation or individual to make a case—to the Home Secretary in the case of international proscribed organisations—as to why they should be deproscribed. He will, of course, consider any such applications very carefully and fully indeed.
Where an application is refused, the Act provides for an appeal to a new independent judicial tribunal, the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. The commission will consider any refusals to deproscribe in the light of judicial review principles.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is responsible for the establishment of the commission. He announced on 5th March the appointment of a chairman and two other judicial members, respectively Sir Murray Stuart-Smith, Sir Harry Ognall and Sir Brian Smedley, all of whom are retired judges. He is in the process of appointing legal and lay members of the commission, who will be announced in due course. I am confident that these arrangements are sufficient to ensure that an effective remedy is available to anyone who might be aggrieved at the decision to proscribe the organisations listed in the draft order.
In conclusion, I must emphasise that this is not a once and for all process. The proscription list will be kept under constant review. The Secretary of State can decide at any time in future to recommend to Parliament the addition of an organisation to

147
Schedule 2, where events or circumstances demand such action, and where it meets the criteria in the Act. Similarly, in appropriate circumstances, and when it was safe to do so, an organisation could be removed from the list without it necessarily making an application for deproscription.
I should like to take the opportunity here to place on the record a correction to what my right honourable friend said on 13th March during the debate on this order in another place, at col. 949 of the Official Report. If a decision is taken to deproscribe an organisation, either on application or otherwise, that deproscription will he subject to approval by Parliament by the affirmative not the negative resolution procedure.
In my view, the draft order is compatible with the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. It represents a fair, just and proportionate response to the threats we face from international terrorism. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
5.53 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwellrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end insert ";
but that this House regrets that the Mujaheddin e Khalq have been included in the schedule of proscribed organisations contained in the order and invites Her Majesty's Government to lay a further order, removing the Mujaheddin e Khalq from the Schedule."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I listened carefully to my noble friend. I do not think that I. counted more than two propositions which he put forward with which I might conceivably disagree, although in our debates it is always wise to make that kind of statement without prejudice.
This debate is an example of what is probably the most fundamental problem in democratic politics. How can we reconcile law and order, the protection of people from crime, with the protection of people from the executive, with fairness and justice to individuals? Quin custodiet?—if I am allowed, outside the rules of order, to depart from the English language.
Part of that is formulating rules for the executive when admittedly it is contending against people, some of whom do not play by the rules. Part of that in turn means recognising, as my noble friend said, that sometimes the executive has to act on information which it cannot disclose because to disclose it would be to reveal the source of the information to those against whom it may have to be used.
We debated all that when we discussed the Freedom of Information Bill. It will shortly be discussed in another place when it considers the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Although I have no interest to declare in this debate, it may assist transparency if I disclose that I am a member of that committee. So, I understand some of the problems
148
about which my noble friend will no doubt tell us when he comes to reply; indeed, if he is busy elsewhere I could make his speech for him.
While I am in concessionary mode—I doubt whether my noble friend would consider me to he what was earlier today called "a plaything of the Government"—perhaps I may offer him another trump card. The principle of the Terrorism Act has no more enthusiastic supporter than me. Terrorism does not recognise international boundaries. If it is to be fought on equal terms, this is yet another instance when the international community must set aside the obsession with national sovereignty and bureaucratic ring-fencing and co-operate in the interests of the global family. I approve of the fact that those who practice or plan terrorism anywhere will be denied sanctuary anywhere. I do not rest any part of my argument on the concession which the Home Office made in relation to the organisation which I wish to address today, that it does not practice terrorism in this country.
None of that is in issue between us. But we need to recognise that when the practitioners of crime clash with the forces of law and order, someone may he caught in the middle. Decent, law-abiding, long-suffering people may be crushed in the nutcrackers. My noble friend said—this is the one proposition of which I am not sure—that we should not discuss the definition of terrorism in the Act. It does not address all the problems. I accept my share of the blame. I was content with the general thrust of the Terrorism Bill, as it then was, and I failed to scrutinise the definition; so did we all. However, it occurs to me that within that definition, William Tell was a terrorist, Oliver Cromwell was a terrorist, and Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.
At Second Reading in another place of the Bill which became the Terrorism Act, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was asked (Official Report, Commons, 14/12/99; col. 152) whether the Kosovo Liberation Army, at that time opposing the Serbian regime in Kosovo, or the Kurds opposing Saddam Hussein in northern Iraq fell within the definition. I hope that I do my right honourable friend no injustice; I read the debate carefully and I do not think that the question was answered. I say that not by way of criticism; in the to and fro of debate questions get lost. However, my right honourable friend specifically argued that in democracies there are other ways of expressing dissent. Yes, indeed, but what if the regime is not democratic? What if it is tyrannical, oppressive and tolerates no dissent?
It is an unfortunate factor in this debate that we are faced with a single unamendable order which includes in the schedule 21 separate organisations—I know that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will address that later—faced with a whole spectrum of different regimes and a variety of opportunities either to express or repress dissent. We cannot oppose the inclusion of any one organisation without opposing the entire order. That was tempting, I admit. However, if we had done that it would have deferred a process for which in

149
general we accept the need. Yet the mischief would have lain squarely at the door of the Home Office, which elected to proceed in that way.
I have been approached by other organisations which challenge their designation as terrorists, notably the International Sikh Youth Federation and some of the groups concerned with the liberation, as they see it, of Kashmir. I do not propose to discuss them today, partly because I have not had an opportunity to give my noble friend notice that I would do so and partly because I am not sufficiently familiar with the facts.
My amendment is designed not to destroy the order, but simply to invite my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to rectify the situation quickly by introducing a further order to remove from the schedule one organisation. I turn now to the one organisation with which the amendment is concerned, the Mujaheddin e Khalq.
In Iran there is no democratic way to change the regime. There is no freedom to express an opinion or to argue for one's beliefs. Even since Mr Khatami took office, 800 people have been put to death for their beliefs; 75 this year. Those are the regime's own official figures. We know that there have been many more secret murders. Thirteen people have been stoned to death; eyes have been gouged out; limbs have been amputated; and people have been publicly flogged.
In April last year, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights condemned the executions, the torture, the inhuman punishments, the absence of due process of law and the discrimination against women. That was the 46th time that an organ of the United Nations had condemned the abuses under the regime. The commission extended the mandate of the special rapporteur for yet a further year.
There have been repeated reports by Amnesty International and other human rights organisations. There is no right to disseminate opinions or even information. Last year, at least 40 publications were closed down because the regime disapproved of what they said. In February, Geneive Abdo, the Guardian's correspondent in Iran, was warned to adapt her reports to what pleased the administration and was then unceremoniously removed from the country. Of course there was an election and it served a purpose, because whatever else may be said about the result, it was clear that the people wanted to live under a more liberal regime. They supported Mr Khatami; and I would not dispute that he may have wished to move in the direction of greater freedom. But it is clear that he is as much a prisoner of the mullahs as anyone.
The constitution is not intended to afford free choice. On 7th December last year, Mr Khatami himself spelt it out. He said:
"There is no talk of changing the constitution. Today, talk of changing the constitution amounts to changing the state. This is treachery to the state and to the Iranian nation".
In the election, no one could vote for a candidate who was not approved by the Guardian Council because if a candidate was not approved, he was not permitted to stand as a candidate. We all remember the long delays
150
before the results were announced, and we can speculate as to what was happening to ballot boxes and ballot papers during that time.
Therefore, it is in that context that we need to consider the Mujaheddin. That movement came together in 1965 to campaign for democracy when it was repressed under the regime of the Shah. Thousands of its members were imprisoned, tortured or killed under that regime. There was no question of it using violence at that time.
Then came the revolution and members of the movement thought, as did many, that the terror and repression were over. But it still continued; the new regime did not change the repression. For more than two years the Mujaheddin did not respond with violence, but a time came when it believed that the murders and mutilations were not going to be changed by free elections—there were not to be free elections—and it decided that the only way to stop the repression by the military was to resist the military. The only way to stop the murders was to stop the murderers.
I have never made any secret of where I stand. I do not believe that a free society, where people can live together in peace, can best be brought about by violence. But I understand why the movement came to believe that there was no other way. If I believed that it used indiscriminate violence or risked the lives of civilians, I would have no time for it and I would not be addressing your Lordships today. I believe that it confines its target specifically to military bases and to senior officials of the regime who have themselves committed crimes against humanity.
I do not know on what information my right honourable friend the Home Secretary acted when he decided to include the Mujaheddin in the schedule—and this is a moment when perhaps I might have my noble friend's attention—but I understand that my noble friend cannot reply to that. However, it would be helpful if, when replying to the debate, he would tell us who was consulted: the Secretary General of the United Nations; the Human Rights Commission: Amnesty International; or the Inter-Parliamentary Union? Can we be told which person or body with knowledge of human rights was consulted before that inclusion?
"But", says the Home Office—my noble friend said it today—"these questions are not best discussed in Parliament. The Terrorism Act provides for the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission"; that is, POAC in the acronym-ridden official speak that we all practise. An organisation included in the schedule may appeal to POAC and it will consider it. That is indeed a welcome last safeguard to correct mistakes, but as an argument in this debate it has two weaknesses. First, it raises the question: if Parliament is not to exercise any control over the executive why do we have these debates? Why do we go through the pretence of laying down orders before Parliament if we are then told to stay quiet? Secondly, this form of redress operates retrospectively. Much of the damage will already have been done.

151
Again, we are all to blame. We could have spoken against the scheme of the Terrorism Bill. But there is something distasteful about a process which begins by convicting someone and then proceeds to inquire whether there is a case against them. Lewis Carroll's Queen of Hearts called for sentence first, verdict afterwards. That scheme is best confined to Alice in Wonderland.
There is a large Iranian community in this country. Many are now British subjects. They are fair, law-abiding, hard-working people. They came here initially to escape persecution at home. Persecution for membership of the Mujaheddin has repeatedly been accepted as a reason for granting people asylum in this country. Some have lost members of their families to the murderers and torturers. Even here they are not safe from the regime. At least 35 political opponents of the regime have been murdered not in Iran but in the territory of other countries. The fatwa which declared it was permissible—indeed, a duty—to murder Salman Rushdie did not confine that to Iranian territory; it clearly contemplated that he should be murdered outside Iran. Even last year, when my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was told that it might be withdrawn, there was very quickly a correction. They said that that had been a mistake and it could not be changed. It remains in force.
So where are the terrorists? Are they among the Mujaheddin or among the leadership of the regime? Not surprisingly, most of the Iranian community have supported the resistance, not all of whom are members of the Mujaheddin. But some of them do applaud the Mujaheddin; some even help it financially.
They are in good company. Members of the Mujaheddin have been welcome guests at the Labour Party conference where there is always sympathy for victims of persecution. If the Mujaheddin is in the scheme, those people will suffer the stigma of supporting a terrorist organisation. Under Section 12 of the Act, if they support or even invite someone else to support that movement, they will be criminals.
Those who support the amendment have the satisfaction of agreeing with views expressed by 335 Members of the other place; some 61 Members of your Lordships' House; a majority of members of the United States Congress; 175 members of the German Bundestag; 150 members of the French Assembly; and a majority in the parliaments of Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg. We are simply asking my noble friend in reply to assure us that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will move quickly to introduce a further order rectifying this mistake.
It would be an unusual gesture for the Home Office, but I beg my noble friend to consider it possible that on this occasion it may be wrong. I beg to move.
Moved, That as an amendment to the above Motion, at end insert "; but that this House regrets that the Mujaheddin e Khalq have been included in the schedule of proscribed organisations contained in the order and invites Her Majesty's Government to lay a further order, removing the Mujaheddin e Khalq from the schedule".—(Lord Archer of Sandwell.)
6.10 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, this morning the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and I attended a meeting in this House organised by Liberation which allowed a large group of representatives from various organisations to express their views about this order and how they would be treated under the Act. I do not know the strength of their case or the merits of the various organisations. However, it reaffirmed my conviction, which is expressed in my amendment to the Motion, that those who dealt with the original Bill did not envisage that secondary powers would be used to hoover up, as it were, 21 organisations in a single instrument. By any standard of natural justice, that does not make sense. It means that the good, the bad and the ugly are put together.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, pointed out, by the very nature of our rules of procedure we take or leave statutory instruments in those circumstances. I believe that in approaching the matter in this way the Home Office has discredited the procedure from the outset. That was not our intention in seeking comprehensive terrorism legislation that applied to all parts of the United Kingdom. The general belief was that the ad hoc approach to terrorist legislation that had grown up since 1974, with particular emphasis on Northern Ireland, was not good for civil liberties and a comprehensive approach to these matters. But it also illustrates—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, acknowledged a mea culpa that we all share—the danger of legislation which provides quite sweeping secondary powers, because exactly how they are used is dependent on the executive.
What worries me about the way that the Home Office has gone about it is that in the first test of those secondary powers the department has got it wrong. It has approached it in a broad-brush way which leaves a number of organisations, such as the one referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, feeling aggrieved. The Home Secretary in his letter to noble Lords to explain the legislation states that it,
"provides new permanent and UK-wide legislation"—
in response, we say "good"—
"which is proportionate to the threat which the UK faces and may face from all forms of terrorism".
Judgment comes in when one considers the proportionate nature of the threat. All of these organisations are active and linked to various national immigrant groups active in other countries. We shall be going into this matter in considering further amendments. As has been said, none of them refers to UK groups. I am worried that in the "hoovering" process we may put at risk the age-old and much cherished belief in freedom of speech and association in this country, and introduce guilt by association.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, raises a matter which worries a number of people; namely, that organisations have been placed on the list on the advice of the police, security services, foreign governments and foreign security agencies. By the very nature of the legislation, a good deal of this is wrapped

153
in secrecy. Although I understand the responsibilities of government, I am not content to allow Ministers simply to pat us on the head, give us a knowing look to the effect that they are in receipt of secret information which, if only we could see it, would make our toes curl and, therefore, we should nod through every piece of new legislation that they want. The other day I was disturbed to learn that the head of MI5 had complained about parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that our security services should be exposed to parliamentary scrutiny. It would give me a good deal more confidence if the Intelligence and Security Committee, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred, had an opportunity to look at the evidence presented to the Home Secretary in order to make his decisions.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord purely to seek information. Does the noble Lord believe that if the security services obtain information from a particular source, which may be in a country that does not have a nice democratic government, that source will be quite as enthusiastic when it is discovered that in future it will be declared to Parliament?
Lord McNally: My Lords, I am not so naive as to believe that that is what should be made available in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. I have been involved in these matters in one way or another for a good number of years and have grown suspicious of Ministers who fall in love with secret briefings. I believe that Parliament should always be highly sceptical of a process whereby we are simply patted on the head and told that if only we knew what they knew we would understand why they were doing it. We must have some check and balance on that activity.
One of the matters of which we must be assured is that what is being acted upon is at least the advice of our own security services, not simply the complaint of other security agencies or foreign governments. We are not in the business of doing the dirty work of regimes when organisations in this country do things which are perfectly legal here, such as saying rude things about government, but which in other countries are subject to draconian measures. Therefore, it is not part of the exercise to do favours for countries which may have regimes that do not follow our standards.
I should like to mention a few practical matters which were raised at the meeting this morning. If organisations are named in the list, how will they fight proscription if they cannot call meetings, raise funds or rally support for their cause? How much flexibility will they have to work against proscription once they have been named? That is a matter to be clarified. One of the representatives of a British trade union who was present wanted to know how the measure would affect trade unions, which in this country have a long tradition of adopting both individuals and organisations and giving them moral and material support.
154
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, asked, from where do we start in this matter? The noble and learned Lord referred to the ANC. Between 1970 and 1974 I was secretary of the Labour Party's Southern Africa Solidarity Fund which supported the ANC and the liberation movements in Mozambique and Angola. I presume that we would have been caught by these orders. My radical past is coming out here. I was also the secretary of the Spanish Democrats Defence Committee under the chairmanship of Jack Jones. In the late 1960s, I took to see that no lesser a person than the Secretary of State for Defence a delegation from East European Social Democrats in exile who were still working against their regimes.
I make the point that the assumption that people living in this country and working against foreign tyranny are all somehow to be hoovered up under the general term of "terrorist" is extremely dangerous. Yet governments intimidate oppositions into accepting legislation because none of us wants to be caught on the wrong side of questions such as, "Who is in favour of terrorism?" and "Are you soft on terrorists?"
I have never been in favour of what I call "the Bayswater Road liberationists" who sit out their time in London, putting out inflammatory messages and never going into danger; neither am I in favour of London with its particular communications hub becoming a centre for international terrorism. I prefer to stand four square with the warning given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, with his long and distinguished record on these matters: democracy does not protect itself by ever more draconian powers to its security services.
This order is too wide, too reliant on secret reasons and too arbitrary. I have quoted this previously, but I always remember the scene in "A Man for All Seasons" where Richard Rich is advising Sir Thomas More to take arbitrary action. More asks, "But where will one shelter when the wind of tyranny blows if one has chopped down all the protection?" It worries me that, along with the quite legitimate requirement and duty on government to protect the state against terrorism and to root out international terrorism and play our part against international terrorism, we are in danger of putting at risk age-old freedoms of association and liberties which this House has the duty to protect.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I feel slightly like an impostor today. It is as if I have stumbled into a grand and glorious debate, in which I am not really qualified to play a role. The issues raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, are incredibly important. It is very difficult for government to achieve a balance between the rather grubby things they have to do to make the nuts and bolts of government operate and the important protection of individuals; in this case individuals who come to this country from abroad and need our protection. It is a balance, as so many matters in

155
government are. Furthermore, it is a tricky balance. It is a debate where much is theory but which we need to get right in practice.
Like other noble Lords, I suspect, I do not really know what effect such an order will have in practice. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, who said he was not quite sure what the definition of terrorism is, the more I think about the matter the more I do not know what the definition is. But I have a feeling that if I saw a terrorist I should know it. That is worrying in itself.
I suspect that that those who are intent on the kind of activities which comprise terrorism will not be deterred from their activities by the existence of an order such as this, or the inclusion of their organisation on the list contained in the order. The people who join real. undoubted terrorist groups probably take little or no notice of what amounts to the disapproval of Parliament, particularly if that Parliament is in a different country.
I am reminded of the story of Gilbert Monkton. In the 1950s or 1960s he was sent on a mission to Washington. He had to fill in that very long immigration form the United States used to have. After the questions on age, date of birth, residence and so on, the last question was: do you intend in any way to take up arms against or threaten the security of the United States? He wrote, "Yes, sole purpose of visit". He was arrested on arrival. That was a pity because he was there on the orders of the Foreign Office. It took a little explaining, but makes my point.
My amendment is very much simpler and more mundane than the amendments of previous noble Lords. It seeks to include the names of three UK-based organisations engaged in what we all know, and would know, are terrorist activities within the UK. Looking at the matter in detail in the past 24 to 48 hours, I have discovered that the organisations are engaged also in violent activities in Europe and the United States. However, that is slightly beside the point.
Yesterday we debated provisions within the Hunting Bill. During the course of our earlier debates, the subject of violence and intimidation of the hunting community by animal rights extremists was touched on. It was widely condemned by noble lords from all sides of the House, as your Lordships would expect. Indeed, on several occasions, the Home Secretary has made clear that he finds the violent activities of those fanatics completely unacceptable. We are grateful to him for that support.
It is not recognised as much as it should be that too many members of the hunting community have lived with abuse, intimidation and violence, both threatened and actual, for many years. I pay tribute to their courage, but I also think that we, as a House of Parliament of the legislature, owe it to those people to recognise the extent of the problem. One way of doing that would be to attach the names of the organisations in my amendment to the order and publicly condemn their members in that way.
156
I have an interest of sorts to declare. As a board member of the Countryside Alliance, an organisation your Lordships are getting to know rather well, and as someone closely involved in the hunting community, I have been a victim of these organisations myself. Some of your Lordships who have been here more than a minute or two may remember that some years ago I received a bomb through the post. I have also received quite an amount of unpleasant hate mail from some of these fanatics. I received one letter which contained very specific details about my family and our daily routines, together with some really horrific threats to my wife and young children. So I know about the matter.
I do not wish to over-emphasise the importance of these incidents, except to make two points: first, to commend the police for their support and prompt and professional responses; and, secondly, to indicate, that even those incidents pale into insignificance when compared with the threats, the intimidation and the violence that others have to live with on a daily basis.
As we debate here today in the security of this House, this wonderful Palace, within the past few months in Surrey, not an hour's drive away, some members and staff of the hunt made famous by Surtees in his stories of Jorrocks, the hunting grocer, have been attacked, bombed, and driven from their homes by an almost unceasing campaign of violence in the name of animal rights.
A number of my colleagues recently met Mr Charles Clarke at the Home Office and supplied him with a detailed dossier of some of the worst attacks over the past few years throughout the United Kingdom. We are immensely grateful for his attention to that matter.
The terrorism perpetrated by the three organisations named in my amendment is not confined to those who engage in field sports. But it is now clear that many of those who start out as hunt saboteurs end up as bombers. It does not take too long for them to progress down that route. In the dossier we supplied to the Home Office a full range of activities is clearly documented, starting with trespass; attacks on horses and dogs; serious attacks on people, often resulting in hospital treatment; violent attacks on vehicles and property, causing damage estimated at many thousands of pounds; and bombs, letter bombs, razor bombs and incendiary devices.
Many of these groups have close links and individual members are often linked to more than one group. Many of those engaged in sabotaging hunting, shooting and fishing also commit serious crimes against other animal rights targets. Those have included Boots, the chemists, a fish and chip shop in Wales the other day, a number of scientists engaged in research, and the meat trade. More recently, two Members of another place, Ms Kate Hoey and Mrs Llin Golding, have been threatened. I pay tribute to their courage in resisting those threats.
It is also important to remember that some of the organisations that purport to be respectable have closer links than they should have to organisations that use violence. One of the options that we debated

157
yesterday in the House was promoted by Deadline 2000. I wonder how many noble Lords who received briefing from that group realise that the press officer of the League Against Cruel Sports, Andy Walsley, pleaded guilty to public order offences, including violence in attacking police officers at a riot at Hilgrove farm in 1998. The three organisations mentioned in my amendment are among the worst, but are also among those against which hard evidence exists.
The Animal Liberation Front operates in this country and in the United States. Its activities have recently been investigated by a federal grand jury in Portland. The ALF claimed responsibility for the recent theft of a pack of beagles from the Wye College Hunt. As noble Lords may remember from the newspapers, one beagle was later recovered, having been roughly and callously castrated, and with a mutilated ear. These are animal lovers! Keith Mann is a leading terrorist member of the Animal Liberation Front. He was gaoled in 1992 for attacking the home of a member of hunt staff and was sentenced to 14 years in 1994 for criminal damage, possession of explosives and attempted arson.
The Justice Department is another hardline group. My noble friend Lord Cope knows of it. It first gained notoriety for trying to dig up the grave of the late Duke of Beaufort, shortly after he was buried, in the 1980s. It was involved in bomb attacks in 1993 and sent six letter bombs in June 1994 to companies involved in the live animal export business. In addition, a cross-Channel ferry company had its head office bombed. The Justice Department has also conducted campaigns against furriers and hunters in Canada, notably sending 65 letters with rat poison-encrusted razor blades to hunting guides in Alberta in 1996.
It is believed that the Justice Department was responsible for the attack on Mr Brian Cass, the managing director of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Mr Glynn Harding, from Crewe, is a leading Justice Department member. He has recently been charged with sending 11 letter bombs between December 2000 and February of this year. A leading member of Justice Department is Mr Gurjeet Aujila, who was gaoled for six years in 1995, having pleaded guilty to eight charges of sending letter bombs to people involved with the live animal export business.
The final group mentioned in my amendment is the Hunt Retribution Squad. It announced a campaign against the Old Surrey and Burstow Hunt in September 2000. That has been followed by a sustained campaign of violence. In early September the police had to evacuate a family with children from their home before it was laid siege to by 30 attackers, who did considerable damage. Police attending the incident were overpowered and reinforcements, including police dogs and a helicopter, were needed to bring the situation under control. The police have launched an investigation into the Hunt Retribution Squad after two devices were found under cars belonging to hunt members in October last year. This
158
campaign continues. Cars have been covered in paint stripper and people have been subjected to telephone harassment, as well as bombs and attacks on property.
I hope that the details I have given the House are enough to show that this is terrorism by anyone's standards. We are not talking about a grey area. It is black and white, it is ongoing, and it is happening throughout Britain and within an hour's drive of the House today and every day. It is unacceptable. The police have recognised the seriousness of these terrorists by setting up and resourcing a specialist department to deal with the groups and the threats that they pose. These terrorists have been responsible for more violence and more bombs than any group in the United Kingdom over the past decade, including the IRA. I hope that the Government and the House will recognise the severity of the situation by accepting my amendment today.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall speak as the Official Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Cope will answer on behalf of the Shadow Home Office team.
My amendment is clear. It is about administration and clarity. During the passage of the Terrorism Bill I spoke to Schedule 2. I am a supporter of the Terrorism Act, but I feel that the description of the Northern Ireland terrorist organisations is inadequate. Perhaps I may gently remind the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the Provisional IRA, the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA and others on the list are British organisations. I am ashamed to say it, but they are. They operate mostly within the United Kingdom.
I have two main reasons for including in the schedule the organisations named in my amendment. First, they are supposedly covered as the Irish Republican Army. I do not think that many people would accept that. There are now many branches of the Irish Republican Army. Indeed, I am not sure that the IRA would accept it even itself. As we learnt recently, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are leading members of the Army Council. I do not think that they would accept—publicly anyway—that they have any control over the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA. The time may well come—let us hope that it is fairly soon—when the Provisional IRA does what its predecessors have done completely—fades into the political mists and becomes part of the political organisation known as Sinn Fein. Indeed, it may even decommission. It would then have every right to be removed from the schedule.
However, if that situation arose, I would not like the Irish Republican Army to be removed from the schedule because I am certain that there would still be dissident groups that would need to be named in the schedule. I do not need to remind the House of the catalogue of crimes of which the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA are guilty, both in London and in other parts of the United Kingdom, including

159
Northern Ireland I therefore think that it is necessary for the Government to attempt to tidy up this part of the schedule.
The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 refers to organisations being proscribed as per its schedule. In its schedule, the organisations proscribed are the Continuity Irish Republican Army, the Real Irish Republican Army, the organisation using the name "the Orange Volunteers" and the Red Hand Defenders. The Red Hand Defenders and the Orange Volunteers feature in Schedule 2 to the Act, but the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA do not. That is illogical. For the sake of clarity in the future and for the sake of flexibility—we shall want that for the future in order to allow some of these organisations to come out of the schedule and to be seen to come out—I ask the Minister to attend to the matter and to clarify this anomaly.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, the order before us today deals with terrorist organisations—terrorist organisations which use these shores as a base to commit acts of terrorism abroad. There are 21 organisations listed for proscription by the order. The brief accompanying the order would lead us to believe that. collectively, these 21 organisations ensure that terrorism is truly global. Just as the people and government of Spain live under threat from ETA, November 17, which recently murdered a high profile British diplomat, poses a threat to the people and government of Greece.
It is not an easy task to determine which organisations should or should not be included on this register of proscribed organisations. Indeed—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, alluded to this—defining "terrorism"—offering an objective definition of "terrorism" as a means of determining which groups or organisations should find themselves on such a register of proscribed organisations—is equally difficult.
The matter is further complicated when one considers the origins of the term "terrorism". Terrorism was first used to describe the state violence, the reign of terror, in post-revolutionary France. I venture to say that not many modern definitions of terrorism would incorporate state violence in any way, never mind be centred on it.
The term was later applied to the narodniks, or Narodnava Volya anti-Tsarist group in pre-revolutionary Russia, even though it must be admitted that this group engaged mainly in acts of assassination rather than the indiscriminate violence we tend to associate with modern terrorist groups.
Modern usage of the word "terrorism" and the contemporary definition of a "terrorist group" are surely subjective. Nowadays, terrorism is a badge of illegitimacy and a label of disapproval. Therefore to approve this order, we must disapprove of all these organisations: what they stand for; the activities they are engaged in; and their use of the United Kingdom as a base to raise funds, to organise, or from which to launch operations.
160
I confess that I do not have an in-depth knowledge of all these organisations. Indeed, some operate in areas of the world of which my knowledge is less than comprehensive. However, I understand that not all of these groups organise solely in the UK. For those organisations to be proscribed, therefore, is primarily a badge of disapproval, and possibly acts as a minor deterrent to any future organising.
For groups that do not organise in the UK, their proscription can be only a means of disapproval. This is something that I do not necessarily object to, but I can think of other organisations worthy of such statutory disapproval that do not appear on this list of organisations. However, maybe listing additional groups merely gives such groups the international recognition they crave.
Just as there are groups that should be included on such a list of organisations, I am aware that there are concerns about a number of the groups that are included in this order. In another place. there was concern with regard to the inclusion of the Mujaheddin e Khalq and the International Sikh Youth Federation. I confess that I do not know much about the International Sikh Youth Federation, or what threat it poses for the Indian state. However, I have witnessed terrorism at first hand in part of this United Kingdom and I know how terrorist campaigns have plagued Northern Ireland and its people for over 30 years.
I am also concerned about the Real IRA and the 32-County Sovereignty Committee. My concerns as regards the Real IRA are not with respect to the bare inclusion of the IRA in Schedule 2 to the primary legislation. Indeed, I can say that I am satisfied with the assurances given in another place that the term "Irish Republican Army" will include all variations of that term, whether they be Provisional, Continuity or Real. However, I am not satisfied that this proscription of "IRA" extends to the 32-County Sovereignty Committee.
It is my understanding that this order will make it illegal for a person who supports the International Sikh Youth Federation, presumably a youth living in this country, to place a poster purporting to support the organisation in his bedroom window. I am not questioning the merits of this being passed into law, but I am questioning the provisions proscribing what could be termed "domestic terrorist organisations".
If it is illegal for people supporting the International Sikh Youth Federation to express their support, why is it not the same for those who support the Real IRA through the 32-County Sovereignty Committee? Why can a young Sikh in Wolverhampton not place a poster of support in his window, but the 32-County Sovereignty Committee can hold rallies in pubs in Euston Road?
The Real IRA and the 32-County Sovereignty Committee are two sides of the same coin. Their members were behind the bomb attack at the BBC earlier this month; they attempted to blow up the MI6 building near Millbank; and they are believed to have

161
been the bombers of Hammersmith Bridge. Most certainly, and most significantly, they were behind the atrocious attack in Omagh.
Let me remind noble Lords: 31 lives were lost in that bomb attack, two of those unborn. It was the greatest single atrocity committed in Northern Ireland—and there have been many over the years. The victims of Omagh deserve justice. They deserve to have the 32-County Sovereignty Committee proscribed. They deserve to see the United States list the Real IRA on its State Department record of terrorist organisations, especially when one notes the level of fund-raising for that group in the United States. Most importantly, the Omagh victims and the people of Northern Ireland deserve justice under law. If those who committed that most heinous of crimes cannot be brought before the criminal courts, in the interests of transparency and accountability they must be brought before the civil courts.
I fully endorse the efforts of the Omagh Victims' Legal Support Group, which is attempting to bring a civil action against the individuals known—I repeat, known—to have committed that bombing. I hope sincerely that the group will succeed in raising the £1 million it requires to commence that action before it is time-barred in August of this year. I know that its members would appreciate the support of noble Lords in this task.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like, first, to pay tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell for tabling the first amendment to the Motion before the House. I should like also to pay tribute to the measured and clear way in which he moved the amendment and how he was able, far better than I, to put the case for excluding from the list of proscribed organisations, the Mujaheddin e Khalq.
I also applaud the second amendment to the Motion. I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It seems rather a nonsense that your Lordships' House should be presented with such a long list without providing for the consultation that should have taken place beforehand. It is a nonsense that we are not able to consider these organisations separately and it is a shame that no proper consultation took place prior to the day, some 28 days ago, when the order was first introduced to the House of Commons. I shall not comment further on that point except to say that I hope that noble Lords will share my concern over bundling together a number of groups and organisations.
I shall return to my remarks on the first amendment. It is regrettable that the Mujaheddin e Khalq is included in the schedule of proscribed organisations contained in the order. However, I welcome the fact that this opens the door for the Home Secretary to bring back a further order to remove the Mujaheddin e Khalq from the schedule. Any examination of the
162
situation in Iran demonstrates clearly and beyond doubt that it is the ruling regime in that country which practises terrorism—terrorism on its own people.
When the Prevention of Terrorism Bill—later the Terrorism Act 2000—was debated in another place, the Home Secretary said that the legislation was directed at groups in Britain that supported efforts to overthrow democratic regimes abroad. Importantly, he added that dissent was a vital part of our democracy. Surely, no one in this House can describe the mullahs' regime in Tehran as democratic.
The United Nations special representative on human rights in Iran, Professor Maurice Copthorne, as recently as this month, has reported that:
"Breaches of human rights are in large part as common today as they were live years ago".
He has also reported that the number of executions reported in the Iranian press during the year are placed at about 200. So far this year, 75 people have been sentenced to death, including eight women; some of the sentences include death by stoning.
The Home Office note associated with this order states that the Mujaheddin e Khalq has not attacked UK or Western interests. Why have our Government included the Mujaheddin in the list at this particular time?
Quite recently, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell and I circulated a statement to all noble Lords urging support for those crying out for freedom in Iran. In a matter of days, almost 100 Members of your Lordships' House responded to the cries of those who live in terror and fear of the mullahs' regime. As my noble and learned friend Lord Archer said, a similar statement in another place gained the support and endorsement of 337 Members of Parliament. I ask again: why have our Government—who, like previous governments, have shown compassion and understanding of the need to promote human rights—decided to give comfort to a barbaric regime?
Last Thursday, I had the privilege to hear a speech by Elizabeth Sidney, whom I had never met before, who is, as I understand it, chair of the International Network of Liberal Women. She has made a study of the current situation in Iran. Miss Sidney asked the audience to imagine that they were in Trafalgar Square and that a huge crane is driven into the square with five ropes hanging from its jib. The square was in east Tehran, last Monday week. The crane was driven into position and five people were appended to the ropes and hanged. They were hanged on the basis that they had been convicted of offences involving drugs. Five people—four men and one woman—hanging in public execution in the year 2001. How can a government such as ours give comfort and solace to such a regime?
The entire world is aware of Iran's appalling record on abuses of human rights. The Mujaheddin e Khalq, together with other pro-democracy organisations inside and outside Iran, keep the world informed of the true situation in that country. There can be no justification for our own democratic society denying others the right to draw these matters to the attention

163
of all who truly believe in freedom, justice and the promotion of basic human rights in any part of the world. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.
6.54 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I was concerned with the terrorism legislation which preceded this Act. It was my job for a number of years to report to this House and another place on what could be broadly described as two matters: first, the proportionality of the measures that were in place, which were renewable on an annual basis; and, secondly, whether there were proper remedies if things went wrong.
I do not wish to address the political agenda as other noble Lords have done, although I will attach my speech to the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. I have received, as have, I am sure, many of your Lordships, a large amount of extraordinarily well-reasoned and sensible correspondence from members or supporters—I know not which—of the Mujaheddin e Khalq. I have also received an interesting opinion from Matrix Chambers about what its remedies may be.
I use that as an illustration because, from my recollection of the period when I was dealing with this matter, I was concerned not only with powers relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland, which has been much referred to, but with powers to detain at ports people suspected of being concerned in international terrorism. Indeed, they were detained—even under the old legislation—and, if necessary, they were arrested and tried.
The correspondence and opinion that I have referred to, as well as the discussions on this order in another place, seem to have left a great deal of misapprehension on the part of members of any organisation which is proscribed in the Act—or which is to be proscribed in this order or any other order which may come about—as to what they can do.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, referred to the Proscribed Orders Appeal Commission, a new body which has recently been set up. It is modelled on the Special Immigration Appeal Commission, which was set up a few years ago, and has remarkably similar powers. In both cases, the reason for a special commission being set up is because they have to handle, in a way which is fair, complaints from individuals or organisations that have been proscribed or in some way singled out for unfortunate attention. At the same time, the commissions have to provide some degree of secrecy for the material upon which the action is based. Let us face it, none of us in this House know what it is that has inspired the right honourable gentleman in the Home Office, and those who advise him, to place any of these organisations in the list. The Mujaheddin are the same as the rest of the organisations in this respect.
164
I wonder whether the Minister can say a little more than has been previously discussed in Parliament about what are these remedies. There are twofold remedies because rules have been produced in accordance with the Act which deal with the way in which an appeal against the proscription can take place. As far as I know, these rules have not previously been mentioned in any debate, but they are the rules under which the commission will operate; they are contained in Statutory Instrument 2001/443.
There will be, of course, classified material which cannot be disclosed to the organisation which is appealing against a failure by the Home Secretary to deproscribe it. That is the way it will work. The organisation will appeal against a failure to deproscribe and the procedure will go on from there. There will have to be placed before this tribunal, distinguished as it is, material which may not be able to be disclosed to individuals or organisations seeking deproscription. Therefore, there will be a special advocate to whom this material will be disclosed, who will discuss it in private with the commission. Based upon all of that and the material presented by the organisation or the people involved, the commission will come to a decision. It will give by way of reasons at least a summary of why it has acted as it did in accordance with the secret material that no one else has seen.
It would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, gave a little more publicity to this matter. It does not appear that any of the people who have written to me have any idea that this procedure exists, and they should have. They ought to be told how to do it, and they ought to be told what is the further remedy and how it will work. Even if the commission does not overrule the Home Secretary's failure to de-proscribe, there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Technically, there may also be an appeal to the Divisional Court, but as the whole of this procedure is based on judicial review criteria alone it is unlikely that the Divisional Court would be involved. The statute says that the appeal is to the Court of Appeal.
What will happen when this material and this appeal comes to the Court of Appeal? There is nothing in the rules about this. So far as I am aware, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has not so far been taken to the Court of Appeal—at any rate, I can find no report of that having happened. Will the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, tell the House what is to be done in front of the Court of Appeal about the secret material? I know that the appeal will be on a point of law; but it will also be an appeal—as will the initial hearing in front of the commission—on the sections of the Human Rights Act which are directly concerned in this kind of exercise: that is to say, freedom of expression and freedom of association.
The points of law that could arise in front of the commission and in front of the Court of Appeal seem likely to involve the disclosure to the Court of Appeal as well of material that the appellants will not be allowed to see. How will that be handled by the Court of Appeal? There must have been some discussion

165
about this matter and there must be some way of dealing with it. I think that everyone would very much like to know.
There is one final point which is very much a human rights point and one that has been made by a number of people who have written to me. Once the organisation has been proscribed under the terms of the order, membership or professed membership of it will be a criminal offence: a person can be arrested for it and, I assume, if it is the decision of the magistrate's court or the Crown Court, he or she can be kept in detention. What will be the position when the police start to move in on one of the proscribed organisations and arrest its members, if that organisation then applies for de-proscription? There will be quite a long process. I have described some of it already. It could go to the Court of Appeal. Will the members who are at present automatically guilty of a criminal offence be held until the matter is decided by the Court of Appeal? Has the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, considered the question of bail, the terms of bail and other matters of that kind? I believe that those who belong to any of these organisations—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. What he has said has been extremely helpful. Does he appreciate that we are talking not only about people who are members of these organisations, but about people who support them or elicit support for them?
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am aware of that. I was attempting to—
Lord McNally: My Lords, it would help if we heard both matters together. I should value a learned opinion on this precise point. The point has been made to me that proscribed organisations that want to go through the kind of procedure indicated by the noble Viscount may want to fund-raise and to elicit other support. Are such activities to be banned? How, then, will those people be able to mount a proper defence if they cannot raise funds and they cannot seek support in the normal way?
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, have put their finger on the point. The question was asked earlier: how do you set up a process of applying for de-proscription if you are not allowed to organise yourself and you are not allowed to raise funds? It is for that precise reason that I am asking the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to describe what will happen in relation to people who are thought by the police or by the Security Services to be members of these organisations and who are thought to be organising some sort of campaign against proscription? If they are to be arrested and kept in confinement until the whole case has gone through and the Court of Appeal has made its final decision, then we have a very unhappy state of affairs indeed, and one where I should think habeas corpus will start to lie.
166
I do not believe that any of this has been thought out. If it has been thought out, it has certainly never been disclosed to Parliament. Not a word has been said about the matter in another place, and we have not heard a word about it today. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to take this opportunity, first, to go into a little more detail about what remedies are available, how they will work, what access will be given to those who are seeking de-proscription for their organisations to the material on the basis of which the organisation has been proscribed—that also includes what happens in the Court of Appeal. While all that is going on, what will happen to individual members of the organisations so that they are not deprived of liberty for belonging to an organisation which, one may possibly suspect, in the end will be de-proscribed? I know that they will receive compensation, but compensation is not a great deal of consolation to those who have been locked up on remand for a long period of time. This is an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to explain a good deal more about this matter. Members of this House would be wiser, as would members of these organisations or those who support the organisations and who would like to pursue some of the political aims that have been discussed by noble Lords.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, first, I largely agree with the points made by my noble friend Lord McNally and with the remarks that have just been made. There is a great deal of concern on this side of the House as to the procedures by which this measure has been brought forward.
Secondly, nothing in my remarks should be taken as in any way indicting indifference to human rights issues, which I absolutely accept are in many particulars parlous in Iran. They are far from being as we would wish them to be—although I point out the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that executions are not a prerogative of Iran. About the same number of executions take place in the United States and they are semi-public.
My interest in Iran derives from nothing more than having been to that country. As a student, I spent six weeks there in 1961. I spent some time as a guest of SAVAK, the Shah's secret police, in Shiraz gaol. None the less, I learnt a great deal and admired a great deal in that extraordinary country. I returned to Iran in 1978, before the fall of the Shah, and again in 1997, when I spent two weeks back-packing with my son around the country on public transport. It may surprise some of your Lordships, having heard the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that the people of Iran are in no way cowed or afraid of giving their opinion. In fact, their opinion was so readily and vigorously given that at times we had to retreat from those who wanted to bend our ear. I returned to Iran in 1999, with the first all-party delegation since before the fall of the Shah and I am presently secretary of the British-Iranian All-Party Parliamentary Group.

167
Those noble Lords who are unaware of the background of the Mujaheddin e Khalk (MeK)—or as it is sometimes called, the MKO—and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which supports the MeK, should understand that the organisations have a Marxist-Leninist Islamic root. Although they took part in the revolution which overthrew the Shah and were indeed one of the most extreme organisations in that bloody revolution, they and their leader, Massoud Rajavi, lost out in the post-revolution struggle between the different groups concerned, despite being hard-line anti-American. They were expelled from France in 1986 and then de-camped to Iraq where they have remained ever since. Their finances and their arms come from Saddam Hussein. They supported Saddam Hussein during his grab for Iranian territory in the early 1980s which was only successfully resisted by Iran after an appalling war in which the Iranians lost over 1 million people. It is not to our credit, or that of America, that we supplied Saddam with his arms on that occasion.
The MKO is still based in Iraq. Against that background, the assertion regularly made by the MeK and its supporters—that they have widespread popular support in Iran—is not credible. The MeK and related organisations have been formally designated as foreign terrorist organisations by the United States for many years, and were redesignated as such in October 1999.
On 24th March last year, when answering press questions, Secretary of State James Rubin made clear that the Americans viewed the NCRI,
"as an alias for the MeK".
He made clear that the Americans viewed the MeK as an organisation through which Saddam Hussein sponsors terrorism. He also said that,
"this is a satellite photograph of a new headquarters complex that Saddam Hussein has built for the MeK"—
that is, a complex situated at Falluja, which is about 40 kilometres from Baghdad—
"when it becomes operational, in our judgment, it will be used to co-ordinate MeK terrorist activities and to plan attacks against targets in Iran and elsewhere".
To judge Iran by the democratic standards of western Europe is both unfair and unreal. It has its own very different history. Like most, if not all, countries in that part of the world, democracy has not been its tradition. Islamic influence has been and remains its dominant force. It is still a theocratic state. Its ways, as in other Muslim states, are cruel to our way of thinking in many respects. But that is still their predominant culture. Having said that, Iran has made real and vital strides towards fully-fledged democracy. In 1997, it held a presidential election in which the favourites of the reactionary mullahs—and not all mullahs are reactionary—Nataq Nourri, was unexpectedly trounced by Mr Khatami. Well over 80 per cent of the electorate turned out, which is something we might envy.
In last year's elections for the Majlis, their parliament, again, about 80 per cent of the people of Iran turned out to vote. That election was rubbished
168
up hill and down dale by NCRI and its supporters, the MeK, and company. They attempted to say that the polling booths were empty and that it was a fraud. I spoke to someone at the British Embassy about the situation. Those concerned took the trouble to send their staff to polling stations far and wide. They reported that it was a real election, an enthusiastic election, and unfrightened election, and one they found credible. More importantly, of 290 members of the Majlis returned, 190 were progressives, 50 were independent and only 50 were rightist reactionary mullah-dominated candidates.
That election was not perfect by our standards. Ten per cent of the candidates—over 6,000 of them—were rejected by the Islamic vetting procedure that is part of their complex, theocratic constitution. None the less, it was a free and open election that has delivered to Iran a parliament which, in my view, will ensure that reform and progress continue.
When speaking to the Majlis, as recently as the 11th of this month, President Khatami said that,
"governing and staying in power at any price does not make sense. But so long as I know I can move forward despite all the difficulties I will he willing to serve".
He was referring to the forthcoming presidential election on 8th June, for which he has not yet declared his candidacy. The "difficulties" to which he referred are the battle going on for the soul of Iran between the conservative mullahs and the bulk of the Iranian population, especially young Iranians. A huge proportion of the population are under the age of 25, 15 per cent of whom are university educated with women representing half that number. However, it is just not realistic—indeed, in a way, it would be arrogant—to expect that that advance will go forward at a pace that we should like, or towards a destination that we should necessarily agree with in all particulars.
As I said, there are many blemishes on Iran. There is still torture. Newspapers have been closed—35 of them in the past year. However, when I spoke to someone at the Foreign Office recently, he came back to me with the fact that there are still 25 daily newspapers circulating in Teheran alone, with a circulation of over 100,000 each. They say that more than two thirds of those are reformist. Therefore, the notion of some benighted, oppressed state with a citizenry afraid to say or read anything that does not have the approval of the reactionary mullahs is simply nonsense.
People are still killed and threatened. There is corruption in high places. But, again, for the first time in Iran's history, there were recent convictions of state officials responsible for murdering progressive politicians two or three years ago. Trials are now taking place of policemen who fermented the student demonstrations just before we arrived in Teheran in 1999.
To view all of this outside the context of Iran's own history, outside the context of its region—it is the only stable state in the whole of the region—and outside the context of the undoubted progress that it has made, is self-defeating. The NCRI organised an advertisement

169
in yesterday's Guardian, utilising the crest of the House of Commons rather cheekily. It is full of exaggeration, half truth and worse. Unfortunately, unless he was misquoted, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, was mentioned as saying that,
"the Mojahedin's military arm acts in the framework of international convention and has never attacked civilian targets".
The noble Lord should try telling that to Amnesty, which, in its latest human rights "Watch", says that the Iraq-based armed opposition group MeK continues to carry out attacks against targets inside Iran and that, although the organisation claims to be targeting officials, several civilians were killed or injured in incidents such as a mortar attack on the presidential office in downtown Teheran in February. I know that there have been two more rocket attacks on court houses this month.
Unfortunately, I must also quote from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Again, he may have been misquoted in the advertisement to which I referred, but he is mentioned as saying that,
"the people of Iran have made it absolutely clear that they want to put an end to this dictatorship. The solution for Iran is democratisation".
That is exactly what they are doing—painfully, fitfully and both forward and back. What is the noble Lord, Lord Alton, doing saying that this is a dictatorship with no democracy?
Anyone who goes to Iran and talks to the people will realise that it is unrecognisable today from the Iran of even 10 years ago. I have a number of Iranian friends who left Iran during the time of the Shah because they could not stand the regime. They returned during the revolution, but left again because they could not stand the oppression. Several of them have returned to Iran in the past three years. I have visited them and talked to them at length. Having left the country several times in the past, they tell me that they could never have contemplated the progress that Iran has made today. We must realise that that is all relative.
The notion to which the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, gives credence—namely, that the situation in Iran will be improved by the violent military means of the Mujaheddin in seeking to de-stabilise and overthrow the present regime—seems to me fanciful at best. I hope that noble Lords will support what have been sensible and constructive policies pursued by the present Government and the present Foreign Secretary, reinforced by the upbeat recent visit made to the country by Cabinet Minister Mo Mowlam. She found a country struggling desperately to control the drugs flowing across it from Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, would actually encourage civil war. It is misconceived, both as to its analysis of the whole circumstances in Iran and as to the true nature of the MeK. The amendment betrays its own purpose, to achieve more democracy, more freedom and better justice. Iran's painful but real development will not be accelerated by encouraging civil war which would
170
throw it into savage reverse, opening the floodgates, not to enlightenment but to a long, dark night when that admirable people are just seeing some light.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I start by reassuring my noble friend that in my view the one thing I am absolutely sure about—I think that it is a significant part of the debate—is that no organisation on this list will fail to be informed of how to appeal. I go further and say that the likelihood of the Home Secretary losing a number of those appeals is in my view almost equally certain. I am in the market for a bet on either of those propositions. It is possible to lose sight of the fact that there is an elaborate appeals procedure and that that procedure will be available to organisations which have both the wealth and the sophistication to make the fullest use of it.
I was deeply cheered by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Listening to the debate—I know that there are differences between us, and some of us have known each other for a long time and are not surprised at those differences—I find it difficult to believe that we are actually seeking to reduce the ability of terrorists to kill and maim perfectly innocent people. There is an enormous amount of self-delusion in this area. All history demonstrates that, by the very nature of the environment in which they work and the causes they seek to support, terrorists, even if they wished, cannot confine the mayhem to senior army officers and members of the ruling party. Civil war and the overthrow of governments are not like that.
I find the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, worrying. He accepts in principle the Act and its purposes, but then begins to embark upon a categorisation of the different types of terrorism. He draws a distinction between democratic countries where it would not be acceptable and, by implication, as I understand it, non-democratic countries, which comprise the vast bulk of the world, where it can be seen as regrettable but virtually inevitable. I find that extraordinary because the people who usually get hurt are not the leaders or the generals; on the whole they tend to be the "PBI", the simple people. By definition, the senior people in those countries are very well protected. They know that someone might want to kill them and they spare no expense in ensuring that that is avoided. As has been said, Iran has not been a real democracy for any considerable length of time during its history.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he include Nelson Mandela among the terrorists of whom he has spoken?
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I often went backwards and forwards to South Africa at the time of sanctions, but, like the noble and learned Lord, I was not present most of the time. I believe that the opinions with which we should concern ourselves are not those of noble Lords in this Chamber where it is warm and comfortable. I believe that the people who had tyres put round their

171
necks in front of their families and petrol poured into those tyres—as Winnie Mandela said, "There's lots more where that came from"—probably thought that those who committed those acts were terrorists. The whole point is that those are always the people who are killed. What happened in South Africa was probably inevitable. However, I do not think that the old regime was brought down by terrorism but rather by economic sanctions—and primarily financial sanctions.
There is no justification for murdering people. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head, but he cannot have it both ways. He asked me a question and I have tried to answer it. I refer to the people who were killed in the Omagh bombing and to the brigadier who was killed in Athens who could not conceivably have had any influence on anything the Greek Government did. The relatives of those murdered people think that those murders were acts of terrorism. They do not have the luxury of sitting in the warm and analysing the position.
One unhappy development in the latter part of the 20th century was the rapid growth in international terrorism. The list constitutes only a sample of that. It is an interesting sample, but many of us could mention many other examples. Euphemisms such as "freedom fighter" give a completely false and very dangerous impression of people who recognise no moral or legal code. Their objective is clear; it is to spread violence and the fear of violence—and the fear of violence is best spread by killing innocent people, not by shooting the odd Minister.
We have seen that phenomenon grow and we have seen the Omagh bombing where 29 innocent people were killed. Some of the people who contributed to those deaths are nice, decent, God-fearing Christians. They live in the United States. Someone introduced them to an Irish wolfhound at one stage and they like singing "Danny Boy". They do not consider that they support terrorism. They pass round the collection box and raise money which they send to the IRA and they think that at Christmas that money will be used to give all the little children a present. The IRA uses that money to buy weapons. That is why financial support for terrorism must also be controlled.
I accept totally that none of that is news to anyone in this Chamber. And yet, to the increasing consternation of friendly countries, for years this country has been a major haven of peace for international terrorists. We have known about that and we have had many complaints about it. Indeed, an extraordinary feature of the Terrorism Act is that in February of this year for the first time we came into line with our international obligations in this area not to allow our country to provide a base for those who plan terrorist activities in other people's countries. Until that time we were out of line with the European Convention on Human Rights—which has total support in this House—with civil and political rights and with the UN conventions relating to terrorism which deal specifically not just with bombing but also with the financing of terrorist activity.
172
That brings me to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. It would be absurd to suggest that all, or even most, Iranians in Britain who want to see a change of government in Iran are terrorists. I have read many of their letters on headed notepaper and most of them seem respectable, middle-class business people. But it would be equally absurd and naïve in the extreme to suggest that terrorists who are happy to live under the protection of Saddam Hussein and receive their pay and rations from hire would hesitate to use the large organisation which clearly exists in the UK to raise money and support for illegal activities and terrorist activities. That was a feature of NORAID in the US and it is a feature of Sinn Fein.
Then we turn to the other point: why should not we have more information? People who give information to the security services of other countries in the circumstances we are considering take very serious personal risks, even to their lives. It is absurd to think it realistic that they would co-operate without total guarantees of confidentiality. A number of people have found themselves in that position. I think of Colonel Penkovsky who came to a very nasty end for co-operating with the wrong people.
None of us knows what led the Government to identify this group of organisations. We can only guess at the reason, but unfortunately the nature of their antisocial acitivites means that reliable information about such organisations can be obtained only by use of classified intelligence operations. That inevitably brings us to the point where there is no alternative to the present procedure. Ministers have investigated the matter and they have produced specific propositions. There is an elaborate appeals procedure and at the end of the day, Ministers have to rely on the advice they have received.
We know the people involved in the production of this list in this place. In addition to the noble Lord. Lord Bassam, they include Jack Straw, Robin Cook, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, the police, the security services, various intelligence agencies and, inevitably, the lawyers. Why should they all conspire to construct this extraordinary facade, which they knew would be highly controversial?
That Iran is a repressive regime I accept. It has been so since about the 16th century. That many Iranians would like to see it brought down is clear. That factor exists in many countries. But fighting wars by proxy in other countries in the safety of this country is not acceptable. We rightly give asylum to many people who fear persecution in their own countries and I hope that we continue to do so. But that does not give them the right to use this country as a base from which to support and conduct murder and mayhem, inevitably involving innocent people.
It is not an issue, as some have suggested, of trade relations. It is not an issue of political views. It is a moral issue about how civilised countries behave in the face of a common threat. This order, regrettable though it may be, is the only sensible way of dealing with it.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I shall try not to delay the House quite as long as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. Perhaps he will forgive me if I do not follow his argument.
In such a debate, we should not be competitive in our condemnation of terrorism. I do not think that a single noble Lord would say that terrorism is good, that we welcome it, and that we want it practised from our shores. The debate poses fundamental questions about the pursuit of justice in the fight against terrorism. On that basis, I welcome the speeches of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The order represents a process of collective proscription of 21 separate organisations on the basis of evidence which we cannot share in any detail. The process is supposedly ameliorated by the fact that individual organisations can apply for de-proscription. Such organisation will undoubtedly commit criminal offences in preparation for the process of de-proscription.
That seems fundamentally wrong. A presumption of guilt seems to be assumed without available evidence being tested prior to the chance to prove innocence. That is extremely difficult when no one has stated explicitly what one is alleged to have done so that one can proceed to absolve oneself.
In the short time I shall detain your Lordships' House, I do not propose to speak about the Mujaheddin. The case has been covered admirably. But in over 20 years of representing parts of the West Midlands in another place and in the European Parliament. I have had long, regular and useful contact with the Sikh community, including the International Sikh Youth Federation. In over 20 years I met those people frequently; I socialised with them; I dined with them; I argued with them. The only time in any of those discussions when terrorism was part of the agenda was when one of the leaders of the Sikh temple in Walsall was arrested following a murder in Southall. He was released the following day having been exonerated of any involvement in the murder. After his release, he was immediately rearrested and told that he would be deported from the United Kingdom for activities which were incompatible with his staying here. To my knowledge this individual had been a member of the local community for 11 years and was a regular devotee of the Guru Nanak temple in Walsall.
I had always assumed that the Home Office had good evidence on which to base its arrests. After 20 months' detention in Winson Green Prison, without either charge and therefore no trial—he had no opportunity to defend himself—without having been deported, Mr Ragbir Singh was eventually released. That has led me to doubt the universal belief that the betters of our society—the great group described by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh—will get it right automatically on every single occasion. Ask any member of the Sikh community about Ragbir Singh and he will tell you that he is a hero inside the community, not because he was a terrorist but because he stood up to the unfairness of society and, on coming
174
out of his prison sentence 20 months later, resumed his role in the temple in Willenhall without ever showing malice.
I have not been alone in that contact with the International Sikh Youth Federation. Cabinet Ministers, including my right honourable friend Mr Jack Straw, have had regular contact with it. The Prime Minister has had contact with it on a number of occasions. I imagine that every Cabinet Minister who has been engaged in inner city politics has had contact, as has almost every other Government Minister. I have frequently disagreed with some of the political aspirations of the International Sikh Youth Federation, but that does not make me right, and it does not make its members terrorists.
A valued group in our community with no proven case of terrorism against it is entitled to better treatment. The Government must give a better justification of why an organisation based within a religious movement in this country should be told that its activities are incompatible with the standards that we expect in the United Kingdom. Its members are devotees of Guru Nanak. They add to our cultural and religious diversity. They are an important part of improving the understanding of that diversity in our society. On that basis, I value them greatly and have great doubts about the wisdom of the decision of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to include the International Sikh Youth Federation on his list.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord has helped to remove some of the polarisation that was beginning to emerge in the debate. It is wrong to suggest that anyone who in any way questions the order is somehow implicitly in favour of terrorism. I remind my noble friend Lord Marsh that we have an opportunity in this House to question Bills, orders and any other form of legislation. We do not want to turn this House into a rubber stamp.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble Lord has started off on a false premise. It would be ridiculous for me to suggest that everyone who is opposed to the order is ipso facto in favour of terrorism. The noble Lord knows that that is unfair nonsense.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me, but the tone of his remarks was such as to suggest that anyone who dared to question the sagacity and wisdom of the committee to which he referred, which comprised very distinguished people, is in some way complicit in collaborating with the upholding of terrorism in this country or overseas. I entirely dispute that, as I dispute the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who spoke in a similar vein, suggesting that anyone who supports the Mujaheddin or the Council for Resistance in Iran is somehow a closet Marxist or Leninist. That was one of his throwaway lines.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in view of the very powerful speech made by my noble friend Lord

175
Phillips, does the noble Lord really claim that the Mujaheddin has not sold its soul to the devil? It is backed and supported by Saddam, whose regime is far more murderous than the Iranian regime. Whatever may be said about other organisations, surely there is no argument but that the Mujaheddin belongs on the list.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I shall come to those arguments in a moment. The noble Lord should read the remarks of Elizabeth Sidney, the chair of the International Network of Liberal Women. I had the pleasure of working with her when I was a member of the noble Lord's party. She is a most distinguished woman who is hardly the supporter of revolutionaries worldwide. Last week, she said:
"Instead, we have succumbed to pressure by the mullahs by including the Mojahedin, the group which promotes protest within Iran against the brutalist mullahs, on our list of proscribed terrorist groups.
The reality has been disgracefully distorted in favour of oil, trade and strategic influence and disgracefully pusillanimous in pursuit of human rights".
At the minimum, there is a profound disagreement between us. We can disagree among friends. We should not try to caricature one another as somehow soft on terrorism or closet Marxist-Leninists.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords—
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, this is the third intervention in as many minutes, but I shall happily give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the noble Lord has twice inferred from what I said some slur on those in this House who support the Mujaheddin—namely, that they are Marxist-Leninists. I made a simple factual remark that the Mujaheddin has Marxist-Leninist-Islamist roots. if he can deduce from that any such slur, he is a better man than I am.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord will accept that some Members of your Lordships' House were once members of the British Communist Party. I suppose that they could be caricatured as having Marxist-Leninist roots. I refer the noble Lord to the correspondence that your Lordships have received, as I have, from a number of Iranian organisations in' this country. These are respectable groups who have been accepted here under our asylum and immigration rules. They have stated clearly that they are not involved in any terrorist activities and we have accepted that by allowing them to reside in the United Kingdom. The Anglo Iranian Community in Greater London states:
"The mullahs have rejected all peaceful means, like elections under international observation in the past, despite the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran's repeated attempts 20 years ago to bring the mullahs to the negotiating table. Instead the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran was faced with atrocities, barbarism. imprisonment, torture, systematic rape of their women sympathisers and public hanging of their supporters".
We heard about that last point from the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead.
176
The Anglo Iranian Youth Society wrote in similar terms, stating:
"To name this resistance movement in the proscribed list serves no one but the mullahs and those who benefit from dirty deals with them. I wonder how the life of an Iranian youth is calculated in terms of pure financial interest. How many barrels of oil is it worth'? It is indeed a human tragedy to trade people's lives for … economic interests".
I had the pleasure of working with some members of the National Association of Iranian Academics in Britain at Liverpool's John Moores University. It states:
"Including the People's Mojahedin of Iran in this list is insulting. It undermines the hard work of this group in bringing political and public awareness of the atrocities carried out by the Iranian government over the past two decades.
The Association of Iranian Women in the UK states:
"Naming Mojahedin, where women have a significant part in their struggle, in the proscribed list would be seen b^ this brutal regime as a green light to extend their campaign of terror against the Iranian people".
The Anglo-Iranian Association of Computer Scientists states:
"This decision of the Home Secretary has in effect given the Iranian government a clear concession that will allow them to continue to pursue their reign of terror in Iran and abroad".
It is significant that the US State Department lists the Iranian Government alongside the governments of countries such as Iraq and Libya as those that are most likely to be involved in acts of state-inspired terrorism. We seem to have some confusion about who are the perpetrators of terrorism and who has been resisting it. Would we have proscribed the French resistance during the Second World War? That is the sort of parallel that we should draw. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, mentioned Nelson Mandela. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will recall that 20 years ago he and I visited Beirut and met members of the Palestinian resistance, including Yasser Arafat. We should think about people such as Menachem Begin or Eamon de Valera. The examples could go on and on.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, where would my noble friend place the state of Israel, which was caught red-handed engaged in state-sponsored terrorism in Amman during Netanyahu's time?
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I have just mentioned Menachem Begin. At the time of the blowing up of the King David Hotel 50 years ago, he was placed on the proscribed list and regarded as a state terrorist. We acquire a different view with the passage of time. I suspect that we shall also have a different view of the Mujaheddin in the fullness of time.
It is worth stating clearly for the record what the resistance say about themselves. Mr Massoud Rajavi, the leader of the Iranian resistance, said last year:
"I pledge on behalf of the Iranian resistance that if anyone from our side oversteps the red line concerning absolute prohibition of attacks on civilians and innocent individuals, either deliberately or unintentionally, he or she would be ready to stand trial in any international court and accept any ruling by the court, including the payment of compensation".

177
That is a clear statement. I wish that we could hear a similar statement from the leaders of the Iranian regime, who have been responsible for many of the atrocities that have been alluded to today.
I also refer your Lordships to the lucid and powerful speech made by Robin Corbett on 13th March in another place. He, of course, is the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee—not someone who will easily be taken in by an organisation run by terrorists masquerading under another name.
So far as concerns the noble and learned Lord, it is 20 years since he and I dealt with Northern Ireland matters in another place—he from the Opposition Front Bench. On regular occasions I was happy to support many of the speeches that he made. I believe that he took a clear, unequivocal line against terrorism. There are no lovers of terrorism in the Chamber today, but there are many who uphold the principle of free speech. Many of us believe that it is vitally important that we recognise the nature of the regime with which we are dealing.
Six or seven years ago, I took up the cases of two Christian leaders in Iran—Medi Dibaj and Bishop Haik—both of whom were executed. Interestingly, at that time the regime tried to lay the blame at the door of the Iranian resistance. Last year, it emerged in its official propaganda that the regime now accepts that it was the regime's agents who took the lives of those two clergymen.
Therefore, the dark process that has been taking place inside Iran is not a simple or easy one. It is not one which we should be misled into believing will be easily resolved, and certainly not by acts of violence. In that respect, I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. We all want to see, wherever possible, a peaceful transition and the emergence of true democracy.
I believe that all the indications show that Iran is on the brink of change. Almost four years have passed since Mohammad Khatami became the president. He came then with the promise of reform. Western governments, eager perhaps, as the students suggested in their letter, to have more trade with Tehran, embarked upon a more conciliatory approach towards the mullahs' regime.
Four years later, reform and change within the clerical establishment in Iran have proved to be no more than an illusion. That is not strange because Khatami himself is part of that clerical regime, responsible for the atrocities committed over the past two decades. In 1988, he supported the massacres of 30,000 political prisoners. Not once has he publicly criticised the regime's conduct in such atrocities. However, he has repeatedly expressed allegiance to his mentor, Khomeini, and the current spiritual leader, Khamenei. Not long ago, he said—the noble and learned Lord referred to this during his opening remarks—that there is no talk in Tehran of changing the constitution. In fact, he said:
"Today. talk of changing the constitution amounts to changing the state. This is treachery to the state and the Iranian nation".
178
That was said only a year ago.
British foreign policy is not well served by hitching it to that kind of tarnished star. Khatami had four years in which to bring about change, but he chose not to do so. He wants cosmetic change and not real reform. He knows better than anyone else that moving in that direction will jeopardise the survival of the theocratic regime.
No longer can anyone deny that Khatami has failed and that the people of Iran are continuing to demand change. Over the past year, through dozens of anti-government demonstrations across the country. they have clearly stated that demand. They want to establish a new system which will respect human rights; a system that will guarantee a free and fair election; and a government who will recognise the rights of women and respect the rights of religious and national minorities. Those people have no doubt that the present regime is not the one to do that.
However, it seems that the cry of the Iranian people is currently falling on deaf ears; or perhaps we are listening too much to the mullahs and to their apologists in this constructive engagement so that we do not hear what the people themselves are saying. I believe that the decision by the Home Secretary to proscribe the Mujaheddin is a clear example that we are siding with the mullahs instead of with the people.
I have been following the situation in Iran for some 20 years. It was as a young Member of another place that I organised a meeting on behalf of the resistance 20 years ago at my then party's conference. Indeed, I organised a meeting for them at each and every subsequent conference, even while I was that party's then Chief Whip. Therefore, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, who mentioned the meetings that have been held at Labour Party conferences over the years, I also ask whether in the future such gatherings will be legal or whether they will be proscribed under these orders. Will it mean that even at party political conferences it will not be possible to hear the voices of people who resist that regime? It is quite extraordinary that we should have created such a situation.
Therefore, I was very disturbed to see that the Home Secretary had included that organisation in the list. I am in no doubt that the decision has nothing to do with terrorism but that it is a political decision. It is a sad day for our democracy. Values that we have upheld for decades and even centuries are being violated. Defending the Mujaheddin in this case is defending not only the right of Iranian people to resist; it is defending our own values. It is defending the most fundamental rights of human beings: the right to freedom of expression; the right to freedom of assembly; and the right to freedom of association.
Another problem arises for this Government in proceeding with this list of orders—the "take it or leave it" list. Thousands of Iranians in this country

179
support the Mujaheddin. Most of them have, as I said, been granted political asylum for their connection with, or support for, the Mujaheddin. Where will this order leave the people who have been given asylum if they continue to support the Mujaheddin in the future? Many of them were prosecuted and persecuted in Iran. Expressing their support for the Mujaheddin was tantamount to arrest, torture and, in many cases, execution.
Thank God that we do not have the death penalty, although I believe that it is gratuitous to compare capital punishment, which I oppose, in the United States with the type of public executions which the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, rightly reminded us of during his excellent contribution earlier. None the less, the Government are saying to those people, "If you express your views, you will be imprisoned". The families of many Iranians in the United Kingdom have been executed in Iran for being a member of the Mujaheddin. I wonder whether they will be able to hold, for example, a memorial in the future for their beloved ones or whether that, too, would he considered as support for the Mujaheddin.
I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Colville, who earlier asked the Minister directly—I hope that he will reply later when he replies to this debate—whether or not the information to which he has been privy will be made available to the Court of Appeal if and when this matter finally comes to rest there.
Four years ago we were told that the new government here would follow an ethical policy in foreign affairs. Today we are confronted with what I consider to be a most unethical policy. For economic or whatever reasons, we have given in to the demands of a brutal regime. How can we justify holding a dialogue with those who stone their own people and yet accuse their victims as terrorists? How can we talk of an ethical policy, yet take sides with the oppressors and not with the victims?
I end by trying to set out my view clearly. I believe that our Government are making a serious mistake. Proscribing the Mujaheddin is not only wrong morally and unethical; it is also unwise from a hard-headed, political point of view. The mullahs' regime is in real trouble and the people of Iran have made it absolutely clear that they want an end to the present dictatorship. Therefore, I believe that this Government are betting on the wrong horse. I have said it before and I stress again that the solution for Iran is democratisation. In that respect, the NCR is the force that cannot he ignored in the current situation in Iran. I believe that we would be wise to support the amendment laid before the House tonight by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, perhaps I may make the shortest speech in the debate tonight and refer to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I well understand the reasons which motivate the noble Lord in seeking to delineate the different varieties of IRA. However, I have some reservations.
180
Moving away from the generic IRA label and specifying the varieties may be counter-productive to his aims. I believe that it would merely tempt the growth of further adjectival innovations, such as the "Artificial IRA", the "Episodic IRA", and so on. It is better simply to proscribe the IRA per se as it is at present in the schedule to the Act. That is the best way in which to deal with these particular terrorist groups.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I shall make only a short contribution. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned the meeting that was held this morning in Committee Room 3, organised by Liberation. It was attended by members of a number of the 21 organisations, and they discussed the order that we are debating tonight. It was an extremely well ordered meeting and the contributions were constructive. It was also extremely colourful because people came in their traditional dress. There were Sikhs. Kurds, Kashmiri, Tamils and Iranians, to name but a few. It did not appear to me at all that I was in the presence of terrorists.
The question that first springs to mind is: why introduce the order at this time? So far as I can discover, there has been no particular escalation of acts of terrorism during the past few months, and none of the proscribed organisations has committed illegal acts in the United Kingdom. There is little evidence that any of the organisations plotted their acts of violence in the UK. Perhaps my noble friend has other evidence; if he does, it would be nice if he could share it with us.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, discussed much more eloquently than I could the problems associated with secretly held information. As my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and other noble Lords pointed out, most members of those organisations who live in the UK are refugees and had to leave their countries precisely because of their membership of one or other of the 21 organisations in the order. They had to leave not because they had committed acts of terrorism but simply because they were members of an organisation. It is somewhat ironic that they should face prosecution for the same reason for which they were granted, or applied for, asylum in the first place.
The listed organisation with which I am most familiar is the PKK, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which is based in Turkey and which is often criticised. I am puzzled by its current inclusion because, for the past two-and-a-half years—well before its leader, Abdullah Öcalan, was captured in Kenya—the PK K has declared a ceasefire. Previous ceasefires before that period broke down not because the PKK violated them but because the Turkish Government took no notice and continued their military operation against the Kurdish population in south-east Turkey. Even now, Turkey is illegally and relentlessly pursuing members or supporters of the PKK who are sheltering in Iraq. The Turks are destroying the villages of Kurds who give those members or supporters shelter. That is done with the connivance of ourselves and the United

181
States, which, by arrangement, permit Turkey to send helicopter gunships and other aircraft across the no-fly zones.
The PKK has clearly declared its intention to pursue its aims by political means. To proscribe it now, when it was not proscribed in this country during the period in which it engaged in armed resistance—it was tolerated by the previous government—is extremely odd to say the least. Perhaps my noble friend will explain why the Government choose to proscribe the PKK now. Is it perhaps—perish the thought—in order to please or placate the Turkish Government at their request in return for allowing our aircraft to use Turkish air force facilities at Incirlik? We used that as a base in our efforts against Iraq.
My noble friend can expect busy legal moves for "de-proscription" from the PKK and other organisations. I expect that the courts and the legal profession will have plenty of extra work as a result of the order.
8 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I have waited until almost the end of this debate before contributing because it is regarded almost as an irritant to speak about terrorism in Northern Ireland. Speeches have been delivered with great passion and solemnity about terrorism or alleged terrorists in far outposts of the world.
I recall vividly that in August 1998, a few days after the Omagh bombing, the House met in sombre mood. I recall the speeches that were made then about the atrocity that had been carried out by the Real IRA. I recall that it was said that we would leave no stone unturned until we had apprehended those people and that we would use every endeavour to bring them to justice. The pages of Hansard are littered with such proclamations. Yet today the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made a simple request for the three organisations that are mentioned in his amendment to be included in the order.
We have heard today about atrocities that were carried out by the Iranian Government and about other activities that are alleged to have been carried out by other terrorist organisations. All last week and all this week, the national newspapers in Belfast have been reporting daily that someone has been murdered by one of the organisations or kneecapped by them and left disabled for the rest of their lives.
As to far-away places, I am inclined to think of Czechoslovakia just before the last war. However, we can do something about the situation in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. Although we express our concerns and disappointment about what is happening in other faraway countries, we have the ability to take whatever steps are necessary to inhibit the organisations that are mentioned in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
The noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Rogan, mentioned Northern Ireland and the Omagh bomb. Many of us from Northern Ireland met the relatives of
182
the Omagh victims last week. We were made aware of their great disappointment about the fact that no one had been brought before the courts in relation to the atrocity. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that the Real IRA did it. Everyone in Northern Ireland, particularly the police in Northern Ireland, know the identity of the people who carried out the atrocity. We were told last week that governments cannot do anything to bring the perpetrators of the crime to justice and that it is not within the ambit of an elected government to support a private prosecution. All I can say is that the people of Northern Ireland, especially the relatives of those killed in Omagh, feel betrayed by the inaction of the Government. Not one Real IRA man has been brought before the courts in Northern Ireland and charged with the offence. But we find time to discuss what is happening in all these other countries. It is the Government's prime responsibility to do all that they can to attack the organised terrorists who act in our midst and to ensure that life is made extremely difficult for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, mentioned the fact that the Continuity IRA held a meeting in a pub in north London because it was collecting money for its organisation, which is allegedly an illegal organisation. The person who led that collection effort was none other than one of the Price sisters, who were convicted of murder in what is known in Northern Ireland as the Old Bailey bombing. Someone convicted of murder for an IRA terrorist offence in 1971 can now walk freely in London and support an organisation—the Continuity IRA—which is in open war with the Government.
When we say anything about the Provisional IRA, others say, "They are observing a ceasefire and are not murdering policemen or soldiers or carrying out major explosions in Northern Ireland or in this country. Don't be too critical of them because that may in some way harm the peace process". We hear repeatedly—I listened to it all weekend—"Do not say anything about the Provisional IRA members because they are on a cease-fire". That is the wrong attitude. We should continue to harass all sections of the IRA, whether it be the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA. Those people are still engaged in terrorist activities, not against the Army or the police on this occasion, but against ordinary members of the community, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. In that respect I cannot see any justification for the Government not accepting the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, supports the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on the proscription of certain organisations not mentioned in the schedule. But he will agree with me that the reason why nobody was prosecuted for the Omagh bombing has nothing to do with proscription and that the experience we have had with proscription in the past in Northern Ireland shows that it does not necessarily help to catch the criminals who perpetrate terrorist acts. The Omagh bombing is a good example of the difficulty we face;

183
that is, that the police in Northern Ireland know perfectly well who committed that offence, but for reasons which are not absolutely clear to me—they may concern the difficulties of obtaining sufficient forensic evidence—they have not brought proceedings against those concerned.
The same may be true of the other organisations listed in the order. We are satisfying ourselves that we are combating international terrorism, but we may not be doing a great deal to put the perpetrators behind bars. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, put his finger on it when he said that the trouble is that we have been friendly with a great many people in the past who have attended our party conferences. We are suddenly criminalising them and do not know how that can happen with people we know are not terrorists.
The fact is that any armed opposition group or anybody who supports an armed opposition group in whatever country in the world is ipso facto a terrorist. That is what the definition in Article I says. It was pointed out that if the order had been in force at the time, it would have caught people like Nelson Mandela of the ANC; it would have applied to the opposition parties which contested the Zimbabwe elections after the Lancaster House conference in 1980, and to Fretilin in East Timor after 1975. So the examples given could be multiplied almost indefinitely.
The West has not always taken such a rigid stance against armed oppositions in other countries combating repressive regimes. At one time the United States backed UNITA in Angola. Of course the outstanding example which we live to regret is the mujaheddin in Afghanistan. President Bush senior tried to persuade the Shi'a of Iraq to rise against Saddam in 1991 after operation Desert Storm. So there are plenty of examples in the recent past where states and our own governments have supported armed oppositions which are fighting repressive regimes.
The UN General Assembly repeatedly recognised that peoples under colonial or alien domination have the right to struggle and to seek and receive support in the exercise of their right to self-determination. It ruled that the use of armed force in those circumstances fell outside its definition of aggression. If we had been more careful to uphold the principles of international law, we ought at least to have excluded those cases from the definition. If that much is accepted, should we not at least have required the Secretary of State to consider whether, in each of the 21 cases listed here, the organisation could have sought its objectives peacefully through the political system in the state concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned the PKK. The Kurds in Turkey had no chance, as a minority, to exercise the rights laid down in the OSCE's Copenhagen declaration because, as your Lordships are aware, the Turks do not admit the existence of any minorities other than those mentioned specifically in the Lausanne treaty of 1923—the handful of Christians who remained in the country at that time.
184
The advocacy of internal self-government is against the constitution and is prosecuted under their terrorism law.
The People's Mujaheddin of Iran cannot pursue its goal of a secular democratic state by peaceful means when the supremacy of the religious leader is the fundamental principle of the Islamic revolution and anybody rash enough to question that idea is a criminal. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, the president himself said that that person is guilty of treason and 30,000 of the members of that organisation were slaughtered in cold blood in 1988 on the orders of Ayatollah Khomeini. Many other opponents of the regime like Dr Shapour Bakhtiar, the Shah's last prime minister, and Dariush Forouhar, a distinguished political peaceful activist, have been murdered by the agents of the mullahs.
On the other hand, the LTTE in Sri Lanka, like other Tamil political parties, could have worked through the political system. There is on offer in that state a substantial devolution package which gives wide powers of self-government, or would do, to a Tamil-elected agency in the majority areas which are generously defined. Whatever the faults may be of that scheme, once the government recognised the need for a kind of home rule, there was no excuse for continuing to use the gun.
None of those considerations affected the mind of the Home Secretary in deciding how to pick the 21 organisations with which we are dealing out of the many thousands which satisfy the Act's definition. He said that the factors he took into account, which were repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, were the nature and scale of the organisation's activities; the specific threat it posed to the UK; the specific threat it posed to British nationals overseas; the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism.
If one looks at the list and the helpful notes provided by the Minister, 11 of the 21 organisations have no overt presence in the UK or only one or two members who are being held already on extradition warrants. Those bodies are therefore untouched by the proscription and their inclusion seems to be a political gesture with no meaning—what the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, called a "badge of disapproval". For instance, the November 17 organisation is undoubtedly a vicious murder gang responsible for the killing of the British defence attaché, Brigadier Stephen Saunders, in Athens in June last year. But it has operated entirely in Greece. We cannot any longer send the navy, as we did in the days of Don Pacifico and civis Romanus sum; but we can strike fear into the hearts of those who attack our citizens by putting them on a list.
On that principle we should have proscribed a great many other organisations, such as the FARC in Colombia, a faction of rebels in Chechnya which was guilty of kidnapping and murdering British citizens, and the former junta of Pinochet in Chile and the Indonesian army, which murdered two British citizens in 1975. All those have wilfully killed British civilians.

185
Is it sensible to add them all to an omnibus list even larger than the 21 we have in front of us? In most cases the individual concerned should be prosecuted in the courts of his own country. If he came within our jurisdiction and there was enough evidence against him, he could be extradited to that country to be dealt with for the substantive offence of causing harm or killing a British civilian rather than for being a member of an organisation.
As regards fundraising, people do not go round saying that they want money for explosives and firearms. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, remarked, we do not see terrorists with placards saying, "Poor terrorist, RPG and two kalashnikovs to support". They operate under the guise of charities. Even the LTTE, which has its international secretariat in the UK, operates through front organisations which are ostensibly for the relief of hardship and suffering in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The Charity Commission is already seized of that matter. It is looking actively at one body, the Tamil rehabilitation organisation, and scrutinising two others.
The Charity Commission needs to be even more active in its inquiries into bodies which claim to be charitable where there are grounds for suspicion that their funds are being diverted into terrorism. But that will not be achieved under this order. In the case of the International Sikh Youth Federation, which has been mentioned, the Home Office states that it provides a base for fundraising. That implies to me that it does not itself raise money for terrorism. It would be useful to know how the Minister thinks it operates. The ISYF has vigorously denied to a number of your Lordships that it has anything to do with terrorism. Looking at its published objects, it is entirely peaceful. It points out that a prominent member was awarded the OBE. As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, remarked, the president of the organisation met the Prime Minister, as did other senior members, on an occasion on which it celebrated the 300th anniversary of the Sikh nation. The fact that two members of that organisation were found to be a threat to national security—though for other reasons they were not deported to India, as the note states—poses two questions in my mind.
First, where any organisation has peaceful objectives but some of its members have engaged in violence, is it terrorist? If so, why do we make the distinction in Ireland between Sinn Fein, whose objectives are political but some of whose members have committed acts of terrorism, and the IRA, which is avowedly terrorist? Secondly, as has been mentioned by a number of your Lordships, what is our policy now concerning the people who have been given asylum here, partly on the basis of membership of or having links with one of the organisations on the list? Do those people automatically commit an offence immediately the order comes into effect, or would they have to renew their "subs" before they could be charged? The practice is that none of the bodies listed would have a formal record of membership. However, they have large numbers of supporters who take political action in support of their objectives. That is
186
illustrated well by the number of letters, from which your Lordships have quoted, from organisations which support the People's Mujaheddin in the UK protesting at its inclusion of the list. Presumably, none of the writers of those letters belongs to the PMOI, but they advocate a democratic sector in Iran, and its presence in the UK shows that it was unable to pursue those objectives in Iran.
Finally, I endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about the oddity of listing the PKK here two years after it declared a cease-fire. That seems not just odd but perverse. We are discouraging people from declaring cease-fires if we say, "It does not really matter" because, as the note tells us, cease-fires have broken down in the past. Therefore, the PKK is still to be classified as terrorist, no matter, presumably, how long the cease-fire continues.
There is a balance to be struck between the preservation of our rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly on the one hand, and our commitment to the global fight against terrorism on the other. I agree with the Government that we should take steps to prevent the UK from being used as a base from which to plan, organise or finance acts of terrorism elsewhere in the world. However. I also think that since we cannot possibly proscribe all the thousands of organisations throughout the world which are concerned with terrorism within the definition of Section 3 of the Act, including some governments, we should have done better to go down this road cautiously, limiting the use of the power to states which have democratic, pluralistic governments.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I thought long and hard over the weekend as to whether to move an amendment to have each group proposed and those put forward in the future to pass through a relevant committee for vetting purposes. Indeed, the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, might be ideally suited, and I wish that I had followed that through. For reasons that I shall explain, I believe that open debate is not the answer. On the other hand, we should concentrate on exacting certification of which groups would be proscribed and why.
The noble Lord. Lord Bassam, spoke of terrorism. Everyone tells me that it is well defined in the Act. However, I think it would be helpful to understand exactly what is meant by terrorism. A question occurred to me, particularly listening to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord McNally; that is, which of those organisations on our proposed proscribed list do not appear on the American equivalent designated list? Can we see the differences? It may well be that the Minister does not have that information immediately to hand, but if he does perhaps I may ask that he kindly considers placing the information in the Library. Ideally, we should all be working in a harmonised and co-ordinated way in the international fight against terrorism.
I have long supported the principle of a proscribed list. I am sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. However,

187
for practical reasons, as existing provisions stand, I believe that it is right for the executive to make unilateral decisions about individual terrorist groups. No Minister—this point has been made over and over again this afternoon—can ever realistically be expected to defend in open forum and in detail evidence derived from intelligence briefings. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, was right to point to the appeals process.
One of the detrimental effects of debate in Parliament about a particular terrorist group's impending designation would be to alert the group concerned that it is about to be designated, thereby giving it more than sufficient time to move financial assets around. So, by extension, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. Perhaps I may say with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord that not all his remarks about the electoral process in Iran were entirely accurate. It was the reformers who were the beneficiaries in the round to which I believe he referred.
I refer to the MPs and Peers who we have been told put their names to a list in support for the Mujaheddin. That list has never been made public. I would appreciate seeing who all the people were who put their names to that list. I know that those on our side who are engaged in the subject would also appreciate that opportunity.
Let there be no doubt; I abhor the complaint, if true, made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, about Iran. However—I make the point only—there is conflict between the differing governing factions. It should be noted that there has been the beginning of a change in that country. An example might be that the Stale of Iran is now a signatory to the International Criminal Court, on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has worked so tirelessly.
I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will be sensitive to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Glentoran. The ideal alternative to open debate would be confidential notification of the intention to designate a group to allow for expressions of concern or opposition. The process would be better informed but, as I suggest, is impractical.
In this less than ideal process, therefore, the Minister might assuage concerns by confirming that consideration includes extensive inter-agency review of the evidence of each group's involvement in terrorism. Suitable mechanisms must exist to ensure that inclusion or exclusion does not rely on any particular Minister's Bank-Bench prejudices, as one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, particularly when being pressed by constituents. I would hope that the Home Secretary would be sympathetic to receiving representations from Members of Parliament.
I was surprised and disappointed at the declaration by the Home Secretary that the list was,
"not driven by foreign policy considerations".
188
I believe that to be ill-judged. Our system for designating foreign terrorist organisations differs from that of the Americans, whose straightforward approach involves, for example, identifying a foreign policy priority, like the Middle East peace process, and then determining which organisations fulfil the criteria of being detrimental to that process, whether it be by murder and extortion or through financing or other relevant means.
Terrorist organisations often cloak their activities with good works. However, I take it from the Minister's opening remarks that any contribution to a designated foreign terrorist organisation, regardless of the intended purpose, is illegal.
What then is the rationale behind the list before us today? I should appreciate clarification. The interpretation of "terrorism" within Part I of the Act clearly permits consideration of foreign policy concerns and objectives. Indeed, foreign policy concerns by extension are domestic, as the effects invariably remain to haunt us in one form or another.
I therefore sense a degree of uncertainty about the driving forces behind the list, producing both coherence and anomalies. The Americans; for instance, rightly have the ELN and FARC of Colombia on their list. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was right to include them. We do not. I recognise that the United Kingdom has been and is being instrumental in encouraging particularly FARC to participate in the current peace dialogue and that to put its name on the list now might be to send ambiguous signals. While I appreciate the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, about the IRA, the state of Colombia would want to encourage the process and would prefer their names to appear not necessarily immediately.
However, I wish to flag the following. FARC's willingness to enter serious peace negotiations is much in doubt. Both groups attack oil and gas infrastructure; heavily engage in kidnappings, with an average in the country as a whole of up to 3,000 a year; disrupt the democratic process through murder and extortion; and, what should worry the Minister as much as anything else, are at the centre of protection for the narcotics industry.
Large swathes of the "national interest" are under attack here. Their actions on occasions make the IRA look like amateurs. If they withdraw from the peace process, I urge the Minister to have the appropriate system thoroughly re-evaluate their status. I speak knowing of the terror caused by those groups in Colombia.
Having taken the welcome decision to proscribe terrorist organisations, surely it behoves the Government to eschew ambivalence in favour of clear-cut fundamental criteria for proscription. Why can we not, for example, state that we do not support violent means where other remedies are available and have not been exhausted? And why do we distinguish between the "military wings" of some groups but not of other—perhaps less sophisticated—movements? Are there "good works" associated with terrorist groups that are

189
more or less acceptable than others? Is this for convenience or political expediency? Why are all organisations with such detrimental effects on our national interest not proscribed by us? Is this merely a preliminary list? It suggests a hesitancy, as though our heart is not really in this exercise. In my view, greater consideration needs to be given to appropriate definition such that "foreign terrorist organisations" can be fairly and squarely pinpointed.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, indicated some hours ago when we began the debate, it was always going to be a difficult one. Of course there is the difficulty to which the noble Viscount referred of distinguishing terrorists from freedom fighters. They can be the same people at different stages in their lives. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that I do not have a view of Mr Menachem Begin's early terrorist activities which is different from the view I held some years ago. But I do not want to enter the question of Palestine tonight—we have roamed far enough geographically.
The other reason why the debate was always going to be difficult was that we all recognise the Government's problems in disclosing to your Lordships' House and then to the public the intelligence and full reasons behind the choice of the various organisations included in the order. I know a little about that. My direct experience of fighting terrorism came from a spell as security Minister in Northern Ireland. In that connection, I agree thoroughly with every word spoken today by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
However, some of the debate has related to the process in which we are involved, beginning with the definition of "terrorism". Those noble Lords who took part in the debates on the Terrorism Bill will recall that we struggled a great deal with the definition. Many amendments were tabled and there was a great deal of discussion. The Government listened carefully and the definition was modified in the course of those debates. I pay tribute to them for that.
The definition is now clear in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act. Summarising it, it is the use or threat of violence for political, religious or ideological cause. That is to say, it is the use of violence against the public—and that is in any part of the world and is not confined to the United Kingdom—intended to influence political, ideological and religious decisions. We firmly believe in democracy and that decisions should not be taken as a result of violence. To accept that is to say that if violence is to rule the decisions, the greatest violence will eventually decide who governs and who controls what.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept that that decision cannot operate unilaterally? The violence must be eschewed on the part not only of the governed but of the government?
8.37 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, of course that is true and that is what drives the British Government in their policy best illustrated by Northern Ireland. Some criticise what they call "the restraint"—the holding back, as it were—of the troops and so forth at different stages. But we all know why that was done; it was because of thoughts such as the noble and learned Lord expressed.
As regards distinguishing between existing organisations in other parts of the world pursuing their objectives, we have had good illustrations today of the difficulties of making the judgment and none better than in the case if Iran. We heard a powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in support of the Government's decision on Iran. Other speakers made the opposite point from their knowledge of Iran. I do not have such knowledge but I had exiled Iranians living in my constituency and therefore learnt a little about it. However, I have never been there and I do not know as much as some noble Lords who have spoken today. We heard similarly powerful speeches on behalf of the International Sikh Youth Federation, which has written many letters to us.
That illustrates the difficulties of deciding which organisations should be included. However, I am on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I believe that the Government, with all the facilities they have at their beck and call, particularly as regards intelligence and so forth, must make these difficult decisions and they should do so. That is what they have done.
Of course that is not the end of the matter. We heard about the appeal process and the noble Viscount asked careful questions to which I hope the Minister will respond. During the course of the Terrorism Bill, we approved the mechanism for the appeal process and its conduct.
Some other speakers have asked why additional organisations should not be included. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, there are very many organisations that might be included. A day or two ago I was asked why the Shining Path and Tupac Amaru of Peru, which certainly have organised in London in the past and have been responsible for some terrible events there, were not included. All I say in connection with those organisations is that this list is not necessarily the end of it: no doubt there will be additions to and subtractions from it in due course and further orders of this character. I hope that the list will not be quite so mixed because it makes the debate very difficult. In that sense, I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and his amendment. My goodness, is it not a good thing that, unlike the other place, in this House we do not have time-limited debates? In the other place the time limit under Standing Orders is extremely strict and it is impossible to debate an order of this kind properly. We certainly could not have had anything like the debate that we have had in your Lordships' House.
More particularly, why not include the kinds of terrorists to which my noble friend Lord Mancroft referred earlier? The Minister said in opening that no

191
domestic organisations were included in the proscription. That may have been an indirect reference to the organisations to which my noble friend referred. However, that is not true. Domestic organisations are included; in particular, in the context of Northern Ireland substantially on the loyalist and IRA sides. I shall not develop the Northern Irish point because my noble friend Lord Glentoran spoke to that. But it is extremely important to proscribe organisations of that character, I hope that the Home Office is not in any way discouraged by either the length of the debate or anything that has been said this afternoon from looking hard at organisations of this kind in deciding whether or not to place them on the proscribed list.
This is a tough power which makes it an offence to belong to the organisation, to raise money for it and to organise meetings. Any money that is raised can be confiscated, and so on. Those in your Lordships' House and the other place gave this important power to the Government in the Terrorism Bill (now Act), which built on existing terrorist legislation, only a few months ago. We should support the Government in all they do in trying to implement the power and take these very difficult decisions because that is in the interests of democracy here and elsewhere in the world.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for the sympathy and understanding extended to me in attempting to draw the debate to a close. I started the debate with a headache, which has become worse. I have been taking medicine throughout. I wish that the glass before me contained something else because it might be of some assistance, but my headache is not due to the quality of the debate but rather my general ill health.
I shall try to deal in turn with the four amendments to the Government's Motion. I shall probably dwell rather more on the first than on the other three amendments because much of the debate concentrated on the issues unlocked by the contribution of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer when speaking to his amendment. My noble and learned friend started from a point to which others returned: the issue of definition. We had a very good debate on definition during the passage of the Bill. The Government listened very carefully to the representations made and took account of the views then expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, who advised us in detail on the importance of getting the definition right.
Definitions are by their very nature not always perfect, and certainly they are not a perfect science. But I believe that we have a workable definition and that we must now turn our minds to how that definition is to be used and to how it will work in regard to proscription. Noble Lords will be aware that under Part II of the Terrorism Act 2000 the Home Secretary, in the case of international or domestic organisations, may proscribe any organisation which he believes is concerned with terrorism where he believes that the statutory criteria have been satisfied
192
in a particular case. He has discretion as to whether or not to proscribe. That is really at the heart of what we have been considering during this afternoon's debate.
In laying the draft order on 28th February, the Home Secretary confirmed that he was entirely satisfied that all of the 21 organisations listed, including the Mujaheddin e Khalq, which has been referred to extensively this afternoon, the PKK, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Rea, and the LTTE, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, fell within the terms of the criteria. Information on the terrorist activities of the Mujaheddin e Khalq, as my noble and learned friend Lord Archer will know, was included in a note sent to Members of both Houses on 28th February.
As to the procedures for use of the new legislation, I believe that we have set up a most transparent process to deal with the very difficult issue of terrorist organisations. As a government we have undertaken to put more information into the public domain than has hitherto been the case. That has enabled us to come to very clear, though difficult, decisions.
During the debate this afternoon your Lordships' House has been regaled with pleas for several organisations to be removed from the list or reconsidered. At all times we are in a position to do that, but we have come to a fixed view. I turn first to the Mujaheddin e Khalq which has excited most interest and a very passionate debate, perhaps best exemplified, on the one hand, by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and, on the other, by the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend, Lord Clarke of Hampstead. I have no doubt that the views expressed were based on those particular noble Lords' understanding of that organisation.
In the end, I must agree with most of the analysis of the Mujaheddin e Khalq offered to your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. From all that we know of it, it is a terrorist organisation. The MeK claims to be a democratic party which fights for a different and better Iran, but its terrorist actions are not consistent with that claim. I do not believe that we can see it as a democratic freedom movement. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, argued, the MeK has no popular base in Iran because of its support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. The MeK headquarters are based in Baghdad. My understanding is that the organisation is still one of Saddam's most trusted supporters. As to that, I can confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said.
The MeK was also responsible for the assassination in August 1998 of Asadollah Lajevardi, a former Minister of Prisons. In April 1999 the Iranian Deputy Joint Chief of Staff of Iran's armed forces was killed in Tehran by MeK operatives. The MeK also claimed responsibility for a series of mortar bomb attacks during January and February 2000 against the southwestern town of Ilam and in early 2001 against Karaj and Ilam.
The British Government remain firmly opposed to the violence practised by the MeK. Her Majesty's Government have condemned acts of terrorism by that

193
organisation, just as they condemn all acts of terrorism wherever and whenever they take place, whatever their motivation. That should not be read or understood as saying that we justify the behaviour or approach of the Iranian Government. That is far from the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in his contribution, recognised that there are many concerns, even though there have been some welcome moves on human rights issues in Iran. The UK and the EU co-sponsored a UN resolution on the subject as recently as 4th December last year. We are also supporting a commission of human rights resolution in Geneva.
The Government have been vigorous in progressing human rights concerns. When my right honourable friend Mo Mowlam visited Iran, she was not backward in coming forward on precisely those issues. She forcefully made known her views.
There are the beginnings of an improvement, not just in UK-Iranian relations, but also on some of the issues of concern expressed very effectively by a number of noble Lords. We do not condone human rights abuses. We remain very unhappy about many of the approaches to governments adopted by the Iranian Government. We shall not withdraw or stint from being critical where that is right. But if we engage that government in constructive dialogue and discussion about these matters, we believe that we can make some progress in those areas.
A number of questions were raised about who we had consulted in putting together the list. We consulted the security services and the police. We had internal consultations and, importantly, we consulted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In all those consultations human rights issues were of concern.
It is important that we go through some of the issues that have been raised not least by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I asked him specifically whether there were any consultations with human rights organisations.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we did not think it appropriate to consult human rights organisations. That is not really part of the process of proscription. However, I recognise that the noble and learned Lord has a point. No doubt that is a point on which we can reflect carefully over time. The Government are seized of the importance of human rights and recognise that ultimately human rights considerations will play a part if proscription is challenged through the POAC route and perhaps even at Court of Appeal level.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, raised questions about proscribed organisations and their ability to fight proscription. Those concerns are well understood. It could be argued that any individual who seeks "deproscription" by way of application directly to the Home Secretary or by appeal, either on behalf of a proscribed organisation or as a person
194
affected, might be discouraged from pursuing either course by the risk of prosecution for certain offences; namely, the offences under Sections 11 to 13, the membership support sections; under Sections 15 to 19, on fund-raising, use and possession of funding arrangements, money and disclosure; and under Section 56, on directing a terrorist organisation. Section 10 ensures that evidence of anything done in relation to the application proceedings, including any documents submitted for those purposes, will not be admissible in evidence for those offences mentioned above. Therefore. we feel that organisations wishing to challenge proscription will not be inhibited in the way suggested by the noble Viscount and other noble Lords.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I apologise for my intervention. It is intended to be helpful, which the Minister may find very surprising. Can the Minister add to the point that he has cogently been making that the Act provides that there shall be a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on the ground that a decision—and it may be a decision to deny "deproscription"—is flawed in the light of the principles that apply to judicial review? Does the noble Lord accept that the principles which apply to judicial review boil down ultimately to fairness or unfairness? So, written into the Act, there is the concept which has to be applied by a court outside the structure provided by the Act of the commission and so forth, of looking at the matter in terms of whether the decision is fair or unfair. Is not that a unique and certainly new safeguard?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is the case that there is nothing in the Terrorism Act which would prevent—this is probably a view that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, shares—a judicial review of a POAC decision.
I was going to come on to that very point because it was an issue raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville: POAC rules are and were subject to an affirmative resolution procedure and were debated and approved by both Houses. The POAC process is very robust. It mirrors SIAC to which the noble Viscount. Lord Colville, referred. So far as I am aware, there has been only one appeal to the Court of Appeal for judicial review of a SIAC decision. We take the view that similar opportunities will arise if at the end of the POAC process there is dissatisfaction, the issue of fairness is raised and the decision of POAC challenged.
In that case—this comes to the heart of the noble Viscount's point—there was no formal role for a special advocate in the SIAC Court of Appeal case involving Rehman, but it went into closed proceedings. There was no formal role for the special advocate as with POAC. Instead the Court of Appeal relied upon its inherent jurisdiction and appointed an amicus to represent the appellant in closed session. That process satisfies the concerns relating to the European Convention on Human Rights and those with regard to national security.

195
National security is most important in the debate. While I take the challenge raised to the Government by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that in this area we need to be careful of just simply claiming that the Government know best, it is important to reflect carefully on the advice given and made available to government from the security services. Those matters have to be carefully balanced. But, given that consideration, we have ensured through POAC—it will be ensured though any challenge to a POAC decision— that considerations of fairness and the appropriateness of using the courts are well understood, so that the quite proper concerns of those who wish to appeal against proscription can be properly recognised and heard.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I strongly welcome what he said about the use of an atnicus curiae to put the case on behalf of the appellant—that goes some way to answering the point about fairness raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—but will he say a few more words about the issue of disclosure, which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, raised with him earlier and which I raised during my remarks? Can he tell us whether all the advice that will have been given to the Home Office in making the decision to place an organisation on the proscribed list will be made available to the Appeal Court should the decision come before it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, when POAC considers cases, the advice that is made available to the Home Secretary will be available. I would take it as read that any further appeal to the Court of Appeal would have to consider those matters as well; but very sensitively and in closed session. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate why that might be the case.
Many other points were made during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the issue generally of combating international terrorism. We recognise that the United Kingdom alone cannot combat international terrorism for good, but the introduction of the Terrorism Act 2000 and our intention to proscribe foreign terrorist organisations are important demonstrations of our commitment to fight against international terrorism. We have to take our international responsibilities most seriously. We also take a leading role at the UN, in the EU and with our G8 partners in international efforts to fight terrorism. As a direct result of the Terrorism Act coming into force, the UK has now been able to ratify all the UN conventions relating to terrorism.
Perhaps I may refer to some of the other organisations that were mentioned during the debate. This is an important opportunity for noble Lords to discuss and look at some of those organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to the PKK. We welcome the reduction in violence in south-east Turkey since the PKK declared its ceasefire in summer 1999. But we still believe that the PKK is a terrorist organisation. We believe that the most effective way to work to improve the human rights of the Turkish
196
population as a whole, including the Kurdish community, is our approach of constructive dialogue, bilaterally and at the EU level. To answer his specific point as to when we proscribe and why, we did not proscribe earlier as the power to add foreign terrorist organisations did not come into force until the Act was commenced on 19th February.
Other organisations were mentioned during the debate—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to be present for the earlier part of the debate and I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, especially as I suspect that he is longing to take home his headache. But perhaps I may pursue the issue of the PKK for a moment. An organisation which specifically and publicly abandons violence, as since the arrest and subsequent imprisonment of Mr Oçalan the PKK has done, is surely somewhat discouraged by then being proscribed as a continuing terrorist organisation. Can the Minister say anything about what kind of period of non-violent activity would be required before the Home Office would recommend that such an organisation should no longer continue to be proscribed?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would be wrong for me to opine at the Dispatch Box on the period for which an organisation should have given up its commitment to violent means for securing change. We have to judge each case very much on its merits. The PKK has a long history of violence. It is certainly the case that over the past couple of years it has eschewed that route. I think that we need to see some more progress. But if effective representations are made by representatives arguing for the PKK in the future, we shall have to listen to those. As I said at the outset of the debate, it is open to government to proscribe and deproscribe at any stage. That is a consideration, but a consideration certainly for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, raised the issue of the International Sikh Youth Federation. The terrorist activities of that organisation, established, as the notes say, in the 1980s, have continued since then. The ISYF's attacks have included assassinations, bombings and kidnappings. Mostly, those have been directed against Indian officials and Indian interests. As the notes make clear, the Special Immigration Appeals Committee found in July last year that two ISYF members were a threat to UK national security. There is still a problem here. Despite what the noble Lord said about his contact with those who support the ISYF, we believe that it fits very much and very firmly within the criteria that we have carefully considered and carefully established.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the case of the two Sikhs who were alleged to be members of the ISYF, Mr Peter Wrench, the dleputy director general of policy at the Home Office, told the Security and Intelligence Committee, only eight months ago, that the security services in the UK had

197
no problems with the activities of the ISYF? Can the noble Lord say what has changed in the past eight months?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was not aware of those comments. I shall study carefully what the noble Lord said and reflect upon it.
I turn to some of the observations made by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, before I move on to look at the other amendments which were spoken to during the course of the debate. I say to the noble Viscount that decisions that we reached included and reflected close consultation within government—other Ministers, agencies and so on—and, as I said at the outset, included the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was contacted and discussed all these matters. They have been given very careful consideration.
The noble Viscount raised the issue of the potential cross-over between our own proscribed list and that of the US government. There is a cross-over, and a number of terrorist organisations are shared by both lists. Probably the safest thing I can do for the purposes of clarity is to provide the noble Viscount with a definitive list. I shall share that with your Lordships' House and ensure that a copy is placed in the Library so that it is there for all to see.
Perhaps I may move on to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in his amendment to the Motion. I understand the point that the noble Lord seeks to make here, but I shall say this to him. We have been debating the 21 organisations for some three-and-a-half hours. If we had tabled 21 separate orders, I imagine that the House would have had to sit for several days in an attempt to consider all of those organisations. We have established a standard practice so that a number of items to be added to legislation can be grouped together, not least for the convenience of your Lordships' House and for ease of debate. Imperfect though the process may be, this debate has given ample voice to the fact that this is an effective forum.
We need also to consider that, outside our debate on the proscribed organisations, there is the proper opportunity for individual consideration of each of those organisations through the process of application and appeal to the Home Secretary. I believe that, over time, that process will be understood and will come to be widely respected.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that, out of the 21 organisations that we have been considering, there is no dispute between us about 19 of them? One of the more interesting aspects of today's debate is that consensus has been reached on much of what the Government have done here. However, where there is disagreement, a process should be in place so that the more controversial questions can be aired separately. I believe that that is
198
the point that, quite properly, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has sought to raise in his amendment to the Motion.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that consensus had been reached on 18 of the organisations. However, I do not wish enter into an argument on that point.
As I have said, this debate has provided a valuable opportunity to conduct a full discussion, during which the position of a number of organisations has received a fair airing and a number of important points have been made. Imperfect though the process may be, I think that it has provided us with a useful opportunity to consider all of the issues.
I should like to turn now to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. We have considered very carefully the issue raised in his amendment. Like the noble Lord, of course we utterly condemn the violent and disruptive attacks carried out on individuals and businesses by animal rights extremists. We recognise fully the severity of those activities and condemn such shameless acts. The police have the full support of the Government and of the public in their efforts to track down the criminals involved.
We considered at length whether to include what I would describe as "domestic extremists", but decided that, at this point, it would not be right to do so. However, if circumstances change and we feel that the situation justifies it, we shall not hesitate to use the route of proscription. But, acting very much on police advice, we decided that it would be unwise to take that further step and bring into the remit of proscription the Animal Liberation Front, the Hunt Retribution Squad and the inaptly named Justice Department.
We believe that criminal law is in place to deal with such organisations. The noble Lord knows that we have brought forward a number of measures further to strengthen the law through the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. The police will be given additional powers to deal with protestors demonstrating outside people's homes—the noble Lord touched on that issue—so that they will be able to direct such protestors to disperse or move away. Failure to comply will be a criminal offence. The Malicious Communications Act 1988 will be amended to enable us to replace the subjective defence presently available to the accused—that they believed that their behaviour was reasonable—with an objective test.
The Department of Trade and Industry is well under way in its aim to produce measures which will allow the addresses of company directors to be withheld from public access. That issue has been of particular concern to Members of your Lordships' House. Several Questions have been tabled on that issue.
We understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. Like all noble Lords, we totally condemn the mindless acts of criminality and attacks on people perpetrated by extremists in the animals rights movement over the past few months.

199
I shall turn now to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The amendment invites the Government to list in the schedule of proscribed organisations the Provisional IRA, the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. This point was debated during the passage of the Terrorism Bill and was discussed again more recently during the debate in the other place on the draft order now before noble Lords. I am happy once again to put our position on the record.
We take the view that the term "Irish Republican Army" captures the Provisional IRA. the Real IRA and Continuity IRA. Each claims to be the standard bearer of the republican movement known as the "IRA". During the debate on the draft order in the other place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary confirmed, very much on the advice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that,
"The Real IRA is covered, as is the Provisional IRA, by the description 'the Irish Republican Army', which appears at the beginning of schedule 2 … of the Act".—[Official Report, Commons. 13/3/01; col. 951.]
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to the 32-County Sovereignty Committee. The point here is that we have to see that organisation and the Real IRA as opposite sides of the same coin. In saying that, it draws a distinction between terrorism and political wings in the same way that we currently draw a distinction between PIRA and Sinn Fein. Of course I can confirm that the Real IRA is caught, as I said earlier.
We take very careful note of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and by the noble Lord, Glentoran., and I can assure them that the order before us does nothing to affect our position on the proscription of Irish organisations. Again in that context, I can also confirm that deproscription of any of those organisations would be very carefully considered indeed. It is a step on which we would want to consult extensively and widely.
I hope that I have covered some of the main issues raised in this very long and thoughtful debate. I know that I will not have satisfied all Members of your Lordships' House. I shall study Hansard very carefully and concentrate, if I can, on the issues that I have not covered. I shall try, if and where necessary, to respond to those points in writing to the noble Lords who have raised them.
This has been a very useful opportunity for noble Lords quite properly to air their concerns. We believe that, in relation to both the provisions of the Terrorism Act and the organisations recommended now for proscription, we have got the balance about right; we think that we have struck a proportionate approach. The action that the Government have taken is very fair and right in the circumstances. It is right in its attempts to ensure that people within our country are protected from the threat of terrorism and to offer a measure of protection to British citizens overseas. We have been
200
very mindful of our international obligations and we have taken careful account of a range of concerns, some of which have been expressed during the debate.
Lord McNally: My Lords, to ensure that we do not fall into error, is the Minister recommending that the House resist all four amendments?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I should have said that I cannot commend any of the amendments standing in the names of the noble and learned, Lord Archer, and the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Glentoran and Lord Mancroft. I hope that the House will approve the order as it stands on the Order Paper.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it is customary at this stage to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I do so, and not only formally; I really am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated, even to those who have disagreed with me. This is a subject on which it is quite possible to have legitimate different opinions. I hope that at this hour I shall be forgiven if I do not refer to specific contributions or to specific noble Lords by name.
It seems to me that the significance of the de bate is that it has taken place within parameters that we all share. No one who has taken part supports terrorism, just as no one is indifferent to state tyranny and torture. We all support effective measures against terrorism, just as we all look to the Government to promote international human rights.
But there is always a danger of injustice. We know how horrifying miscarriages of justice have taken place, even where everyone concerned had the best of intentions. We still do not subscribe to a doctrine of Home Office infallibility. We cannot resolve all the problems by dismissing them as unreal; we cannot say that individuals do not matter; we cannot say that some injustices are inevitable and therefore that we should not try to rectify them; we cannot even say that the House should not be bothered with such matters because one day POAC will put it all right. There is no perfect answer, but we are not excused from doing the best that we can.
I sympathise with my noble friend, who has a headache. With his demanding job he needs all the rest he can get. I hope that he will not think me unkind when I say that I hope that he loses some sleep tonight. We should all be losing sleep over this problem and the dangers that it poses. However, this is not the moment to seek the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill
9.20 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

201
Although the Bill is short, that does not make it unimportant. The Bill proposes to allow serving and former ministers of religion to become Members of Parliament where previously some of them were disqualified, but it continues the disqualification of any bishops who sit in your Lordships' House as Lords Spiritual.
The Government believe that the current situation on clergy disqualification can no longer be justified. If a person wishes to stand for Parliament, it should be a matter for the electorate to decide whether they want the person to become their representative if relevant qualifications are met.
The current position is that some ministers of religion would be debarred from taking their seats, if elected, by virtue of the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801 and others by Section 9 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. The Bill will repeal the 1801 Act and the relevant section of the 1829 Act, and do away with a number of other provisions, which will become consequentially redundant.
Certain people are not affected by the present legislation or by the new Bill. These comprise Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and other religious groups, including most non-conformist denominations, whose arrangements for ordaining ministers do not involve ordination by a bishop. It is the latter point, the ordination by a bishop, that is the critical one and I shall return to this later.
So far as concerns the Church of England, it is the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801 which prevents its clergy from becoming MPs. Former ministers, however, can divest themselves of their clerical responsibilities by means of a procedure set out in the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870, and can then, if the electorate so chooses, take up a seat in Parliament.
One particular difficulty is that no such procedure is available for ordained clergy of other episcopal churches: for example, the Roman Catholic Church. If a Catholic priest wishes to give up his ministry, whether temporarily or permanently, and then stand for Parliament, he would be unable to take his seat if elected. He could not turn to the equivalent of the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870 because an equivalent Act does not exist, and he would be debarred by virtue of the 1801 and 1829 statutes. That is the current position.
I am sure that some of your Lordships are aware of the case of Mr David Cairns, a former Catholic priest, who is intending to stand as the Labour candidate for the constituency of Greenock and Inverclyde at the next general election. If elected, he could be prevented from taking his seat in the other place. His case has re-emphasised the rather absurd position that continues today. I hope that this House will agree that it is obviously right that this matter should be attended to in the run-up to a general election, whenever that happens to fall. This is when a change in the law is relevant, and I am sure that Mr Cairns would hope
202
that Members of both Houses would deal with this matter with understanding, regardless of their political persuasion.
One man will certainly benefit from the change, if he is elected. But others, whatever their politics, could benefit in the future. We seek to change the law to right the injustice where, if he or she were to be elected to Parliament, a candidate could not take the seat. Noble Lords will know that individual cases have driven change of this sort in the past—changes such as allowing the then Lord Stansgate to sit in the other place. Individual cases have provided that catalyst for change in the past, and will no doubt do so again in the future. We explored whether there were other ways of dealing with this issue rather than primary legislation, but we concluded that a Bill was required.
In September 1998, the Home Affairs Committee on Electoral Law and Administration recommended at paragraph 127, Volume 1, that,
"all restrictions on ministers of religion standing for, and serving as, Members of Parliament be removed; the exception would be in respect of all serving bishops of the Church of England who, for so long as places are reserved for the senior bishops in the House of Lords, should remain ineligible to serve as Members of the Commons".
The Government broadly agree with that view. In a moment, I shall discuss in more detail the second part of the recommendation relating to bishops.
In June 1999, Siobhain McDonagh, the Member for Mitcham and Morden, introduced a Private Member's Bill in another place, which would have rectified the position. That Bill had cross-party support, but failed to make any progress at Second Reading. The Government were sympathetic, but wanted to consult the Churches before changing the law. The Government subsequently consulted the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Churches in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. All were content for the restrictions to be removed. It is already open to ministers of the Church in Wales, which is disestablished, to become MPs by virtue of the Welsh Church Act 1914, which overrides the 1801 Act disqualification.
I hope it is obvious that we do not envisage that there will be a long queue of clergy wishing to become MPs. In the case of serving ministers, this is a matter between the Churches and the individuals concerned. In the end, as I said before, it is for the individual to decide whether to stand and for the electorate to determine whether he or she should sit in the other place. We believe that there should be no bar in public law to prevent clergy from becoming MPs. But it is important to make clear that it is for the Churches and their clergy to consider whether their duties as ministers or priests can be properly carried out if they are also sitting as Members of Parliament. I understand that the Pope does not agree to serving priests being active in politics, so we are unlikely to see serving priests as Members of another place.
It may be asked, why not introduce legislation simply to put Catholic priests on the same basis as Church of England clergy, and allow them to divest

203
themselves of their clerical responsibilities? There are two points here. First, we should expect Parliament to be cautious about whether it has the right to legislate on matters of doctrine or discipline within the Roman Catholic Church, even if indirectly. Once a priest has been ordained, our understanding is that the Catholic Church considers that he remains a priest all his life, even if he no longer practises as one. I hope that your Lordships will agree that we should leave the Roman Catholic Church to run its own affairs, and not try to regulate the relationship between that Church and its priests.
The second reason not simply to put Catholic priests on the same basis as Church of England clergy rests on a Privy Council case from 1951. In Re MacManaway, the Privy Council decided that the 1801 Act not only disqualified persons ordained in the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, but also all persons ordained by a bishop in accordance either with the order of the Church of England or with other forms of episcopal ordination. In the particular case of the Reverend James G. MacManaway, this included ordination in the Church of Ireland. Thus, broadly, any clergy who are ordained by a bishop are subject to the disqualification, whereas clergy and ministers of religion who are not ordained by a bishop are not subject to the disqualification. Current restrictions therefore apply more widely than only to Roman Catholic clergy.
I turn now to the part of the Home Affairs Committee recommendation that deals with the position of bishops. There are about 40 Church of England bishops who could qualify to sit in this place as Lords Spiritual. At any one time, only 26 are summoned to be Lords Spiritual. It is the Government's view that it is these bishops who should be disqualified from membership of another place, as they already have a voice in Parliament. I should perhaps add that, if, as a result of proposals for reform of this place, that number were to change, the number of bishops who were disqualified would also change. However, the general principle would not be affected.
The Home Affairs Committee's recommendation was to continue prohibition on all bishops from the other place. Although we consider it extremely unlikely that bishops would wish to become MPs while they perform their duties as bishops, the Government feel it right to lessen the statutory restrictions except, as I say, for those bishops who already have a voice in Parliament—the Lords Spiritual.
Already, there is no bar to clergy or bishops being elected to the European or Scottish Parliament, to the Northern Ireland Assembly or to the National Assembly for Wales. Nor is there any bar on their being elected as local councillors or mayors. This has worked satisfactorily and there have been no problems recognised in such arrangements. I think that one can reasonably argue that the position at Westminster. therefore, is out of step with all others. This Bill will rectify that anomaly.
I believe that the Bill will be a useful one. It will remove some archaic and anachronistic restrictions which are no longer appropriate. I hope that your
204
Lordships will agree. This is not a controversial measure and it received a large measure of support from across all parties in another place. The disqualifications I have referred to are no longer relevant to our times and it is appropriate that the legislation be repealed. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
9.31 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I appreciate the complexities which the Minister has described and I sympathise with the dilemma the Government face. I am glad that the Minister said the Bill owes its origin to the hard case of the Roman Catholic priest who wishes to stand for Parliament at the next election. I am sorry for that: it is a hard case. But the fact is that that priest knew when he took orders and took his vows the position of his Church as regards election to a legislature.
The Roman Catholic Church in its canons of 1983 forbids priests to stand for a legislature. It has a long tradition in that regard which goes back to the turn of the past century in Italy and France. Further. that priest knew when he took his vows at ordination that the Vatican does not easily allow its priests to abandon their orders and to become laymen. All that he knew about. In contrast, as the Minister pointed out, Church of England priests have an easy ride. They can legally and very easily renounce their orders and, as the right reverend Prelate knows, take them up again later—I have a colleague who did just that—if their political ambitions fail or if they decide to abandon them. I have to say that Father Cairns took his vows and he knew the altar on which he laid himself.
I want to point out, because it is relevant to this debate, why the Roman Catholic Church took that view. The Roman Catholic Church forbids its priests to sit in legislatures. It considers that it is inappropriate for a parochial priest with pastoral responsibilities to adopt a political career since as a pastor his job is to achieve unity and minister to all. I hope that the Minister is listening to what I am saying as he seems to be involved in a conversation of his own. To be an active priest and to be a politician is contradictory. Politics are by nature adversarial. To be a priest in a pastoral role and to be a politician is quite difficult. It is noticeable that the right reverend Prelates traditionally are expected to remain apart from partisan politics.
As noble Lords know, I am a clergyman of the Church of England. I can assure your Lordships that I would not have accepted a life peerage, certainly not the political peerage that I accepted, if I had been in any pastoral position whatsoever.
I do not wear my dog collar in this House for obvious reasons. I do not claim to speak for the Church. I believe that any Christian can be a member of any political party in this House without betraying his religion. But one must consider the position. If we open another place to clergymen, their Churches could

205
not force them to abandon parochial responsibilities. The Roman Church will excommunicate Father Cairns but the Anglican Church does not indulge in excommunication. So we have to face the problem.
The other factor which was not mentioned by the Minister is the nature of the unique situation in the United Kingdom: that we have two established Churches. In an established Church the bishops, the Lords Spiritual, sit in the House of Lords. They represent the Church. The right reverend Prelate will agree that in this House I make no claim to represent the established Church. But Anglican parochial clergy could claim in another place to represent the Church. There could be a contradiction in the role of the established Church.
There are further problems with regard to Scotland. Traditionally, the Presbyterian Church, the established Church in Scotland, has had its own general assembly. Whereas the general assembly has had Members of this House and another place as lay members, until recently the clergy have always remained detached from the secular Parliament. There has been a long tradition in the Scottish Church of maintaining its independence from the secular Parliament. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has an honourable tradition in maintaining freedom from the secular Parliament. There would be some dilution of that hard-fought independence if members also sat in another place.
The Minister mentioned the devolved assemblies. I agree that, lightly, they have admitted their clergy. They have not given thought to issues of establishment, the nature of the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy. As a sovereign Parliament, we should give more thought to the matter.
Hard cases made bad law. I agree that the case of Father Cairns is a hard case. However—I repeat—once he knelt for ordination in the Roman Catholic Church, he knew what he was taking on. To expect an Act of Parliament to alter his situation seems to me strange. I suggest to noble Lords that this is not an easy Bill. There is the question of establishment. There is the fact that the Anglican Church could not stop people with pastoral responsibilities sitting in another place if they decided so to do. The Roman Catholic point is that a minister has to be a symbol of unity: an active politician cannot be so. I repeat: I would not have accepted a life Peerage if I had been a parochial parish priest.
On a point of principle, I believe it is wrong that the Bill should be hurried through in the shadow of an election for one particular hard case. I agree with the Minister; the situation is very hard for Father Cairns. He made his decision and now wants to reverse it. He will most likely be excommunicated anyhow. But it is not our job to solve a problem of his own making. There is the problem of the nature of representation of the established Church. I do not believe that the devolved assemblies are an example for us.
I hope that noble Lords will take great care over the Bill. I am not prepared to advocate an easy passage before an election.
9.40 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his stamina. I hope that I shall not make too many demands on it. I was persuaded to intervene in the debate by my colleague Robert Blackburn, from the law department of my college. Anyone who has read the excellent brief prepared by the House of Commons Library will appreciate that he speaks with such authority on the subject as to make me appear a rank amateur. I am therefore all the more pleased to find that he, I and my noble friends are united in the welcome that we extend to the Bill.
As the Minister said, the Bill arises from an individual case, but it has been needed ever since the case of Mr MacManaway. I followed that case when I was a 13 year-old and concluded that something must be done. It never occurred to me that 50 years later I might have a walk-on part in helping that to come about.
I did not realise then that, given the speed of our political system, the case is proceeding at the rate of greased lightning. If there had not been an individual case, this would not have been done.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, had to say about that case. I understand that the position of the Roman Catholic Church is, "Once a priest, always a priest", just as it also holds the position. "Once married, always married". I respect both those views, but in neither case should they be binding on the state. I agree with John Locke that a Church is a voluntary society. The definition of a voluntary society is that one may voluntarily leave it. There is a bigger argument than the noble Lord suggested.
The state of the law is thoroughly confused. We have had a great whittling down of general disabilities and restrictions on sitting in Parliament for religions. When I took my seat here, I exercised my right to affirm. That right is only 100 years old—barely yesterday in terms of parliamentary history. When I did so, I received a warm and welcoming smile from the Episcopal Benches. That was my first experience of House of Lords manners and I welcomed it warmly.
However, there has been no corresponding change in the rights of clergy to take their seats. There are anomalies everywhere: between the treatment of the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales; between the treatment of episcopally ordained and non-episcopally ordained ministers; and between the treatment of Christian ministers and non-Christian ministers, which ironically bears much more harshly on the Christians, because the law goes back to the days when no others were envisaged.
Given that odd series of situations, it is worth stopping for a moment to ask how we got here. The present law got here for three reasons, of which two are no longer operative and the third we can no longer regard as Parliament's business. The first was the separate representation of the clergy in convocation. The key to that is that in the early days of Parliament—in fact, for several centuries—the clergy used to pay separate taxation, voted by their own representatives

207
in convocation. It was therefore not proper for them to have representatives voting taxes for other people that they did not pay. That first reason for the separate treatment of the clergy is clearly out of date.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, suggested, there were serious problems in applying that doctrine of an established Church to the Church of Scotland, where it did not really fit, but that is just one more reason for getting away from the old pattern and passing the Bill.
The second reason for the specific disabilities against Roman Catholics dates back to past centuries when there was a nationalist hatred expressed against the Church of Rome, which is now strictly confined to the Treaty of Rome. As one Member said in another place in the 17th century, they are members of the body of this land who have studied to be incorporate with others.
Those attitudes have disappeared very rapidly during my lifetime. We owe a great deal to Pope John XXIII. I remember vividly a moment in 1962 when he threatened to put South Vietnam under an interdict for persecuting Buddhists. One can imagine how rapidly the weak certainties in which I was brought up crumbled in the face of that experience. My mind went into a revolving door and remained there for some time. As this has changed and as I do not believe that a single person in the Chamber would query the loyalty of any other Peer on the grounds of their faith or their lack of it, I believe that the disabilities are totally out of date.
The third reason concerns views about the office of the ministry. As expressed in the 17th century:
"It is of such importance that it will take up the whole man".
We heard that view expressed by Miss Widdecombe in another place and we heard it expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, just a few moments ago. I do not argue with that view; I simply argue with the propriety of the state in deciding it on behalf of the Churches. We must now say "Churches". There are many Churches and they do not all take the same view on this question. Therefore, if the state were to take a general view, it would be imposing that view on Churches which did not share it and yet would have to follow it.
I very much prefer the view expressed by the then Archbishop of Westminster to the MacManaway committee:
"It ought riot to be for Parliament to debar people from becoming candidates as far as the church is concerned; that ought to be for the ir ternal discipline of each church".
I agree strongly with what the Minister said about not intervening in any question of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Apart from any question of theological propriety, the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is not a national matter and not proper to any national assembly.
In 1982. the General Synod of the Church of England voted by a narrow but clear majority in favour of the proposition that clergy should be free to sit in Parliament. I do not want to enter into argument
208
about how far Parliament could override that constitutionally. I want to say simply that in my opinion Parliament should not.
It is now for Churches to decide for themselves what limits they should place on the freedom of action of their clergy. I hope that the Minister will confirm that nothing in this Bill can possibly be construed to restrict the freedom of Churches to discipline their own members. In a free country and in a plural society that must be for the Churches themselves. It is not our business. The Bill recognises that and I welcome it.
9.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, we on these Benches similarly welcome the Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has just reminded us, it responds to a long-standing wish of the General Synod and of other Churches. He reminded us of the motion that was passed in the General Synod in 1982, which said:
"This Synod believes that clergymen of the Church of England should be free like other citizens to take their seats as elected Members of Parliament and, in accordance"—
reminding us of some earlier work—
"with the recommendation of the Church and State Report 1970, asks the Standing Committee to request Her Majesty's Government to introduce appropriate legislation to enable them to do so".
We have taken rather a long time to get here.
We see no reason why a person should be disqualified from standing for election to the House of Commons simply because he has received episcopal ordination. It should be for the electorate to decide whether they want a priest to represent them in the other place.
Some noble Lords have discussed whether we are dealing with hard cases. I remind the House that every single step in the history of this matter has been formed around hard cases. As has already been outlined, in 1553 Prebendary Newell was excluded from Parliament on the old constitutional ground that the clergy were taxed by convocation, so it was not appropriate for a priest to be in the House of Commons. The 1801 Act similarly arose because Home Tooke wanted to be a Member of Parliament and Parliament quickly legislated to exclude the clergy on the ground that a great number of benefices were in the gift of the Crown or the nobility and that the admission of the clergy to the Commons on that basis would diminish the purity and impair the independence of the House.
It is not for me to comment on the purity of the other place. However, it is a fact that a priest of the Church of England cannot sit in the other place but, as has already been said, a priest of the Church of Wales can do so. A priest of the non-established Scottish Episcopal Church cannot do so but a minister of a non-established Church in England can do so. Similarly, as has already been said, a Roman Catholic priest cannot stand for election simply because he has received episcopal ordination. In other words, we have a total muddle in the law.

209
Furthermore, in our judgment the arrangement infringes the rights of the people in a democratic society. If in all other respects except that relating to a person's clerical status people are qualified as citizens to become Members of Parliament, is it right that the law should prevent the people making the relevant choice if they so choose? It is high time that that anomalous legislation was repealed; the clergy should be given the same opportunities as all other citizens. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for whom I have great respect, that he has not been required to stand down from his orders in order to sit in this place. That is the crucial point in this context.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, my point—I stress it again—is that I would not have accepted a life peerage if I had had pastoral responsibility. The right reverend Prelate will agree that the Anglican Church could not enforce that but that the Roman Catholic Church can.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, my point was about the noble Lord not having to stand down from his orders. In my diocese, I have quite a large number of priests who are in secular employment. We have priests who teach in schools and who work in the City of London or—dare I say so—in the defence service. We have priests who work in all sorts of contexts. They are called ministers in secular employment. They are in holy orders and they are set in those contexts. I cannot for the life of me see what is so impure about the House of Commons that it is impossible in principle for a priest to sit in it.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt twice; I shall not do so again. The Roman Catholic position in canon law is that politics are adversarial. Being a teacher might be somewhat adversarial—I was one for 40 years—but it is not like sitting in this place or the House of Commons. That is the difference. A pastor is the centre of unity.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I take the point that it is for each Church to decide its own discipline around its own clergy. We are talking about the law as it applies to the state and about what we should do as a state. I have friends in holy orders who are members of local authorities. They are deeply involved in adversarial politics and believe with integrity that they can do so. I have never believed—I should not sit in this place if I did—that politics are such a corrupt and difficult exercise that it is impossible for Christian people, be they in orders or otherwise, not to participate in them.
We on these Benches fully take the point that, because as bishops we are Members of your Lordships' House, it would not he appropriate for a Lord Spiritual to stand for election to the House of Commons. But perhaps the Minister can clarify a point. Many bishops are not Lords Spiritual. What is their position? Forty-two bishops qualify to sit in this House, 26 of whom do so. Will the Bill exclude all
210
bishops or only the 42 who are qualified to sit in this House as Lords Spiritual? I did not quite understand the logic of that argument and perhaps the Minister can tidy up that point for me.
We support the provisions in the Bill for dealing with the point in relation to Lords Spiritual. We welcome the Bill. We have waited a long time in the Churches for it. It puts right an anomaly and I hope the House will give it a fair wind.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, as a layman, I hesitate to get involved in this discussion.
9.51 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I am next on the list and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, will be able to speak in the gap.
I too welcome the Bill and I do so because I believe that no discrimination should be taken against anyone who wishes to stand for public office. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, referred to the case of David Cairns. It is fortunate that that case arose because it brought this issue to the fore. It really is time that we removed the archaic and discriminatory restrictions which are placed on some ministers of religion, and so bar them from becoming Members of the other place. It was unfortunate that this matter was not followed through when the Select Committee on Home Affairs took its decision three years ago.
We are discussing a piece of legislation which is over 200 years old and which has long outgrown any purpose or value. I cannot give the historical analysis that was so eloquently put by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is no longer in his place. But we should look briefly at 1801 and examine the origins of why that legislation was introduced. It arose following a single hard case, as the right reverend Prelate said. A Church of England priest, the Reverend Home Tooke, won an election for Old Sarum. The question was whether or not he should be allowed to take his place in the House of Commons.
It is interesting that that piece of legislation had stood for 150 years, and it was only 51 years ago that the Privy Council decided that the 1801 Act not only disqualified persons ordained in the Church of England, but also all persons ordained by a bishop in accordance either with the order of the Church of England or with any other forms of episcopal ordination.
The Minister and others identified many pieces of legislation which brought us to the situation we are now at. I do not apologise for trying to spell them out again in order to show some of the inconsistencies and how irrational they are. For example, mention was made of devolved parliaments and assemblies, and I remind this House that that was a piece of legislation that went through this place. I cannot remember anybody tabling an amendment which said that ordained ministers of any religious denomination should be disqualified from those legislative bodies.

211
The Clergy Disqualification Act 1870 enables members of the clergy of the Church of England to renounce their position so that they are free to stand for election and take a seat in the other place after a period of six months. But there is no parallel procedure for the clergy of other religions.
Roman Catholic priests, Orthodox priests and Church of Scotland ministers cannot seek relief and be excused. Retired Orthodox priests cannot offer themselves,, but imams, shamans and rabbis certainly can. Presbyterians in England are in a different position from those in Scotland and retired Anglican vicars in Wales are in a different position from those in England. Again, as the right reverend Prelate said, there is a complete lack of clarity and there is muddle in the law as it stands. It is anomalous, inequitable, inconsistent and discriminatory.
I go even further. An active nonconformist minister could stand in a constituency in which his church is situated, but a retired ordained priest who no longer has any adherence would be disqualified from taking his seat. Further, as has been mentioned, the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 states that no person in holy orders in the Church of Rome should be capable of being elected to serve in Parliament as a Member of the House of Commons. As has been said, that presupposes that once a Roman Catholic priest has been ordained, he will remain in holy orders, whether he continues in priesthood or not. So, resignation is clearly not the answer.
However, it is not even as simple as that. It is not the case that all former Roman Catholic priests cannot offer themselves to the House; they can if they have been defrocked. We are saying that a defrocked priest can become a Member of Parliament, irrespective of the reason for being defrocked, but a retired priest cannot. Somehow, that seems even more anomalous.
I must also take up the point made about the argument as to whether one can be a good priest and a good Member of Parliament at the same time. Ann Widdecombe, in the other place, said that that was not possible. That says that those who already hold public office and are members of the clergy do not carry out either of their functions very well. Currently, there are MPs who are ordained ministers. On 6th February, the Reverend Martin Smythe, MP for Belfast South, outlined his position in the debate in the other place, at col. 832 of the Official Report. He stated that as an ordained priest in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, when he became an MP he was relieved of his pastorate, but that he was still able to perform duties to help his colleagues carry out pastoral work, which he does.
This antique statute has no place in parliamentary proceedings and legislation. We cannot expect to promote a more tolerant, multi-faith, multicultural and fair society while we allow such distinctions to exist on religious grounds. The Bill is not about conscience. It is not even in a sense about religion; it is about equal rights, the democratic rights of citizens to stand for public office and to take their seat in
212
Parliament. I believe that there are no grounds for continuing to distinguish between clergy of different religions under the law.
It is also important perhaps to look at another little piece of history and to remind ourselves that Catholics campaigned to be able to stand for Parliament, as did Jews in the 1860s because they were debarred. Charles Bradlaugh, who represented Northampton, was four times refused the right to sit in the House of Commons because he had no religious views. That, and other reasons, is why we have to ensure that this legislation goes through. It is another stage in that process.
I think—I would like the Minister to tell me—that to allow the current situation to continue must surely be a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 14 of the convention refers to religious discrimination, which this clearly is. Article 9 refers to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and Article 3 to the right of free elections. It seems to me that unless we do something about this legislation we shall find ourselves in breach of that Act.
There should be no discrimination against anybody who wishes to stand for public office. As has been said, that view is supported by the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Church of Ireland, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and Ireland, which have given support to this legislation.
I believe that the arguments in favour of change are irrefutable. It is clearly right that there should no longer be legislative grounds for distinguishing between clergy of different religions. As was so rightly said, the matters we are dealing with are matters for the person and the Church concerned and they are matters for the electorate. They are certainly not matters for the legislature and I hope that the Bill will receive an easy passage through this House.
10.5 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, it may be thought by some that repealing the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act may be one of the early steps leading to the creation of a theocracy in Britain. There are other straws in the wind that lend some credence to that view.
In the first place, religious revival in the form of fundamentalism is to be seen across the globe and that has certainly become an important influence upon governments. Indeed, in some cases, religious fundamentalists now form governments.
Secondly, Britain itself has not been immune and has seen an upsurge in fundamentalism in recent years in some of its own religions; notably, Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
Thirdly, very recently, echoing the sentiments of President George W Bush, Government Ministers and their Conservative shadows have spoken of the possibility and even the desirability of inviting faith communities to join in partnership with government to administer such tasks as the health and social services.

213
Such musings risk stirring up sectarian divisions such as those that have now become an endemic feature of Northern Ireland.
Then again, commentators seeking to give some flesh to the Prime Minister's "Third Way" approach to policy making—not that the term is mentioned much nowadays—suggested that Mr Blair was aiming to introduce Christian Democracy of the kind common to many of the states of mainland Europe. On hearing that, one staunch Labour intellectual retorted, "Christian Stalinism more like, to judge from the Government's propensity for control freakery!".
I do not possess the historical perspective of my noble friend Lord Russell, but I hope to illustrate the fact that I possess some limited powers of predicting the future. As long ago as 1985 I anticipated some of the developments which I outlined in a satirical essay I wrote entitled "White collar, blue collar, dog collar: speculations on the coming ecclesiastical industrial complex".
Following what I took as axiomatic—the collapse of democracy in Britain—the nation had to be saved. My chosen hero was an Anglican worker-priest, who became a tycoon bishop and ultimately Prime Minister/Archbishop, spending weekdays at No. 10 and weekends in Lambeth Palace.
In the course of his rise to ultimate power, I wrote that it had been found prudent to repeal the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, so I claim some intellectual property rights in respect of today's Bill. What started as part of a piece of political science fiction is now about to become reality.
The denouement I contrived was that my Prime Minister/Archbishop restored the fortunes of the country so successfully that the Church of England felt confident enough to proclaim saints. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, however, corporations could be considered for sainthood along with individuals. The ever-versatile Civil Service obligingly adapted the totting up procedure for driving offences so that five Queen's Awards for Industry or Export established a prima facie case for beatification and 10 a case for canonisation. And thus it came to pass that Marks & Spencer actually became St Michael.
The present Government have shown a marked penchant for cosying up to fat cats and big business. While their exaltation of tycoons has bordered on the reverential, it has fallen short, thus far, of sanctification. Nevertheless, the future scenario which, having let my imagination run riot, I sketched out 16 years ago captured some of the elements of contemporary political reality perhaps too closely for comfort.
To come back to earth to address the immediate business of your Lordships' House, I support the passage of this Bill. Such discrimination against the priestly caste, be it Anglican, Catholic or orthodox, by debarring its members from election to another place is wholly unwarranted in this day and age. Repeal may
214
be a necessary step if anyone was so foolish as to want a theocracy but, thank goodness, it is not a sufficient one.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I strongly support the Bill. During the passage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill I proposed a set of amendments which were disallowed by the Table on the grounds that they fell outside the scope of the Bill. Those amendments would have amended that Bill so as to repeal the disqualifications which the legislation that we are debating this evening now removes. Following that, with the indispensable help of my friend Professor Robert Blackburn, who is one of the leading experts in Britain on electoral law and practice—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already referred to him—a Private Member's Bill was drafted. I had intended to lay that Bill before the House until the Government, quite rightly, decided to promote their own Bill, of which I am very strongly in favour.
Why did not the Government include that measure in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill? The answer is a very honourable one; namely, at that time they were engaged with the Churches in consultation which was not complete. I can vouch for that because, when I submitted my amendments to the Table, I also sent them to the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for their comments. The response from the Roman Catholic Church was that it was heavily involved with the Government in consultation which was not then complete. Therefore, there are very good reasons why the Government did not include the legislation in the earlier Bill. That is one of the arguments against the view that this is somehow being rushed through. It is not. There was a process of consultation and proper concern about whether it could be brought forward earlier. However, the process of consultation made that very difficult, if not impossible.
Why is the Bill important? As other noble Lords have said, it removes a long-standing anomaly in electoral law which has gone relatively unnoticed. From the debate this evening it is fairly easy to see why that is so: it is quite complicated, the roots of the legislation to be repealed are historical and many people do not understand the complexities of that history. Some of the issues, such as the definition of what it is to be in holy orders, are rather arcane, and in addition it affects very few people. There is an anomaly here which has been hidden for a very long time, and I believe that this is a good moment to try to rectify it.
The Acts which are to be repealed in whole or in part have a long history and their provisions are entirely anachronistic or not part of Parliament's business. I very much agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his description of those provisions. I do not bore your Lordships by going through them again. I am wholly in agreement with the noble Earl. But I believe that the effect of the Acts is discriminatory, because people who have taken holy orders in the Roman Catholic Church are disqualified for life, even if they abandon

215
or repudiate their priesthood. Whether they choose to join another Christian denomination, another religion or become atheists, as I understand it they are still regarded as priests for life. Anglican clergy, however, can remove the disqualification via the Clerical Disabilities Act.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it would be improper for Parliament to go down the same road as was trodden in the passing of the Clerical Disabilities Act. It is not a matter of providing some mechanism for Roman Catholic priests to abandon their orders in a way that would infringe the rights of the Catholic Church: rather, it is for Parliament to remove the disqualification which priests who are held still to be priests then suffer. That is entirely proper for Parliament, whereas the former would not be. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton that the existing legislation is quite possibly a breach of the Human Rights Act in respect of free elections, non-discrimination and freedom of expression.
It is worth reiterating two points made by the Minister in his opening remarks: first, that the removal of disqualification was recommended by the Home Affairs Committee of another place; and, secondly, that the present Bill was given a Second Reading in the other place by a vote of 196 to 15.
What, if anything, might be said against the measure? There is the point about vocation made by Miss Widdecombe and also this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that in a sense priesthood is about a complete way of life and commitment. It is a calling which is quite different from politics. That may be so, but surely that same point applies to ministers of religion in other denominations and indeed other faiths. I cannot see that episcopal ordination makes a difference to the point that the life of a minister of religion involves that—if it does—complete engagement of a person. That applies across faiths. I do not see why it should be invoked particularly in relation to episcopally-ordained ministers as opposed to the generality of ministers of religion of whatever kind.
In a free society that should be a matter for the Churches themselves. If they do not wish to see their priests who are currently in orders involved in politics they can take action against them through the canon law or through the other devices open to Church authorities.
At one point in the debate in the House of Commons it was suggested that the Bill might open the door to religious maniacs becoming Members of Parliament. I find it difficult to take that argument seriously because it assumes that all potential religious maniacs must be in holy orders in the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church. That is a rather dubious proposition. If we took it seriously, it would be a case for general disqualification of clergy of all religions, not just those episcopally ordained.
It might he argued that this is a basic constitutional change and that it should have been given more time by the Government. I have already said that I believe
216
that there has been a process at work here. Unfortunately it has emerged only with the Bill, hut it has been going on for quite some time. It was occasioned by the case of Mr Cairns and his desire to stand in the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency. However, the Bill should have been promoted even if there was no one currently disadvantaged by it. Indeed, how could we ever know if anyone was disadvantaged? There may be, or may have been, priests who have been deterred from seeking political nomination because of the law. They anticipated a reaction and did not seek a political career or involvement because of that.
There is no case for arguing against a constitutional change because it relates to a single individual. As the right reverend Prelate said, the 1801 Act was occasioned by the election of Home Tooke, and there will be a nice symmetry in repealing an Act of Parliament which was enacted to deal with one case in order to deal with another single case. I do not see that there is any harm in that. Indeed, the case of Bradlaugh and the case of Tony Benn, also known as Viscount Stansgate at one time, give good reason for thinking that constructive constitutional change can arise out of individual cases.
I have not covered all the arguments. I agree with the general account of the Bill given by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I hope that the Bill will be supported and that it will have a swift passage through your Lordships' House.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House and, in particular, to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for appearing at an earlier stage to attempt to jump the queue. My only defence is to say that the error was due to the fact that I had been in the Chamber almost continuously since 2.15 p.m. and that I had entirely forgotten to check the speakers' list. That lapse may be attributed to old age. I am 80—almost 81.
I have repeatedly informed your Lordships that although I am a communicant of the Church of Ireland, which was disestablished in 1870, I was educated at a Roman Catholic school. So your Lordships may feel that I have a right to be somewhat neutral in this matter. I hope that this short debate will provide an opportunity for editors of newspapers in Northern Ireland to undo the damage they did to community relations and religious attitudes in Northern Ireland by reporting on the debate in the other place, summarised in headlines like:
"Westminster lifts ban on Roman Catholic priests".
Unfortunately, their recklessness and irresponsibility had the intended effect in certain quarters. I deplore that very much.
I just want to say that my first encounter with the existing problem was in the case of an Eighth Army Anglican chaplain, who I think was not always a non-combatant, the Reverend JJ MacManaway, who was elected to Westminster in 1950. I was closely acquainted with him for most of the post-war period.

217
Certain politically motivated persons drew that anomaly to the attention of various persons here in the Palace of Westminster, with the inevitable result that the Privy Council, no doubt acting on sound advice on the law as it then stood, unseated my friend.
We owe it to the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church to give our support to this limited Bill. They are all affected by the generally rather muddled situation that remains at the present time. We all concede that the present situation is out of date, but I make a plea to those newspaper editors for moderation. The law has long needed modernisation and I fully support the Bill and the Minister.
10.23 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the rules for the disqualification of priests and ministers of religion from membership of the other place are archaic and confusing. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, has pointed out the anomalies. Disqualification does not apply at all to priests and deacons of the Church in Wales and does not apply to priests and deacons of the Church of England who have drawn up a certificate of relinquishment, whatever that may be. On the other hand, priests and deacons of the Roman Catholic Church, of the Church of Ireland, of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, of the overseas provinces of the Anglican Church and, it seems, of the Orthodox Churches and the smaller Christian Episcopal Churches, such as, I believe, the Armenian Church, are all disqualified for life without the possibility of parole, although I have to say that I do not expect many Armenian priests in any event to seek membership of the other place.
By contrast, the ministers of non-episcopal Christian denominations are not disqualified, with the sole exception of ministers of the Church of Scotland. No priests, ministers or holders of other religious offices of non-Christian religions are disqualified. I know of one rabbi who stood for election on behalf of the SDP in 1983.
The probable reason for the exclusion from the House of Commons of the established Church in England and Wales has been explained by my noble friend Lord Russell and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. However, that cannot be the reason for the exclusion of ministers of the Church of Scotland. Disqualification of Roman Catholic priests is expressly provided for by the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and is now one of the very few remaining handicaps imposed on Roman Catholics. I seem to recall that, about a year ago, we passed an Act allowing a Roman Catholic to become Lord Chancellor.
Of course the disqualification of clergy does not extend to your Lordships' House where we have at least five life Peers, including the noble Lord—I wish that I could describe him as noble and reverend—Lord Pilkington, who would be disqualified from sitting in
218
the House of Commons because he is an ordained priest of the Church of England or, in the case of Archbishop Eames, of the Church of Ireland.
Speaking as a non-believer of mixed Jewish and Anglican background, I have to say that none of this makes much sense to me. As the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, remarked, the role of an active priest and the role of a Member of Parliament may well be incompatible. However, that is a matter for the Churches to decide. If a priest or former priest decides to stand and is elected, it may be contrary to the rules of his Church and may lead to disciplinary action under the rules of that Church. Again, however, that is no reason why the state should intervene. Indeed, it may well be contrary to the human rights of priests to exclude them from the right to stand in elections.
The last parliamentary election that I fought was in Oxford West and Abingdon in 1992. My Labour opponent on that occasion was Bruce Kent, formerly Monsignor Bruce Kent. I am not sure whether he had been formally defrocked, but I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, may well be wrong in saying that a defrocked priest can take a seat. At any rate, that is the view of Professor Blackburn, as set out in the House of Commons Library guide to this matter. As it happened, Bruce Kent finished a distant third in that election, but had he won, he could well have been disqualified from taking his seat. I have to say that I disagreed with many of his views, but I formed a great respect and liking for him during the course of the campaign and I believe that he would have made an excellent MP, although perhaps for another seat. I believe that it is totally wrong that perhaps he would have been unable to take his seat if he had been elected.
In spite of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, I believe that the purpose of introducing this Bill at this time is specifically to ensure that David Cairns—who has a better chance of winning his seat than did Bruce Kent—will not suffer the fate that Bruce would have done if he had won Oxford West and Abingdon. I regret that only now is this Bill being introduced to enable one particular candidate to take his seat.
However, my party has long supported disestablishment of the Church of England and we believe that archaic rules concerning disqualification from membership of the other place should have been swept away long ago. For that reason, while I am unhappy that the Bill is being introduced now for what appear to be self-serving reasons, it would be wholly inconsistent for us to oppose the Bill on that ground.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have enjoyed the debate, especially the welcome and humorous contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Smith. It was particularly welcome for those of us who have been in the Chamber for some hours longer than we expected.
We have to be very clear about what we are being asked to do. The Minister explained the Bill as a kind of tidying-up measure to enable priests and ministers of the Church of Scotland to be members of another

219
place—"priests" being defined as those ordained by a bishop. Primarily, of course, we are talking about Anglican and Roman Catholic priests.
As we have heard, some Anglican priests are not disqualified from membership of another place. The clergy of the Church in Wales are specifically allowed by the civil law to be Members of Parliament under the Welsh Church Act 1914. Church of England priests can take advantage of the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870.
I remember Ivor Clemitson, who was elected to another place at a similar time to myself. He was a priest of the Church of England and became MP for Luton East for a number of years. He had, of course, relinquished his orders at that time under the available mechanism. So there is not really a problem so far as concerns inactive Church of England clergy—that is, "inactive" in the sense of their clerical responsibilities—who are prepared to go through the necessary hoops.
However, that is not the end of the matter so far as concerns Anglicans. The Welsh case clearly indicates the constitutional connection between the provisions in this Bill and the establishment by law of the Church of England. It was on disestablishment, when the Welsh bishops left this House, that the Welsh clergy were permitted to become Members of another place. So the whole subject matter of the Bill so far as concerns Anglicans clearly reads across into the position of the English bishops in the House in addition to the specific mention of them in the Bill.
Their position is of course being considered in the context of House of Lords reform, as we know. The logical context in which to consider changing the rules for other clergy in relation to another place is when we change the position of the bishops' place in this House, if that is what finally emerges from the discussions about its future. We are asked to change half the law, in a piecemeal fashion, while consideration of the other half is still proceeding.
I turn to Roman Catholic priests. The Roman Catholic Church, like others, takes a strict and solemn view of priesthood. It requires a long period of instruction and preparation; it wishes to be certain of the individuals' vocation; and, when a man comes to be ordained, it insists on a full and real lifelong commitment. As has been said, once ordained a man is a priest forever.
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that I understand that it is legally possible under canon law to be relieved of the obligations and duties of a priest—that is, to be "laicised"—but it is deliberately difficult. If the promises of ordination could easily be disposed of, the commitment would be that much weaker, not only for the priest concerned but for every other priest too. In other words, it would devalue the priest hood itself world-wide. That is why canon law is framed and operated as it is.
220
But, in any case, "laicisation" does not mean that a man is not still a priest—he is. It means only that he is relieved of the obligations and duties of a priest. I am not a Roman Catholic but I respect the view that the Roman Catholic Church takes of its priesthood.
As we have heard, the Roman Catholic Church does not permit its priests to take part in the civil government of any country and therefore to become members of legislatures. Canon law specifically forbids bishops, priests and deacons from sharing the exercise of civil power. I understand that the present Pope has emphasised that government and politics are in the sphere of the laity.
So this Bill is therefore about those who want to become politicians against the promises that they made when they were ordained. However, as has emerged from the debate, the Bill has not been brought forward at this time because of the principle of the issue but because of one particular case. The Minister mentioned it himself, as has practically every other speaker. The reason for advancing the Bill at this time is that David Cairns is a prospective Labour parliamentary candidate. As has been said, he is a Roman Catholic priest and was active as such until some years ago, but more recently he has renounced his vocation and no longer wants to undertake the duties of a priest. I do not know whether he has been "laicised" and thereby relieved of his obligations and duties by his Church. But whether or not that is the case, he remains a priest forever and so under the civil law he cannot sit in Parliament.
Mr Cairns was selected last summer by the local party to be the prospective Labour candidate for Greenock and Inverclyde. I have heard that at the time of his selection he did not tell the public, his constituency Labour Party officers or the members of the party who had to decide on the choice of a candidate that he was disqualified from being an MP, although he presumably knew that perfectly well. I do not know at what stage Mr Cairns's true position became known to the Labour Party's national authorities; nor do I know when they agreed to try to get the Government to change the law to help him.
It would assist the House to understand Mr Cairns's position if the Minister would answer three questions. First, did Mr Cairns know that he was disqualified when he put his name forward for selection? Secondly, did the constituency members know that he was disqualified when they selected him? Thirdly, when did the Labour Party's national authorities know that he was disqualified under the law as it stands?
There is another aspect to all this. We are told by the newspapers that the Prime Minister has been planning for a long time to hold the general election on 3rd May and still wishes to do so. If that is what happens, the Bill cannot complete its passage through this House under our normal rules. There is simply not enough time. That is the Government's choice. Provisions of this kind were recommended some time ago by a Select Committee of another place. But the Government did not conclude their consultations and arrange for the responses to come forward early enough to take the

221
opportunity to propose this measure to Parliament when the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act was being debated—the noble Lord, Lord Plant, said that he tried to insert a provision into that measure—or during debate on the Representation of the People Act or the Disqualifications Act. All three measures have completed their passage through Parliament since the Select Committee made its recommendations. Above all, the Government did not cause the Bill to be mentioned in the Queen's Speech; nor did they introduce it early enough in this Session for it to be considered in the normal way if the election is to be held on 3rd May. Other Bills—
Earl Russell: My Lords, most of us on this side of the House have criticised governments at one time or another because their consultations were too cursory. Is it consistent to criticise the Government now because their consultations were too thorough?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, all I am saying is that had the consultations—which took several years—allowed them to do so, they could have taken advantage of the other measures, or they could have introduced the Bill earlier in this Session. Other Bills have been considered in this Session and have received Royal Assent. This afternoon alone we finally passed the Vehicles (Crime) Bill and cleared it for Royal Assent after full discussion. It has only a very small hurdle to cover now. By leaving this Bill so late, if the election is to be on 3rd May, the Government have in practice denied to any other priest or former priest the opportunity that they seek to give to Mr Cairns; that is to say, the opportunity to go to a constituency to seek selection as a candidate and put themselves before the electorate.
If the election goes forward on 3rd May, we may be asked to facilitate Mr Cairns's prospective membership of the House of Commons—if he is elected—despite the fact that he apparently deceived the local Labour Party members at his selection when he appears to have concealed his disqualification; and the fact that he seeks to become a Member of the other place, contrary to the promises that he gave his Church—some of the most solemn promises that it is possible to make. I wonder what value the constituents will now place on any other promises that he has made to them, either in the course of seeking the candidature or that he may make during the forthcoming campaign.
If the Bill were to be rushed through Parliament, we could also be asked to bend some of the most central clauses of our constitution, even while consideration is being given to wider, related changes. The qualifications for membership of the legislature are a central matter in the constitution of any country. The constitution in many countries cannot be changed, except by a more elaborate procedure than for other changes in the law. But if the election is to take place on 3rd May, we may be asked to accelerate our procedures for the sake of this one man.
222
That course would deny us proper Committee and Report stages in which to consider, for example, whether we should confine the permission to Roman Catholics priests who have been "laicised" and so avoid assisting in the breaking of canon law; what we wish to do about the establishment of the Church of England, and the future representation of the faith communities in this House; and whether all bishops of the Church of England should be disqualified, which is what the Select Committee recommended, or only those who are already Lords Spiritual and Members of this House, as suggested by the Bill. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate referred to that point. We should also need to consider any points on legal drafting that may arise. This House rightly prides itself on its detailed consideration of Bills, particularly when, as in this case, they concern alterations to ancient laws of a constitutional character.
The part of the Bill that refers to Anglicans is unnecessary to a considerable extent and is divorced from its proper constitutional context. The other part that refers to Roman Catholic priests is, at this stage at any rate, for the benefit of one man and one political party. Apart from his position, it can in no way be described as "urgent". I hasten to add that I do not believe that we should deny the Bill a Second Reading tonight; indeed, that would be against the normal custom in your Lordships' House. In any event, that would amount to saying that the matter should not be further discussed. I take the opposite view; namely, that the Bill deserves further consideration and will need further discussion. If other events mean that that incommodes Mr. Cairns, that seems to me to be his own fault. He set up the situation when he put himself forward as a candidate and, apparently, concealed his true position from the local party in Greenock. He cannot presume that Parliament will simply bend its rules to his convenience.
10.43 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall respond briefly to the debate. I shall not go into great detail, because I believe that we have had a fair hearing of some of the issues involved. With the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, I think it would be fair to say that there has been broad agreement on the Bill, though perhaps I should also mention the noble Lord. Lord Cope. in that respect. Before the noble Lord spoke, it was my understanding that, broadly speaking, the Opposition were in favour and rather supportive of the measure. However, heaving heard his speech, I am rather rapidly reviewing that assumption. Having said that, I believe that we have had a useful debate. As ever, I am grateful to all speakers who have taken part.
A number of quite interesting points were raised. I suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, expressed the most clearly-stated opposition to the measure, based around the principle of "once a priest, always a priest". He echoed the concerns raised in another place by Ann Widdecombe that this was a calling and a vocation and that we should not in any way undermine it by passing this piece of legislation.

223
The noble Lord also argued that hard cases make bad law. On some occasions that may well be the case. However, there are examples of hard cases which have made good law. I mention the case of Tony Benn when he sought to become a Member of the House of Commons. That case made good law. It did not just assist the Labour Party but also the Conservative Party when it wanted to appoint a new Prime Minister on the demise of Harold Macmillan.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made some important points in an entertaining speech. As ever, he gave us a history lesson. He reminded me of several pieces of legislation which I had forgotten since the days of my A-levels and reminded me why I so enjoyed history at the time. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, persuaded me that we were living in a form of science fiction, otherwise known as political science. I thought that that was a very entertaining contribution.
I was grateful for the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I shall try to answer the precise question that he asked. He asked what would be the position of the bishops who are not Lords Spiritual. They will not be disqualified from membership of another place. I thought that I had made that point clear in my opening comments.
In conclusion, I address an issue which I think the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised. I think that he asked whether the Bill would inhibit the ability of Churches to discipline their members. It does not do that; it focuses solely—as I believe Members of your Lordships' House are now aware—on the right to stand for election. I think that that clarifies that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, asked whether the current situation constitutes a breach of human rights. The reform is undertaken not to set right a breach of human rights. It is undertaken because we consider that the present law is in breach of a fundamental right; that is, the right to stand for election. We believe that the reform is right in principle. The current situation could well be challenged under human rights legislation. However, I should not like to speculate on that point as it is not a point for me to consider. However, I believe that we can all recognise that the measure adds another passage to extending the rights of all people in this country to stand for election if they wish. As I believe the noble Baroness argued forcefully and effectively, it gets rid of discrimination and anomalies—things that we want to see the back of.
I was grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield. He reminded your Lordships' House that some consideration had been given to the issue during the passage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Some thought was certainly given to rectifying the anomaly during the construction of that piece of legislation. However, it was felt at that stage that it was outwith the scope of that Bill. I think that that was probably the right conclusion to draw. However, this issue has been around for some time. The case of Mr Cairns has brought it sharply into focus.
224
While I as ever respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, which he always expresses with great sincerity and clarity, I do not think that it is for your Lordships' House to consider whether or not Mr Cairns has in any way, shape or form misled his local party. That is an issue for Mr Cairns, and perhaps for the local party, to consider. I do not believe that it was irresponsible of Mr Cairns to seek selection. I believe that he undertook that in good faith and in so doing he has valuably reinforced and highlighted an issue which it is important for us to tackle by way of getting rid of this long-standing anomaly which I do not consider has any relevance to our modern society or to our modern day constitution.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will think again about some of his comments. I had hoped that the House would move forward with a fair degree of unanimity. I respect the point that hard questions should always be asked about legislation; and that legislation should be properly and effectively scrutinised. But I think it would he better if this legislation were accepted and adopted in good faith, with a good heart and in good spirit. Although it satisfies one individual and, peculiarly in this instance, one particular party, it is not brought forward in partisan terms. It has been brought forward to deal with discrimination and anomalies and to set right a situation which, it could be fairly argued, should have been tackled long ago.
The Government are firmly of the view that current legislation which prevents ordained clergy from being elected to serve in another place, and which prevents Catholic priests from having a similar status, is wrong. It is a short Bill but it is a significant measure. It will remove an unfair and archaic piece of legislation which prevents both serving and former ministers of religion from taking their seats if elected as Members of Parliament,
On that basis, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill fulsome support at Second Reading and throughout its stages in this House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Alterations to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
10.51 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brightonrose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 5th March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was first introduced in 1964. The scheme provides payment at taxpayers' expense to blameless victims of violent crime. For the first 32 years, the scheme was non-statutory. Compensation was assessed individually in each case based on common law damages—in other words, what the applicant might have expected to receive in damages in a successful civil action.

225
The terms of the original scheme were modified in 1969, 1979 and again in 1990. But the scheme was changed more fundamentally with effect from 1st April 1996 with the introduction of a statutory scheme under the previous administration. This scheme broke the link with common law damages and moved away from individual assessment. Compensation is now assessed on the basis of a tariff or scale of awards for injuries of comparable severity.
All successful claimants get an award from the tariff, ranging in 25 bands from £1,000 to £250,000. More seriously injured victims may receive additional payment for loss of earnings/special care and, in fatal cases, loss of dependency/parental support can be paid. The maximum amount payable for any one claim is half a million pounds.
The old scheme was administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB). The current scheme is run by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). There is a two stage appeals process. An applicant who is unhappy with a decision by the authority can apply to have that decision reviewed by a senior member of the authority's staff. If still unhappy with the reviewed decision, an applicant may appeal. When the board was wound up on 31st March 2000, the remaining old scheme cases were transferred to the authority for resolution by legally qualified members of the panel.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the distinguished chairmanship of the CICB by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. Indeed, since the board was wound up on 31st March 2001, the noble Lord has continued to serve as a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, dealing with the remaining old scheme cases.
Some of your Lordships may recall that the tariff of injuries was amended in March 1999 to add a number of injuries that had not been included in the original tariff and to amend some others in the light of experience of running the scheme for three years.
At the same time, the Government published a consultation paper entitled Compensation for Victims of Violent Crime: Possible Changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The paper sought views on how the scheme might further be improved. However, the Government made it clear at the outset of the consultation exercise that any changes must be within current legislation and existing planned financial provision for the scheme.
The consultation paper was sent to individuals and organisations with an interest, to the media and to members of the public on request. Respondents included victims' organisations, academics, trade unions, the legal profession, police, charities and individual victims. With such a wide range of respondents, there were many differing, often conflicting, views on what should be done. However, it became clear that there were four main areas for change that had widespread support: increasing awards for rape and child abuse; reflating the tariff
226
levels; increasing awards for serious multiple injuries; and extending eligibility for fatal awards to partners of the same sex.
In addition to those main areas of change, the Government took the opportunity to consult the authority and appeals panel on how the layout of the tariff of injuries might be improved. The result of that work is a comprehensive package of improvements to the scheme. The package will increase the compensation paid to victims of violent crime by £20 million in a full year and will make the scheme easier to use. I shall comment briefly on each of the changes.
The first change is increased awards for sexual assault and child abuse. Many respondents thought that compensation for rape and child abuse was too low, although none really tackled the thorny problem of by how much. The Government have looked carefully at this complex area and propose a significant increase in awards for rape and sexual assault and for serious sexual and/or physical abuse of children. For example, minimum awards for rape will increase by almost 50 per cent, from £7,500 to £11,000. The maximum payable for serious physical child abuse will more than double. The Government also propose to introduce additional compensation payments for victims infected with HIV/AIDS.
The second main change is an uprating of the tariff levels. Some respondents argued that the value of the tariff awards had been eroded by inflation since their inception in 1996. However, across the board reflation of all tariff bands would be very expensive and the Government do not consider that that is necessary or represents the best use of the available resources. Awards at the top and bottom end of the tariff are still broadly consistent with damages typically awarded by the courts, but there is more divergence in the middle bands. The Government therefore propose to uplift tariff bands 7 to 23 inclusive by 10 per cent. That will significantly increase the compensation payable to many more seriously injured victims.
The third main change is increasing awards for serious multiple injuries. Compensation for serious multiple injuries is calculated according to a formula. It is currently 100 per cent of the tariff award for the most serious or highest value injury, 10 per cent of the second and 5 per cent of the third. Many respondents thought that the formula was too low, although it was based on practice in civil courts. Experience of running the scheme supports that view, so we propose to increase the formula to 100 per cent, 30 per cent and 15 per cent.
The fourth main change is extending eligibility for fatal awards to homosexual and lesbian partners. Currently, only parents, children, spouses or longterm heterosexual partners of homicide victims can qualify for a fatal award. We believe that there are no grounds for continuing to exclude long-term homosexual or lesbian partners. The appalling bombing in 1999 of the "Admiral Duncan" pub in Soho highlighted that issue in a distressing way.

227
There are other detailed changes that I shall not go into here. The authority and appeals panel have thoroughly reviewed the scheme, bringing to bear all their expertise and experience of running the scheme since 1996. In the light of their advice, the Government propose to refine many of the injury descriptions and change the layout of the tariff to make it clearer and easier for victims to use. The Government also propose some textual changes to the scheme to remove possible ambiguities and provide greater clarity where experience has suggested that that will be helpful. If approved by your Lordships' House, the revised scheme would come into effect on 1st April 2001. Provision was made for the estimated cost of the improvements in the 2000 spending review.
I hope that, from what I have said, noble Lords will agree that the proposed package of changes will greatly improve the scheme for the benefit of victims of violent crime and that the wide-ranging changes proposed will make the most effective use of the available resources. For those reasons, I commend the draft alterations to the House.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 5th March be approved.—(Lord Bassani of Brighton.)
11 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresfordrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end insert "but that this House regrets that the Government have failed again to bring compensation for injury and death caused by criminal activities back up to the level of common law damages for injury and death caused by negligence, as was paid for many years under the original scheme".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for 30 years successive governments of both Labour and Conservative administrations acted with reasonable generosity towards the victims of violent crime. They provided through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board compensation based upon what the victim would have received if he or she had successfully sued the criminal in the civil courts—the common law basis for damages for personal injuries.
The proposals to sweep away that system in 1994, introduced by the then Conservative administration without parliamentary debate, and to replace it with assessments based not upon the individual needs of the victim but on tariffs met with harsh criticism. Mr Tony Blair, then the Shadow Home Secretary, said that nothing so exposed the government's claims about law and order as the scrapping of the current system of compensation. In speaking during the consideration of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill of that year, he said that thousands of people would be worse off under the new arrangements and many would be substantially worse off.
In the Queen's Speech of that Parliament, he pointed out that the new system would cause manifest injustice because huge variations in individual circumstances would simply be lumped together. Thus, an elderly man blinded in a criminal attack
228
would receive the same compensation as someone with his working life ahead of him. That was Mr Tony Blair in his Opposition mode.
In this House on 2nd March 1994, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, as he then was, quoted Article 4 of the European Convention on Compensation for Victims of Violent Crimes, which this country ratified in 1990. That article read:
"Compensation shall cover according to the case under consideration at least the following items: loss of earnings, medical and hospitalisation expenses and funeral expenses, and, as regards dependence, loss of maintenance".
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said that, as he read Article 4, every case was an individual one which had to be considered on its own facts. He continued:
"The current compensation scheme treats every case as an individual case. It has regard to particular circumstances of each individual crime and the loss that he or she has suffered arid will suffer".
The awards cover, in just the same way as in personal injury awards in these cases, what is called "special damages for past losses"; for example, earnings, medical expenses and general damages, and compensation for pain and suffering caused by the injury itself, together with compensation for future loss of earnings.
That was the criticism at that time. In response, the Conservative government introduced the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill in 1995. When he introduced the Bill, Mr Michael Howard said that the reason for doing so was that the number of unresolved cases under the old scheme had risen inexorably to over 100,000 and the costs had escalated rapidly. I understand from the most recent figures available to me that outstanding cases now stand at 90,000—that is, a difference of 10,000 compared with the position as it was prior to the introduction of this scheme.
However, a concession was made that earnings after 28 weeks and the costs of special care for incapacity which exceeded 28 weeks would be met. Payment for dependency after death would also be made, subject to an upper capped limit. The figures quoted in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill were that, without the change being made, the costs of the existing scheme by 2001, which is where we are today, would be £460 million.
The attitude of Mr Straw, as Shadow Home Secretary, was to move an amendment to the Bill in 1995. The amendment read:
"This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill because it is based on cutting the cash available to compensate victims".
I like the alliteration in that. Mr Straw had it absolutely right. The amendment went on,
"because its proposals fail adequately to reflect society's obligations to assist victims to recover from their experience of crime: and because it fails to place victims at the centre of the criminal justice system".—[Official Report, Commons. 23/5/95; col. 741.]
Mr Straw said that the then Labour opposition's primary objection was that the government had no

229
mandate whatever for what they were doing and that they had been dishonest with the electorate. He said:
"The Bill cuts the total projected budget by more than £700 million, or 40 per cent., over a five-year period. Such cuts are bound to result in much lower awards for many victims, despite the concessions that have been forced out of the Home Secretary and which are contained in the Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/95; col. 744.]
Mr David Maclean, replying to the debate for the Conservative government, said that in five years' time—that is, now—the amount expected to be paid out was £260 million under the new tariff scheme. Again, the most recent figures that are available to me suggest that £200 million is the current level, and that that is a cap within which the scheme is, by policy, kept.
One might have thought that the Labour Government would have done something during the past four years, having regard to those statements of principle that three of its principal proponents had made in previous years; not a bit of it. Scandalous inequalities have surfaced from time to time. Noble Lords will recall the case of the Austrian tourist and mother of two who was gang-raped by eight youths and thrown into the canal near King's Cross. She was awarded £10,000: £7,500 for the first rape plus £2,500 for the remaining seven rapes; that is, £330 a rape. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, who, I am sorry to say, is not in his place tonight, said of that case that there is something wrong with a system which gives less compensation to victims of crime than those who suffered some sort of psychological problem because of alleged harassment in the workplace. He said that it needs to be looked at closely. I do not often agree with him, but I agree very much with the sentiments that he then expressed.
At that time—in 1998—a teacher in Coventry brought a civil action for common law damages after she had been chasing a nine year-old boy in a class and had suffered a whiplash injury. She was very properly awarded the sum of £82,500 for the injury that she sustained and the consequent trauma thereafter. Lisa Potts, on the other hand, who was slashed many times with a machete by a violent adult male, which is a rather worse experience than chasing a child around a class, received an initial award for her injuries of £8,000. She had to appeal it, and it was increased on appeal to nearly £50,000, although she had hoped for very much more. Of that sum, £20,000 was for post-traumatic stress disorder—that is, for something that will permanently disable her—and £28,784 for loss of earnings. Then she received, in addition, £750 for damage to her arm and £250 for scarring. Infinitely more would have been given by a court, having regard to that lady's dreadful injuries. Until today, only 10 per cent of the normal level is allowed by the CICA for the second injury in the same attack and 5 per cent for a third attack. Those are the derisory figures that she was awarded.
The Minister referred to the changes to the present scheme. The generosity that is expressed in that scheme would have benefited Miss Potts because the
230
proportions would have been 30 per cent and 15 per cent respectively, which would have increased her award by a miserly £2,000. Instead of very nearly £50,000, she would have received £51,000.
I go along with the Salvation Army War Cry of 24th February last, which stated,
"In a land fit for heroes and heroines, justice must be seen to be done. The system is not being fair to Lisa or other victims of crime. The criminal injuries compensation scheme must reflect more fairly the value of human life. Today a group of young children owe their lives to Lisa. This country still owes her".
We gave her the George Medal, but we did not give her adequate compensation for the dreadful injuries she suffered. A six year-old child who was injured in the same attack and severely scarred across the face received £7,950. Due to the tariff system, she received precisely the same for that horribly disfiguring injury as if she had been in her eighties and not a young girl of six with the whole of her life to lead.
Again, the Government may be impressed by the Trades Union Council motion passed in 1988—they used to be impressed by motions passed by the TUC. Motion 96 was in these terms:
"Congress calls upon the General Council to contact all constituent unions for the purposes of obtaining information regarding the disgraceful tariff system employed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The victims of criminal acts should be at the forefront of the Government's concerns. Since the introduction of the current tariff system by the previous Government, victims of crime are too often being denied adequate compensation, thus denying them acceptable quality of life".
Mr Straw indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, announced in September 1998 to the Superintendents' Association in Bristol that he was ready to review the system in the light of the recent cases of Lisa Potts and others that had attracted enormous adverse publicity to this Government. But he stressed that no new money would be made available. It is only now, in the dying days of this Parliament, that there is any move to raise the tariff, and that is only by the figure of £20 million—10 per cent. It does not even keep pace with inflation over the period since the introduction of the tariff scheme on 1st April 1996.
What else is being done for victims? When we were considering other legislation, we heard that this Government had victims close to their heart. We are told the Victims Charter of 1996 will be reviewed. That is a good thing; it does not cost a penny. There is now a new buzz word—attrition—which we have never heard before. The money that is being put into the criminal justice system is for two purposes, said Mr Straw last month; that is, cutting crime and catching more criminals. He said,
"To show victims that something can be done we have a new target to bring more offenders to justice, the attrition target".
That new buzz word means nothing.
As for the measures to protect vulnerable witnesses which we passed in 1999, they are to be introduced in the Crown Court during 2001–02 and in the magistrates' court in 2002–03. What is to happen for victims? There will be better services; £4.6 million will be spent on introducing victim personal statements so

231
that victims can tell the court what happened; £4.2 million will extend witness support services to magistrates' courts and the Crown Prosecution Service will spend an extra £3 million on making direct contact with victims, either by letter on in face-to-face meetings to explain decisions to drop or alter charges. That is the Victims Charter. By their alterations to this scheme the Government have gone along with the tariff system which, instead of providing £460 million by 2001, as was thought Five years ago, now produces £220 million. So they have saved more than half the possible cost of that and are spending £11 million on services that victims generally do not want and which are completely valueless for victims of crimes that are never solved.
Are this Government going to be dishonest with the electorate, a phrase which Mr Straw used about the Conservatives? Are they really going to claim that they have done something for the victims of crime by the introduction of this scheme today when the reality is that they have connived to maintain the tariff system that they once condemned and thereby, as I have said, to cut criminal injuries compensation by half the projected figures? If they attempt to claim credit for this miserly increase in the scheme, the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor. the Home Secretary and the Labour Party will do their reputations a grave disservice. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end insert "but that this House regrets that the Government have failed again to bring compensation for injury and death caused by criminal activities back up to the level of common law damages for injury and death caused by negligence, as was paid for many years under the original scheme".—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)
11.15 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as someone who, for the past 10 years, was the part-time chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board until its demise in April last year and who, since that date has, as the Minister said, accepted to sit on the board of the new authority for the purpose of clearing up those cases which the board had not dealt with but which still have to be dealt with under the provisions of the old scheme. I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks.
Yesterday I voted against the ban on hunting because I do not believe it is cruel and I do not believe in cruelty. Therefore, knowing that the Minister has sat here from 2.30 this afternoon, solidly answering every debate, I shall try to be reasonably brief in my remarks on the draft scheme, some of which are critical, some welcoming.
I start by referring to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who was a distinguished member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. There is no doubt that, from the point of view of the victim, the previous non-statutory scheme paying common law damages was far more favourable than the scheme we have today, for two reasons. First,
232
as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas said, the level of common law damages is higher than the figures that we see in the tariff today. One only has to look at the JSB guidelines, which are now treated as a bible by those who work in the courts, to see that at almost every level the figures of awards advised as suitable for common law damages are higher than those given in the tariff. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, of its very nature the tariff cannot take account of the different effects of similar injuries on different people.
I have slightly different quotes to those used by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. However, I share his view of the real hypocrisy of the Government who, having attacked the introduction of the scheme as they did in opposition, now put it forward as a scheme of which they are proud and which they claim to improve. They are now putting forward a scheme which they opposed and voted against, not only at Second Reading, but at Third Reading in the House of Commons. Having looked back on those debates, the basis on which they voted against it at Second Reading was, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas said, that it was accused of being based upon cutting the cost of compensating the victims of crime and at Third Reading because it provided for a tariff system in respect of criminal injuries without flexibility to deal with special cases. They criticised in particular the fact that the Government were introducing a scheme with awards which were three years out of date by inflation terms without any arrangements for updating, with the implication that it should be updated on an annual basis.
Yet the Government are now introducing a scheme which in reality, as regards the figures in the tariff and despite today's increase, is lower in value than the awards given for individual injuries when the scheme was introduced. However, one must be realistic and face the fact that it is not possible to return to the original common law damages scheme.
The reason I say that is to be found in Annex B of the consultative paper put out by the Government on this issue. It relates to the volume of applications made to the board. Perhaps I may give one or two examples. I became chairman in 1990. In the year 1990–91, there were 51,000 applications at a cost of £109 million in compensation. By 1995–96, when Mr Michael Howard introduced the Bill in another place, there was an increase in the number of applications to 75,000 and in the amount of compensation to £179 million. Today the number of applications is still higher and the amount of compensation is £205 million. I accept that the Government are entitled to examine the cost of the scheme.
Going back to 1980, there were 24,000 applications and £21 million was paid in compensation. In 1970, there were 7,000 applications and £20 million was paid in compensation. In the scheme's first year in operation, in 1965–66, there were 2,500 applications and £403,000 was paid in compensation. I realise that with that growth in the volume of applications it is

233
impossible to assess each case individually in the way we were assessing them: each being examined individually by a qualified lawyer.
Although I have no doubt that the scheme gave greater benefit in the end to the victim, I accept that changes had to be made. That is why, unlike the Government, we did not oppose the scheme which was eventually put before Parliament. What we as a board opposed was Mr Michael Howard's initial proposals. They were defeated legally on appeal before the Law Lords in the House of Lords. The scheme which he proposed would have made savings entirely at the cost of those who had been worst injured.
Eventually, when the scheme presented to Parliament by the government of the day avoided that effect, it was inevitable and necessary that we should move at least in part to a tariff scheme.
Here I join forces with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Having moved to a tariff scheme and cut the link with common law damages, both we and victims are entitled to expect that the Government will not preside over a scheme where in real terms the value of awards to individuals for injuries steadily decreases. That is the effect of the Motion that is before us tonight. Although the scheme was introduced in 1996, it was accepted that the figures provided by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board's computer in 1994 were already two years out of date. Since then there have been four or five years of inflation. The 10 per cent increase in overall expenditure by the Government, which I accept for the purposes of the argument, does not begin to match inflation over the period. In terms of value, the amounts proposed are less than when the scheme was introduced under such criticism from the then opposition, now the Government, in 1996.
Further, tonight we are debating figures which the Government intend should last for the next few years. Therefore, as inflation continues, the value of awards will drop. The answer is that in real terms we are spending less, and intend to spend less in future, without any assurance from the Government that the scheme will be reviewed and revalued. Nor do I understand why the lower levels of compensation—any award up to £2,500—have been left out of any increase. Clearly, the value of awards at that level has dropped in real terms since 1994. The awards tend to be for temporary rather than permanent injuries and relate to the very people who miss out because the Government. do not compensate for the first 28 weeks of any unemployment. Therefore, in making an increase to take account of the fall in the value of money over the period, which is presumably the intention, it is wrong to leave out a large proportion of those people who receive lesser awards. I have no doubt that that is because of the Government's desire to reduce the cost of the scheme.
I turn from my critical remarks about the proposals for the tariff to one or two changes to the scheme itself. Some are simply clearing-up measures which are obviously welcome. I believe that three of them are of importance. I entirely welcome the proposal to make
234
it clear that in future the authority has the right to make a non-exhaustive trust where a large sum of money may be given for the future care of a person who, sadly, dies. At the moment the money goes to dependants irrespective of their relationship to the individual rather than back to the state, which I believe is perfectly reasonable.
I welcome that in part the Government are to put right the total nonsense or iniquity, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, of the situation that arises in multiple injury claims which led to the publicity in the case of Miss Potts and others. The scheme provides that, for multiple injuries, the individual receives 100 per cent for the first injury, 10 per cent for the second and 5 per cent for the third. Therefore, one ends up with the ridiculous situation where for serious scarring of a person's face there is an award of £750 because it is the second injury, so one receives only one-tenth of its value. The Government have increased the scheme payments from 100 per cent, 10 per cent and 5 per cent to 100 per cent, 30 per cent and 15 per cent. Frankly, I still do not believe that that is enough. I believe that for the second injury one should have gone to 50 per cent. But I ask more than that. I ask why, where there are injuries which are totally discrete and which do not relate to one another, is there a case for having any reduction at all?
Perhaps I may put it to the Minister that one matter that might be considered seriously in the longer term is to review the working of the scheme to see whether certain cases which raise problems of this kind can he referred directly to the panel, who are all experienced lawyers and well conversant with personal injury work, as against being decided first under the tariff. If one could get some hybridity into the scheme it would be to the great advantage of victims of crime.
Funnily enough, no comment has been made about the third point that I want to raise. As the Minister knows, tucked away in the scheme is a new power. That is a right to withdraw or reduce an award where the member of the staff—that is what it is in the tariff situation—believes that the excessive consumption of alcohol contributed to the circumstances which gave rise to the injury and therefore that should lead to a reduction in the award made.
I hope that the Minister will explain to this House how that power is intended to work. At the moment the scheme provides that one is entitled to take into account the conduct of an individual. Therefore, if someone because of his alcoholic state chooses to pick a fight or get involved in an argument with someone which when sober he would not do, then that is clearly conduct which can be, and is, taken into account, in deciding whether he has justified any award at all, or at least a reduced award. But what does it mean when, totally unconnected with a person's conduct, the board is entitled to reduce or refuse an award because the person is affected by excessive consumption of alcohol? Does that mean that the happy drunk—if I may use that phrase—going perfectly quietly home without causing trouble to anyone who is then mugged

235
on the street should have his award reduced although he himself in his own conduct has done nothing wrong?
That issue needs to be thought through. We looked at it on many occasions. The fact is that alcohol which leads to an individual causing or putting himself in a situation where he is in part responsible for what happens can be covered by conduct. All we are doing here is saying that one need not give an award to anyone who is thought to have had too much to drink although that drink has had nothing to do with the injury which he has sustained.
I accept that the tariff scheme means that the Government decide what the country can afford to spend on compensating the victims of crime. The Government must accept that the scheme that they are putting forward tonight does not, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has pointed out, enable them to claim that they are increasing the volume when in practice, in real terms, they are reducing that volume.
What is being done is a move in the right direction. It should have been done earlier. There were four years in which some obvious anomalies could have been corrected. I believe that we should have an undertaking from the Minister that in future the scheme will be reviewed on a regular basis rather than merely just before the date of an approaching general election. We should look further than that and see whether we can make changes to the scheme which, by making it basically a tariff scheme but with a hybrid side that allows some cases to be looked at individually—it could be contrived in that way—would enormously help the average victim of crime.
I apologise to the House. I have spoken for far longer than I should. I apologise for the cruelty that I may have caused to the Minister.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlisle for speaking with such clarity and expertise. I am also grateful for the length of his speech because it enables me to say that my noble friend asked all the important questions that needed to be asked of the Minister and asked them with much greater understanding and clarity than I could have managed. My noble friend showed quite early on in his speech that when those in opposition find themselves in government they find that the dead hand of the Treasury squashes all their fine aspirations.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, drew attention to the anomalies of the system and referred in particular to the award to Lisa Potts. Do the Government think that that award was fair? They have come forward with a scheme. Have they done so because of that award? Some newspapers assume that that is the case. Was that one of the reasons? Can the Minister give an assurance that the kind of anomalies that have happened in the past will not happen following the introduction of the scheme today? Will raising the tariff by 10 per cent achieve what it is meant to achieve? From what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and by my noble friend, it is clear that
236
it will not. It is not enough money and it will not make a large difference. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
I want to ask one more question. However, before I do so, I should like to say something on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young. If my noble friend were present she would be somewhat surprised and perhaps horrified by paragraph 38 of the scheme, which extends the awards to same sex partners.
As your Lordships will know, Dr Shipman was convicted of a number of murders and the police and the Crown Prosecution Service consider that there may be many more cases. There is a difficulty in bring further prosecutions. Where the police consider that there is a case but for various reasons do not proceed. those affected are having difficulty getting compensation. There is a problem in obtaining evidence and corroboration of that evidence. The Minister may not be able to deal with that detailed point today, but I should be grateful if he could look into it and perhaps write to me.
From this Bench, as in another place, we give a general welcome to the scheme. However, as always, I have to say that it is not quite enough and it is a little too late.
11.40 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the points raised and I shall try to respond as fully as I can. We consulted closely with those involved in the scheme and have taken account of their views. The changes that the Government are inviting Parliament to make represent some far-reaching improvements to what is already probably the most generous scheme in the world. Experience of running the tariff scheme has demonstrated that it is achieving its twin objectives of making costs more consistent and predictable as well as providing a better service to victims. Victims get their money more quickly, with greater transparency. Furthermore, there is less scope for misunderstanding about how much money they might get.
For those reasons, the tariff scheme is here to stay. I do not believe that there is any real prospect of going back to the old arrangements. Indeed, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, agreed with that, much as he may have disagreed with the way in which we are approaching this matter. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, also sees little prospect of our returning to the old arrangements, even though he saw them as being far more generous than the current scheme. He predicted that that would be the case. However, it would be far too costly for a state scheme funded by the taxpayer. Furthermore, a system of refined, individual assessment dealing with as many as 80,000 applications a year would require a greatly inflated bureaucracy to achieve acceptable levels of speed and efficiency.
Any compensation scheme dependent on public funds must strike a balance between the needs of the victim and the interests of the taxpayer. It is inevitable that there will always be a measure of argument and

237
dispute as regards where that balance should be struck. However, a state compensation scheme funded by the taxpayer cannot reasonably be expected to match the damages awarded in the civil courts where personal or corporate liability has to be established. The state is not liable for the criminal acts of others and a victim can always sue an offender if there is a reasonable prospect of securing damages.
The scheme no longer aims to provide individually tailored compensation covering each and every element of damage that might be awarded in a successful civil suit. That said, awards made under the tariff in many areas are broadly consistent with the guidelines drawn up by the Judicial Studies Board, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, for the assessment of personal injury damages in the courts. Furthermore, victims are free to pursue their attacker if known and if it is worthwhile.
In truth, with hand on heart, I do not believe that there ever can be a right amount of compensation. People often comment that no amount of money can compensate for the hurt, loss or damage that they have suffered. One suggestion put forward in the consultation paper was that the lower tariff should be cut out altogether so that larger compensation could be paid to the more seriously injured victims. However, I have to say that there was very little support for that proposition.
The simple fact is that, last year, the scheme paid out over £206 million to over 43,000 victims. The average award was over £4,700. As I have mentioned, our scheme is probably the most comprehensive and undoubtedly the most generous to be found anywhere in the world. We pay out more than all the other schemes in Europe added together. It is worth reiterating that point. Those who criticise our scheme perhaps should bear in mind that, under many schemes abroad, victims receive far less or even no compensation at all for their pain and suffering.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, made the point that, when in opposition, we opposed the introduction of the tariff scheme. But we and others, including Victim Support, have since changed our minds about its merits. That may not be a defence that people will readily accept, but it is frequently the case that when an opposition comes to government and has full command of the facts and circumstances surrounding key issues, they take a different view. We are entitled to do so from time to time and it is important that that is recognised.
Noble Lords made a number of points. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested that there was a cap on spending. As far as I am concerned, there is no cap on spending, but we obviously provide an estimate in the expenditure plans of what we expect to spend on the scheme. It is worth saying in response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that in 1999–2000, 85 per cent of tariff scheme cases were settled within 12 months compared to only 44 per cent within 12 months in the
238
last year of the old scheme. That demonstrates one of the important changes in the scheme to bring greater efficiency and speed of resolution.
It is also worth saying to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that loss of earnings and special care dependency are assessed individually within the scheme, and the issues of pain and suffering are covered by the tariff. So those issues are reflected in the way in which the scheme works.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised a more general issue about victims, and, I think, tried to chide the Government by criticising our approach. He suggested that some of our promises on behalf of victims were rather more wordy and vacuous than was the reality. I cannot accept that. We have a very good record on supporting victims and ensuring that they get justice within the criminal justice system. Since 1997, we have doubled the grant to the voluntary sector organisation, Victim Support, from £11.7 million to £25 million per year. This has enabled Victim Support to introduce a national telephone helpline for victims and a witness support service in the magistrates' courts to complement the service already provided in the Crown Courts. In addition, it has provided many other improvements to services generally.
In October 2001, victims' personal statements will be introduced to enable those who have suffered from crime to explain more personally its effects, in their own words, to decision makers within the criminal justice system. That is a welcome reform and has attracted widespread support.
The changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme we have been debating mean that about £20 million more each year will be paid to the victims of violent crime. On 27th February, the Home Secretary launched a consultation paper to review the Victims Charter and to seek improvements. The paper seeks views on the issues, among others, of the establishment of a statutory right for victims and the introduction of a victims' ombudsman. All of those proposals have been widely welcomed.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, made reference to the settlement for Lisa Potts. It is perhaps worth reflecting that Lisa Potts would have received some 19 per cent more under the revised scheme. That is a reflection of the seriousness with which we take these issues and the way in which we want to achieve further improvements.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said. His comments were very helpful. In fact, both noble Lords who have a long involvement in the running of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme made important points, which I shall study at some greater length.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said that three of the four main changes to the scheme were very welcome. I am grateful to him for that. He suggested that we should perhaps have a more regular review of the way in which the scheme operates. Certainly, we shall undertake to review the scheme—it will require to be reviewed at fairly regular

239
intervals—to ensure that it accurately matches the demands and rigours of the criminal justice system and gives fair consideration to victims. That relates to the earlier point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that victims are entitled to expect that a government will not preside over a scheme which is devalued over time. That is an important issue and one of which we must take careful cognisance.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised a specific point about the Shipman cases. In fairness to the question, I do not think that I can give a reasoned response across the Dispatch Box. However, I take the point. I undertake to try to ascertain what difficulties are being experienced. Obviously, it is distressing to those involved and I do not want to see that distress continued if there is something that the Government can do to ensure that those who are caught up in the horrific murders perpetrated by Shipman are properly and fairly treated.
It is important to bear in mind that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is one of the most generous and comprehensive in the world—a fact that is often overlooked, particularly by media critics. There is no right amount of compensation. The Government have listened carefully to the comments and criticisms made in relation to the scheme, and we have listened throughout the process of consultation. We want to ensure that we make best use of the available resources to provide more compensation where it is most needed. It is for those reasons that we have made specific changes to the scheme.
It would be wrong of me not to pick up the reflection made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I know that if the noble Baroness were present she would make the point that he made across the Dispatch Box. I should say to her, as I say to the noble Viscount, that I profoundly disagree with her view. I believe that the way in which we are extending the scheme to cover homosexual and lesbian partners is right in modern times. The appalling attack on the Admiral Duncan pub gives expression to why that should be the case.
I commend the proposed improvements to the House. They have received support—and criticism; I acknowledge that. I invite your Lordships to approve the draft alterations to the scheme.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his careful response to the points made by myself and other speakers. I commend the noble Lord on his tenacity in "sticking it out" until this time, clearly suffering from the same kind of cold from which I am suffering. We shall not allow our germs to mingle across the Chamber, not even through the air.
I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, for his wise and considered counsel, derived from many years of experience. The noble Lord reminded me that I should have declared an interest as a member of the board until 1993. I resigned on the day the tariff scheme was introduced. I have always regarded it as a matter of principle and I hope I have reflected that in my remarks.
240
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, made reference to the gap that is opening up between the £260 million projected five years ago and the £205 million that is actually paid at the present time; and to the gap that exists between the projected £460 million of general damages and that same low figure today. The noble Lord was saying that the value of the awards is going down and down. I should like in particular to pick up his point that the revision of the scheme now is lo last for however many years in the future, while inflation continues to weaken the value of the awards. Therefore, we have a scheme that is not even static; it is moving downwards.
Perhaps I may also support the comments that the noble Lord made regarding the need for a regular review. It was in September 1998 that Mr Straw said that he was going to review the scheme, but that was in response to pressure from the press as a result of the Lisa Potts award, and other matters that were publicised at that time. It has taken until now for anything to be done. If the Government were to give us an undertaking that the scheme will be looked at on a regular three-year basis, they would do a great deal to rehabilitate themselves in my eyes. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Detention Centre Rules 2001
11.55 p.m.
Lord Aveburyrose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules, laid before the House on 6th February, be annulled (S.I. 2001/238).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my warm gratitude to those who have stayed until this late hour to discuss a vitally important subject; namely, the new detention centre rules that were laid before the House at the end of February. I take it that it is common ground between us that asylum seekers who are not accused of any criminal offence ought not to be held in prison; and that they should only be detained where removal is imminent, to clarify the applicant's identity or the basis of his claim, or, indeed, where there is a reasonable belief that the person will abscond; and that, where a person needs to be detained, that period of detention should be for the shortest possible time.
On the basis of those principles, the Government rightly decided to provide a network of purpose-built detention centres for asylum seekers, and others, who need to be held under the immigration Acts, and to design a set of rules for those establishments that would take into account the very different circumstances of asylum seekers from those of ordinary criminals.
It is extremely unfortunate that we should he considering these rules at a time when the number of people in detention has reached an all-time record. There were 920 in prison at the end of January, as well

241
as another 414 in detention centres. The Government say that that is a necessary short-term measure to achieve an increase in the number of people deported from 12,000 in the current year to 30,000 in the year 2001–02. In order to achieve that aim, they calculate that they need a total of 2,700 places in the detention estate.
In the early summer of this year, Yarl's Wood near Bedford, the new Harmondsworth and Dungavel in Scotland will be completed, thus providing an extra 1,490 places. The Minister, Barbara Roche, has said that the need to allow these centres to build up to their full complement means that,
"the Prison Service has had to provide a further 500 places for immigration detainees until October 2001".
I hope that the Minister will be able to give an undertaking that, as soon as the three new centres are in full operation—by 1st October at the latest, the date mentioned by the Government—the maximum number of detainees in prison will revert to its former level of 500.
Another 300 places were to be provided at Aldington, which is on hold because of cases in the Judicial Committee on the compatibility of the planning inquiry process with the Human Rights Act. I suggest that it might be wise to use the A ldington land for another purpose, such as housing, and to look for an alternative site for this centre elsewhere; for example, on surplus Ministry of Defence land to which there might be no objection. Indeed, there are many places along the south coast where such land might be found. With another 300 places, can the Minister say whether the Government still consider that they will be able to eliminate the use of prisons, except for occasional short-term detention and those being deported at the end of a prison sentence? Further, can the Minister say on what total number of applications a year the calculation is based?
I turn now to the rules. It is a pity that we did not have the discussion promised by the Minister on the Floor of the House on 30th November last. We were to have a discussion with the agencies and officials to consider the latest draft, which was to be the final version. Although I acknowledge that changes have been made in response to the representations made by the agencies, there were still many points that ought to have been ironed out before presenting the rules to the House. If that had been done, we might not have needed the debate this evening. I reject the Minister's excuse that such a meeting would have caused further delay because in the 15 days that it took him to reply to my letter we could have had that meeting. The rules were in fact not laid before Parliament until nine weeks after I had responded to the Minister's invitation to call his office to arrange that meeting.
The points which the agencies would have liked to raise, if a meeting had been possible, were numerous and important. I have made available to the Minister copies of the papers we had in preparation for this debate from the Refugee Council, the Medical Foundation and AVID. I shall only be able to mention a few of the points that they raised. I hope that the
242
Minister will be good enough to let me have a response to all of the matters that are not covered in this debate in due course.
I gather that Mr David Wilson, the former governor of Highdown, is to be the new director of detention centres. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm his appointment. When will he assume responsibility for Haslar, which at present is a prison, and the immigration wing of Lindholme? Will Oakington come under his jurisdiction and will it be subject to the new rules? How do the Government intend to fulfil the undertaking given in paragraph 12.13 of the White Paper to ensure that where prisons hold significant numbers of immigration detainees in specialist units, the facilities mirror the more relaxed regimes in detention centres?
The most unsatisfactory feature of the consultation on the rules is that many important matters are left to be dealt with by the operating standards, a form of tertiary legislation over which Parliament has no control, any more than we do in the case of the prisons. But in the prisons there are existing mechanisms whereas the standards for detention centres are all to be determined from first principles. I am glad that the Minister has promised the Asylum Rights Campaign that he will consult on the standards and I should be grateful if he would also agree to put copies of the drafts in the Library so that, where appropriate, your Lordships can also make observations on them.
There are several key areas where it would have been desirable to spell out what is intended in the rules: the rights of detainees to information in a language they understand; the need for access to medical care including external medical services; the conduct of proceedings which may lead to loss of privileges or removal from association; the facilitation of religious practices and the regulation of members of visiting committees to take a few examples.
The visiting committees are the equivalent of boards of visitors in prisons and many of the provisions of the prison rules have just been read across verbatim. For instance, the members in each case are required to undergo training laid down by the Secretary of State, but the scope and length of the training are unspecified. In the case of the prisons there is only minimal training in the Human Rights and Race Relations Acts which are particularly important in the case of detention centres where, by definition, the vast majority of the detainees will belong to ethnic minorities.
As in the prisons, the visiting committee has the duty of hearing any complaint or request a detained person wishes to make, and presumably its members would take up with the manager any complaint or request they think justified. It is not clear whether the committee has any role in regard to forfeiture of privileges which may be imposed by the manager in his absolute discretion where an inmate has not met specified standards of behaviour which are to be defined in a "compact" written by the Secretary of State. In the prison rules, forfeiture of privileges and cellular confinement are described as "governor's

243
punishments" and they are only meted out after the prisoner has had a chance to contest any allegations made against him. Whether Article 6 of the Human Rights convention would come into play on these penalties for minor disciplinary offences has yet to be tested by the courts, but a more serious question mark arises over the practice of shipping a detainee from a detention centre to a prison without any due process whatever. I suggest that the visiting committees should be given oversight of these decisions because the power is capable of being abused. We know of cases where it has been abused.
Under Rule 19(2) it would be possible for the manager to add arbitrarily to the rules of behaviour and then to withdraw privileges from any inmate who failed to observe these additional standards, apparently with no procedural safeguards whatsoever. The manager also has power to order a detainee's removal from association in the interests of security or safety and his confinement in special accommodation where he is violent or refractory. The visiting committee is given a power equivalent to Rule 48(2) of the Prison Rules to give directions in writing ordering the confinement to extend beyond 24 hours. This is one of the few departures from the prison model. In the prisons, a person who is not satisfied with the response to a complaint that he makes to a board of visitors can take up the matter with the Prisons Ombudsman. Has the immigration detainee that right? If not, is there any other authority to whom he can apply outside the detention system?
The other day we agreed that the triennial review system for the boards of visitors was severely flawed. We were looking forward to the report by Sir Peter Lloyd on the regulation of boards of visitors. In these rules, we have exactly the same provisions regarding the termination of appointments of members of the visiting committee either at the triennial review or at other times. But whether the procedural safeguards about which we spoke in relation to Haslar, PSO 1300 or DC4/99, operate as regards visiting committees is not clear. I shall be grateful if the Minister will say what procedural standards will apply with regard to termination of appointments of visiting committee members either during their term of office or at the triennial review.
I was glad to note that the rules acknowledge the need to ensure that,
"the practice of religion in detention centres shall take account of the diverse cultural and religious background of detained persons".
They place the onus on the detainee, however, to come forward and declare that he belongs to a particular religion whereas under Section 10(5) of the Prison Act the governor has to ascertain every inmate's religion and keep a record of it. Many asylum seekers would not be aware that by not making a declaration under Rule 21 they could be deprived of the spiritual and pastoral care which is everyone's right.
The Secretary of State has the power to appoint a visiting minister of a particular religion to a detention centre where the number of detainees justifies it. That is a copy of Section 10(1) of the Prison Act and is an
244
example of the problems which can arise when those provisions are adopted without thinking about the differences between the two types of institution. The population of detention centres will vary more widely from time to time than the equivalent in the prisons. Therefore, visiting ministers should he appointed to cover all the religions of the main countries of origin at each centre whether or not there happen to be any detainees of a particular religion there at any one time.
The method of appointing visiting ministers is not defined. The "manager of religious affairs" presumably acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, but he obviously should take advice from the authorities of each religion. If this is to be in the operating standards, the wording should be agreed with those authorities, and a consultative mechanism similar to the prisons' Advisory Group on Religions should be established. Unfortunately. even this does not solve the problem of irritating and arbitrary differences between one establishment and another about what religious objects prisoners are allowed to have in their possession. It would be useful to ensure that the practice is uniform through the detention estate.
This, like so many other important questions about how the centres will be run, is left to operating standards which are not subject to parliamentary approval. In an ideal world, there should be scrutiny by a Select Committee of all operating standards in closed institutions—prisons, YOIs, special hospitals, detention centres and secure units. As it is, we can look at the standards only after something has gone wrong. In the hope that some of the problems that may otherwise occur in detention centres may be avoided, I urge the Minister to pay greater attention to the concerns expressed by the agencies and by your Lordships in this debate, and to see that the consultations on the standards are as wide and as open as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules, laid before the House on 6th February, be annulled (S.I. 2001/238).—(Lord Avebury.)
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we last debated the immigration detention centre rules, and in particular the check-list, in November 1999, during the final stages of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. On Report, several of us argued for full written reasons for detention. In his response, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said:
"that detailed check-list will be tailored to individual circumstances and to relevant exceptions".—[Official Report, 20/10/99; col. 897.]
I registered concern on Third Reading that, despite that assurance, the new form, now known as IS91R, supplied in the Immigration Service publication, New Detention: New Forms and New Procedures, did not even allow space for a specific reference to the special needs of the individual.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave a further assurance in his reply that he accepted the points made. He said that the instructions

245
would be reviewed and he hoped that the form would be amended. I acknowledge that, as a result of our amendments, the Home Office has attempted to improve the rules, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, but the advice of those officially consulted on the form has thus far been ignored. It is hard to believe that nothing has happened since the passing of the Act and the consultation, which closed on 21st January last year.
The form is the only document that is made available to the detainee at the moment of his or her detention. It is crucial to that person's future that the form contains the correct information, yet, as it is only a check-list, it does not even give the real reasons, let alone the circumstances of the individual. Research shows that even immigration officers find it difficult to take the form seriously and have tried to adapt it by including relevant information themselves. Combined with the initial fears and language problems usually encountered in first interviews, that often means that the true circumstances of a person's asylum and even their physical condition may be concealed. If asylum seekers are denied that critical opportunity on arrival, no wonder so many of them and their representatives have struggled to demonstrate their case in the months that follow. They may also be conditioned by officials in the country of their persecution to accept forms at face value without questioning what they contain.
In many, perhaps most, cases, asylum seekers do not understand the reasons for their detention. Evidence suggests that, perhaps because of the form, those reasons are not explained to them. In other words, form IS91R is not just inadequate, it prevents understanding and circumvents any meaningful exchange about the genuine needs of the detainee. I shall discount any argument that the Home Office is deliberately creating a Kafkaesque regime to deter asylum seekers, or even that it is pleading, as it has, stretched resources leading to difficulties in producing a form. There is no doubt that even at this late stage it can be improved within the operating standards if the Home Office takes proper account of the evidence from the relevant organisations. I fully support what others have said about the need for proper communications, especially on health issues. Those arguments have been clearly expressed by specialist agencies such as the Medical Foundation.
The rules still do not set out the rights of detainees to have oral interpretation in their dealings with detention centre staff. Nor do they allow for medical consultations where clear communication is essential for the doctor to understand the problem and for the patient or detainee to understand and accept the treatment prescribed. Will the Minister confirm that there will be specific provision in the operating standards for the appropriate training of medical personnel and other staff who can address the relevant health issues in every individual case?
I understand from a new survey of asylum seekers by the Medical Foundation that evidence of torture is not always picked up by medical examinations and that, even when such evidence is found, asylum seekers
246
continue to be held in detention after several months. As we have heard, many are detained in prison and are therefore not subject to the rules, which means that they suffer more deprivation than their rather less unfortunate colleagues.
I remind the Minister that the detention of asylum seekers for long periods, whether in prison or detention centres, is unacceptable to a large number of people in this country. It is regularly and specifically denounced by Ministers, including in the Government's White Paper. In his Written Answer to me on 8th March (WA 35) the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, gave no assurance that detention would not last longer than 12 months. In fact, he implied that it could continue for much longer. When, a few days ago, I looked at col. 216W of Commons Hansard of 21st March, I learned that the longest period in detention is now more than 600 days. As to the average length of detention, the Minister could provide no information.
For a Labour Government who espouse ethical standards, that reply is astonishing and appears to contravene all international conventions, let alone the advice of successive inspectors of prisons. Therefore, I hope that today the Minister can give us assurances on those points.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I shall be brief. I rise in support of the Prayer moved by my noble friend Lord Avebury which seeks to annul the Detention Centre Rules laid before the House on 6th February. My reason for speaking in this debate is that I have serious concerns regarding the interpretation of some of the rules and the difficulties that a number of organisations have had in their consultation with the Home Office.
First, I want to say clearly that, although we remain fundamentally opposed to the detention of asylum seekers, we accept that detention may be necessary in exceptional circumstances if the legal process of claiming asylum has been fully exhausted, including appeals as well as judicial review, and if there is prima facie evidence that an asylum seeker may abscond. In such cases, obviously detention should be used only for short periods of time when removal is fairly imminent.
The UNHCR has consistently condemned what it calls the UK's "routine use of detention". It believes that the detention of asylum seekers is inherently undesirable. Detention for reasons other than those outlined in the detention guidelines, such as part of a policy to deter future asylum seekers, is, according to the UNHCR,
"contrary to the norms of refugee law".
Detention is obviously very expensive. The Government estimate that a policy of detaining all asylum seekers on arrival, ignoring the legal and moral arguments as to whether that is possible, could amount to £2 billion in start-up costs, with annual running costs of more than £1 billion.

247
However, the detention of people who have fled persecution and have committed no crime also carries a high mental welfare cost for detainees. A number of studies have been carried out, particularly projects in relation to the mental health implications of the detention of asylum seekers. It has been found that the most stressful aspect of detention is the information vacuum. I believe that that is where some of the rules that have been set out could be more helpful.
We should bear in mind that the longest period of detention—that of an asylum seeker who is currently detained under Immigration Act powers and has been detained since his arrival in the United Kingdom on 30th July 1999—is more than 600 days.
A matter of concern to me was a press release which I picked up this morning, issued by the Home Office. For a moment, I believed that it answered the prayers of my noble friend Lord Avebury. Unfortunately that was not so. First, the press release talked about effect returns of 30,000 failed asylum seekers. Then it talked about voluntary returns at the end of the asylum process. Then it talked of creating 1,800 new detention spaces to facilitate removals.
There are some good aspects of the press release and we welcome them, especially the mention of an anti-trafficking unit to crack down on criminals involved in the illegal smuggling and trafficking of people. We certainly welcome the process of faster decisions, provided they do not breach the rules of natural justice. More importantly, we welcome the development of strategies to help successful applicants to integrate into our society. But where, I ask, are the reforms of the detention rules?
The impression that we get is that asylum will be a hot issue in the coming general election. The emphasis on detaining and deporting asylum seekers, rather than on examining some of our practices, could damage our civilised values. I draw the Minister's attention to some anomalies and the lack of consultation that there has been on some of the changes. I draw attention in particular to the Government's White Paper, which states:
"The Government has welcomed the views of Her Majesty's Chief inspector of Prisons and others and, as resources become available, is committed to pursuing a strategy of detaining in dedicated detention and holding centres, not prisons".
We should examine the situation in Haslar Prison, which we debated recently. Although Haslar holds only immigration detainees, it continues to be designated as a prison and still runs under prison rules. A similar situation applies elsewhere. Such institutions are being used as prisons and operate under prison rules. In November, the Government announced their intention of increasing by 500 the number of those detained in prison under the Immigration Act; now we know that the relevant figure is more than 1,800.
When will the Government redesignate Haslar Prison as a detention centre? When will they designate the detention facility at Lindholme as a detention centre? How will they ensure that all those who are detained under the Immigration Act will be treated in accordance with the standards that are set out in the rules?
248
I do not wish to cause the Minister embarrassment, but I was grateful to him for being good enough to admit to a couple of errors when we last debated the situation in Haslar. First, I welcome his assurance that immigration detainees in prisons will no longer be subject to drug testing. I hope that that it so; the practice would break all rules governing the treatment of immigration detainees were it to continue. A second point on which the Minister was at fault, but through no fault of his own—perhaps he had misread his information or the brief with which he was supplied—involved the position of the members of the hoards of visitors. He said that one of those members had been appointed to another board, but in fact he was appointed to a probation committee. That does not matter very much, and I thank the Minister for giving us the information and for correcting it at the first available opportunity.
I want to raise another matter with the Minister. It involves the forms and guidance notes, which have already been discussed by noble Lords. We are concerned about the contents of the special needs section of form IS91 and about the guidance that is given. Statement 1.3 says:
"Careful consideration should be given before using this categorisation as the resources used in monitoring such detainees are expensive".
That appears to be irresponsible in respect of some of the categories that are listed as special needs, notably suicide risk, those with medical problems, the disabled, minors, pregnant women and those refusing food and fluids. There has been an inordinate delay following the consultation period and we should like to know when the Home Office intends to amend the forms and guidance notes. At the very least, it should write to those organisations that raised objections and explain why the documentation has not been changed.
Noble Lords have already discussed other rules, so I shall not delay the House further. I hope that the Minister will take into account representations that have been made by various bodies and that the Government will deal with them. I hope that he will place a copy of his reply in the Library so that we can refer to the action that has been taken.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion that was moved by my noble friend Lord Avebury on the issue of detention rules. I want to underline some of the questions to which we should be grateful to have replies from the Minister.
My noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Ave bury drew attention to the disturbing tendency of increasing the number of detainees held in prisons. My first question is about whether it is correct that substantial numbers of detainees will be sent to Winchester Prison and to Cardiff Prison, both of which are relatively overcrowded local prisons. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government expect to continue to use such prisons during the next six months or so as the new detention centres are built?
Secondly, in that respect, in relation to the commitment in the White Paper as regards substantial numbers of immigration detainees being held in

249
prison, will the Minister confirm that they will be subject to the detention centre rules rather than to the much tougher prison rules?
In a letter from the Minister dated 14th March, Paul Boateng specifically says that asylum seekers are detained,
"only as a last resort and for the shortest possible period".
The Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture, in a special survey of a group of people about whom it was concerned as possible victims of torture, showed that the average length of stay of members of that group was of the order of seven-and-a-half months. My noble friend and others quoted periods of over a year-and-a-half that at least one or two detainees had spent in prison. That clearly contradicts the recommendation of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the indication laid down in the draft directive proposed by the European Union for a common asylum policy. In our view it would be extremely embarrassing if the United Kingdom was not able to meet even the minimum rules that are to be applied to other EU countries under the draft directive. Those clearly indicate that detention should be a last resort for asylum seekers in any EU country. Yet in this country it seems clear that the proportion of detainees being held in prisons or detention centres for long periods of time is steadily growing and not declining.
One of the great worries about detainees who have committed no offence of any kind recognised in English law is that they are subject to prison rules which, for example, severely limit the amount of their association with others; indicate that the amount of time they can spend outside their cells is much less than the average 11.5 per day quoted by Mr Boateng for detention centres; and, most disturbingly, in some cases means that they do not have access to lawyers, or to telephones or other means of obtaining legal representation. That puts them at a huge disadvantage when it comes to being represented at appeal or for other purposes. It means that in many cases appeals are dismissed because the appellant is not present and there is no legal representative. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to say—if he cannot tell us now, perhaps he will write—what proportion of people who appeal have their appeals dismissed simply on the grounds that they or their legal representative are not present.
I want to underline the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. When will the new forms, about which consultation continued until 21st January this year, be issued and how far will they reflect the representations made by the non-governmental organisations? In particular, the noble Earl raised the issue of the information to be made available to detainees in their own languages and asked whether, where no assurance had been given, that lacuna will be dealt with in the operating standards which are not subject to accountability to Parliament in the way the rules are. I mention in particular the issues of information; the presence of interpreters, not only when the original basis for questioning detainees
250
arises, but also to explain such issues as the need for an initial examination; and the specific medical requirements that may exist among detainees.
In that respect perhaps I can ask the Minister two direct questions about the rules as they currently stand. Can he explain, under rule 33(4) how far the medical confidentiality of conversations and treatment between doctor and patient is protected? The Minister will know that the new phraseology is somewhat less tight than the original phraseology. Can he assure us that where a detainee wants to see a doctor other than the one at the centre, whatever the reason, that it is not possible for that request to be vetoed? Again, it is not clear from the discussions whether or not that is the case. Time after time we on these Benches, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, have repeatedly asked for and received reassurances from Ministers that wherever possible where there is clear evidence that people are victims of torture they will not be detained. Can he assure us that that will continue to be respected?
Rule 35(3) indicates that cases of victims of torture, or those who allege that they have been tortured, should lead to a report to the manager of the detention centre or the prison, as the case may be. However, Ministers who were subjected to the endless debates on this issue during the passing of the original Act of Parliament in 1999 will know that we were given many assurances that evidence of torture would be treated as a prima facie reason why detainees should not be detained for longer than the minimum necessary to establish their cause.
Finally, I draw the attention of the Minister to the deployment of refugees around the country. It is troubling that in many cases detainees are moved from one place to the other—sometimes from a detention centre to a prison, as has happened with a number of cases we know about where people have been sent to Belmarsh or Rochester from a detention centre—and quite often their legal advisers (which in some cases are organisations such as the Refugee Legal Centre, or the Immigration Advisory Service) are not informed of their movement. Consequently the link with them is broken and quite often they are not in a position to make representations at the appeal of the detainee against the refusal of the right to stay. Therefore, the appellant does not show up; the case is dismissed and the issue is regarded as concluded. Yet in some cases, indeed, in many cases, the detainee has no knowledge of all that because he has been moved and the change of address has not been made known to him, his lawyer or the immigration organisations.
I do not wish to detain the House but I should like to ask two final questions. First, when are the automatic bail provisions of the 1998 Act likely to be implemented? That would relieve the strain on prisons and detention centres. Secondly, I refer to a point raised by several noble Lords; that is, what is the length of detention of people in the first stage when they are originally being considered for leave to remain or asylum; what is the position with regard to those waiting for appeal and what is the position after appeal? Our understanding has always been that

251
people will be detained after appeal for fear that they might depart when deportation is the only alternative before them. We are disturbed by the fact that increasingly people are being detained on arrival and in some cases not being released for some months afterwards and before their case has been determined.
12.30 a.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we welcome the publication. of the rules. The Government are committed to this matter and it is helpful that the rules are published. I do not have any particular comments on them. The Minister has been asked a number of questions, which no doubt he will answer.
At present, a fundamental problem in this country is the fact that we are beset by a wave of economic migrants who all seem to wish to come to this country. Indeed, we also have a large number of refugees, many of whom are genuine.
The situation is made difficult because previously refugees were considered as such on reaching their first safe country. However, it appears that once they enter Europe they are not happy to stay in the first safe country. Instead, they show a determination to come to this country. Anyone who has seen what happens at ports and airports will accept that. We can all speculate on the reasons but we appear to have a problem in this country because of that determination. As we are beset by a wave of economic migrants, it is all the more difficult to see who are the genuine refugees and who are not.
I must give the Government some credit for recently increasing the speed of processing applications. There was a muddle not too long ago and the situation is improving. I believe that there is an argument for holding asylum seekers on arrival for a short time in order that their applications can be dealt with more quickly. I do not believe that they should be held for a long time but there should be a way of increasing the speed of processing applications. That is important because once they are dispersed in the country it is more difficult to deal with their cases. The important criterion is the speed of processing applications.
I have only one question to ask the Minister at this extremely late hour. It relates to those who have had their applications for asylum turned down and the rate of deportation. Previous figures have been depressing. Can the Minister say what progress is being made to improve the rate of deportations? Many people are still here who should have been deported and they are a strain on the welfare system and on resources.
I said that I should be brief and I have been. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in the debate and shown their usual level of expertise and a keen interest in an important policy relating to my department. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated, we have agreed the principles of what should underlie the treatment of asylum seekers in this country. I welcome his comments and the way in which the noble
252
Baroness, Lady Williams, reinforced his contribution. She emphasised that from those principles certain consequences flow in terms of the desirable way in which we may succeed in pursuing our policy.
Many questions were raised but I want first to indicate our view that we have carried out a full consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that additional time would have been advantageous. He also pointed out that he could see more useful ways in which the past few weeks might have been used. However, decisions had to be reached on the development of the new rules and he will recognise that substantial progress was made on the original draft, which was based on a set of principles more related to prison detention. There has been movement towards greeting asylum seekers within a framework of detention centres with special categorisation. That is entirely right.
I cannot provide reassurance about the speed at which we move towards a situation in which no one is held in prisons, for the simple reason that it is related to the adequacy of the accommodation as it comes on stream. But I believe that noble Lords will give the Government full credit for the fact that what is being developed is a range of new facilities which will ensure that an increasing number of places are available. It means that, regrettably, for a number of months people will still be held in prisons. The noble Baroness mentioned two specific prisons. I understand that that particular accommodation will continue to be used while the new facilities come on stream.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I shall not interrupt again. Since the Minister has told us very honestly that Cardiff, Winchester and other prisons are likely to continue to be used for this purpose, will the Home Office reconsider its own pledge in the White Paper to the effect that if a substantial number of detainees who have not committed any offence are kept in prison it is possible to apply detention rules, not prisons rules, to that group of individuals?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, where we have the ability to use specific wings of prisons to create separate facilities that is a principle to which we shall adhere and seek to develop in practice. That does not obtain across the whole range of provision at the present time, desirable though that would be. I believe the noble Baroness recognises that in circumstances where it is not possible entirely to separate the two categories, inevitably prison rules will obtain. I re-emphasise a point which I made, perhaps in a slightly inarticulate fashion, when we discussed these issues in the first debate. There is a difficulty with regard to prison rules which we all recognise are not appropriate for people who are not detained for breaking any law in this country. Unfortunately, where such detainees are obliged to be located in a prison, we cannot, because entirely separate facilities are not available, see a way to dilute prison rules which operate for the majority of people in that establishment. But the noble Baroness will recognise

253
that we seek to move as effectively as we can to reduce the number, against the background that we are not entirely masters in our own house, given the fact that the numbers of people who apply for asylum, as the noble Viscount indicated, put pressure on the system with all the strains that that imposes in terms of availability of accommodation.
However, we believe that we have made considerable progress in the development of the rules. Although I understand the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, at certain aspects of the outcome, perhaps others have responded more warmly to the changes and recognise that advances have been made. The noble Lord referred to UNHCR, which noted that many changes had been incorporated in the latest version of the rules as a result of the consultation process, and that those changes were on the whole commendable. In particular, the express inclusion of the purpose which underlies the whole document and specific rules will help to foster a more humane and balanced approach to implementation.
The UNHCR also commented favourably on the notable modifications to the language and phrasing of the rules. Their effect is to emphasise that the humanity, security and safety of detainees should be the primary consideration for the implementation of the rules. That is, therefore, a recognition of progress made, although I take on board the reservations which the noble Lord identified.
The noble Lord addressed a number of other specific points. I shall do my best to answer them. I hasten to reassure the House that, given the volume of direct questions which have been enumerated, where I am lax and fail to answer any directly, either through just missing the point or not having sufficient knowledge, I shall of course write to noble Lords. The noble Baroness very kindly indicated that in one or two areas she did not expect me at this stage to give a direct answer. I shall make sure that the information is available.
However, I do have some answers to some of the questions. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned the name of David Wilson. He is the deputy director. The new director is to be appointed shortly. I do not have a date for that appointment, but it is imminent. The new director will take up his responsibilities. Haslar will not come under his jurisdiction but Oakington will. He will be responsible for specific detention centres.
The noble Lord also asked a series of questions with regard to religious provision. We entirely accept the burden of his representation. It is entirely right that we seek to provide pastoral support appropriate to the needs of the detainees. It is recognised that the past rather more uniform provision is not appropriate with the present diversity of people. We are seeking to get as much flexibility and appropriateness as we can in that facility. That is entirely consistent with the principles that the noble Lord was adumbrating.
On the question of medical care, the issues which came out most strongly—the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, emphasised this matter—were: first, the
254
question of early examination so far as concerns torture. If the effects of torture are clearly proven, that is a very important factor to be weighed in favour of early release, because the individual concerned has clearly identified an important aspect of potential refugee status. So early medical examination is important.
Secondly, there is the issue of language and the accuracy with which such a medical examination can be carried out. I have to make the obvious point that language is a problem. We have a vast diversity of people seeking asylum who present themselves to us. The diversity is such that the language issue is very acute. We can ensure that we have interpreters to carry out the first appropriate interviews which identify potential status. We have few reservations about our ability to meet that obvious essential requirement. The issues raised today are certain stages beyond that, particularly healthcare and the choice of the individual with regard to access to other medical care and so on. That is much more difficult to arrange in two respects. We have lost a vast number of general practitioners with a competence in certain languages. How we improve the general quality of linguistic training in the UK so that more people are able to display these skills is a genuine problem. But they are not called down overnight. We are recognising problems that have not perhaps received the attention that they might have required in the past. It takes time.
Provided that the officer is assured that there are good grounds for additional medical examination and if no exorbitant cost is involved, asylum seekers can avail themselves of additional medical facilities. They can make arrangements or someone may be prepared to pay on their behalf. But it is a different matter if one says that it is automatically available against the obvious pressure on limited resources. I make the obvious point that the initial tests and examination are a firm obligation and are met as fully as we are able. I hope that I have been able to give reassurance on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the new forms that will come into use. We recognise—the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made this point—that IS91 and IS91R have their limitations. There are advantages in a clear, almost "tick box" approach towards identifying certain aspects of the asylum seeker. Therefore, there will always be aspects of these forms that have that distinctly bureaucratic nature to them. However, we are committed to introducing a more refined version in the light of the discussion and the representations that have been made. We expect to have those in place in the very near future. It is an entirely legitimate point, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, returned again today.
The noble Lord was kind enough to mention from the press releases he looked at today some aspects of the policy that represent some degree of progress. All noble Lords would share our general objective of seeking to clamp down as strongly as we can on trafficking in human beings, which everyone finds reprehensible. We do not need to quote the most extreme case of recent times, which horrified us all, but

255
we know that it goes on to a degree. It is enormously important that we get a grip on it. I am grateful for the noble Lord's welcome to that aspect of our policy.
I tread on thin ice again this evening—I have no doubt that I have fallen through it at some stage—but the noble Lord indicated that he did not hold me in too much disregard because I had made a mistake during the Haslar debate about what had happened to the member of the board of visitors. In fact, he had not taken up a place on another board but on a probation committee. I take this opportunity to express my feeling of being remiss in making that mistake on that occasion. I hope that I avoid such horrors today. However, given the length and the detail of the questions that have been asked, I cannot guarantee to be wholly accurate.
Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who raised a number of issues regarding facilities in prisons. Detainees held in prisons have access to lawyers and to telephones, although those telephones are used in the main for incoming calls. The amount of association varies according to the regimes operating in individual prisons. For that reason, I take on board her point that there are constraints as a result of prison rules which we would wish to see lifted as more appropriate accommodation comes on stream and where the rules that we are discussing this evening properly can be applied.
I wish to respond to the debate this evening by recognising the salience of all the points that have been made. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for putting into context the issues here. It is a fact that we are not dealing with a steady or declining rate of applicants, but rather with increasing pressure in this area. The rate of increase has moderated significantly, but that does not alter the fact that the demands imposed on us in the effort to meet those needs are extensive. Over recent years, there has been a rapid increase in applications, a situation which has been common to the whole of Europe. Britain stands in mid-stream in terms of the burden which it shoulders.
However, that does not alter the fact that we need to address ourselves properly to allocating resources to match the needs presented to us. Because those needs are so extensive, no one can pretend that all the problems can be solved overnight. Nevertheless, we are engaged in a continuous process of consultation. I should add that we recognise that much work still needs to be done. If we needed any further confirmation, it is reflected in the value of debates such as that which we have held tonight. We value greatly the contribution of expertise from bodies outside the Home Office as represented in the speeches made by noble Lords this evening. Their insight into these issues is extremely important.
As I have said, there is no doubt that a great deal of work still needs to be done. But I hope that the noble Lord will feel that we have made sufficient progress
256
with regard to the rules that he will not feel that he needs to press his rather negative perspective on their value.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I believe that a great deal of progress has been made and I am immensely grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken to answer the whole range of questions which have been put to him by noble Lords in the course of the debate. I am also grateful for his assurance that any points that have not been picked up will be answered in writing. If he is able to include in that his responses to the specific questions raised in the briefs we received from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture and the Asylum Rights Campaign, I shall be even more grateful.
At the risk of trespassing on the patience of noble Lords, perhaps I may raise one or two points. I was disappointed that the Minister could not comment on the length of detentions and the shocking information given by both the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and my noble friend Lord Dholakia, that people have been kept in detention for as long as 600 days. I think that that is a blot on our record and something which is far outside the norms laid down by the UN HCR Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that he should think carefully about how limits could be placed on the maximum length of time that anyone should be held in detention. I cannot believe that, even in the most extreme cases, it is necessary to hold someone in a detention centre or in prison for as long as that.
Secondly, the Minister was not able to offer any reassurances on the speed of movement towards a position where detainees are no longer held in prisons, but rather that all should be held in detention centres. That was one of the objectives set out in the White Paper three years ago, and yet we are further away from that position than we were at the time. We are cramming more and more people into the prisons. My noble friend Lady Williams mentioned two—one of which was Winchester—which are entirely unsuitable, and there are others which are even more so. Belmarsh—where there were 67 immigration detainees at the last summary in January—is grossly inadequate for meeting the needs of the detainees, who are held in the same wing as remand and convicted prisoners.
I was also slightly worried about the two conflicting statements made by the Minister. He said that where separate wings are used, detention centre rules would be applied; he then went on to say that Haslar would not come under the new director's jurisdiction although Oakington would. There are no criminal prisoners in Haslar and I do not understand why it is not possible to redesignate that institution as a detention centre. If it can be done with Oakington, why is it impossible with Haslar?
The Minister also did not respond to the question about Lindholme. Perhaps he can deal with that in his written reply because, after all, in Lindholme, Immigration Act detainees are kept in a separate wing and there is no reason why the detention centre rules should not apply there.

257
I was grateful to the Minister for the reassurance that he gave that torture was an important factor in favour of early release. It is good to have that on the record and I am sure that the medical foundation will be glad to read the words used by the noble Lord today.
Finally, I was grateful for the Minister's assurance that the process of consultation would continue. I am sure that the agencies and your Lordships would like to be involved in the process of looking at the standards, because, as I mentioned, that is even more
258
important than what is in the rules themselves. There is also the question of the compact which is to be written by the Secretary of State which will govern the behaviour of detainees in the centres.
Having said that, I should like to express my warmest gratitude to all those who have spoken this evening and to the Minister for staying until this very late hour. With the assurance that we can continue with the consultations, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at two minutes past one o'clock.